1. MODEL 4
RELATIONAL DEFICIT
MARTHA STARK, MD
MarthaStarkMD @ HMS.Harvard.edu
CENTRE FOR TREATMENT OF SEXUAL
ABUSE AND CHILDHOOD TRAUMA
FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 – 28, 2017

2. A HEART SHATTERED,
RELENTLESS DESPAIR,
THE PRIVATE SELF
AND
A LIFE UNLIVED
2

3. FAIRBAIRN
GUNTRIP
WINNICOTT
MODELL
KHAN

4. GUNTRIP, WINNICOTT, AND MODELL
ALL WRITE ABOUT PATIENTS
WHO ARE UNABLE TO ENGAGE
AUTHENTICALLY WITH OTHERS
FOR FEAR OF BEING FAILED
ALL SUCH PATIENTS HAVE
AN UNDERLYING DESPAIR AND
A SENSE OF PROFOUND
HOPELESSNESS WITH RESPECT TO
BEING ABLE, EVER, TO FIND AUTHENTIC,
SATISFYING, AND MEANINGFUL
ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHERS

5. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP
WHEREAS THE “ENDOPSYCHIC SITUATION” OF THE SCHIZOID
PERSONALITIES IN WHOM FAIRBAIRN IS INTERESTED
IS ONE OF INTENSE ATTACHMENT TO THE INTERNAL
BAD (SEDUCTIVE ~ EXCITING / REJECTING) OBJECT
TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
THE ENDOPSYCHIC PICTURE OF THE SCHIZOID
PERSONALITIES IN WHOM GUNTRIP IS INTERESTED
IS ONE OF RETREAT FROM ALL RELATIONSHIPS
FROM NOT JUST EXTERNAL OBJECTS BUT INTERNAL OBJECTS AS WELL
I USE FAIRBAIRN’S DEPICTION OF THE ENDOPSYCHIC
SITUATION FOR HIS SCHIZOID PATIENTS
ONE THAT INVOLVES INTENSE AND AMBIVALENT
ATTACHMENT TO THE INTERNAL BAD OBJECT
AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
THE (MODEL 2) MASOCHISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS HOPE AND
THE (MODEL 3) SADISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
AND NOT FOR THE (MODEL 4) SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR

6. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP
I AM NOW PROPOSING THAT WE USE GUNTRIP’S DEPICTION
OF THE ENDOPSYCHIC SITUATION FOR HIS SCHIZOID PATIENTS
ONE THAT INVOLVES A MORE EXTREME RETREAT FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS (BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
AS OUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE
OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
ON THE ONE HAND, FAIRBAIRN BELIEVES THAT, FOR
THE SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES ABOUT WHOM HE IS WRITING,
“A BAD OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN NO OBJECT AT ALL”
ON THE OTHER HAND, GUNTRIP, IN WRITING ABOUT HIS
SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES, DESCRIBES THE SCHIZOID STANCE
AS ONE OF WITHDRAWAL, DETACHMENT, AND RETREAT –
THE HEART OF SUCH PATIENTS HAVING TAKEN FLIGHT FROM
EVERYONE BECAUSE ENGAGEMENT IN RELATIONSHIP
AND, EVEN, IN LIFE ITSELF SIMPLY HURTS TOO MUCH
FOR SUCH SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES, IT IS TOO PAINFUL EVEN
TO HOPE FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT

7. GUNTRIP ~ SCHIZOID PHENOMENA
ALTHOUGH GUNTRIP NEVER ACTUALLY WRITES THIS,
IN DESCRIBING HIS SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES
HE COULD WELL HAVE WRITTEN,
“NO OBJECT AT ALL IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN
RUNNING THE RISK OF ENCOUNTERING A BAD OBJECT”
GUNTRIP BELIEVES THAT IT IS THE FEAR OF BEING FAILED
THAT MOTIVATES THE PATIENT TO DETACH HERSELF
COMPLETELY FROM OBJECTS AND TO RENOUNCE ALL HOPE
AS WE KNOW, BECAUSE OF INTOLERABLY PAINFUL
EARLY – ON DISAPPOINTMENTS AND HEARTACHE,
HER INNERMOST SELF HAS SECRETLY WITHDRAWN
THE PATIENT ATTEMPTS TO CANCEL RELATIONSHIPS,
TO WANT NO ONE, AND TO MAKE NO DEMANDS
THE RESOLVE IS TO LIVE IN A DETACHED FASHION, ALOOF,
UNTOUCHED, WITHOUT FEELING, KEEPING PEOPLE AT BAY,
AVOIDING AT WHATEVER COST COMMITMENT TO ANYONE
THE FEAR IS OF BEING FOUND AND DISAPPOINTED;
THE NEED IS TO REMAIN HIDDEN

8. GUNTRIP’S SCHIZOID PERSONALITY
IF YOU EXPERIENCE YOUR HATE AS DESTRUCTIVE, THEN
YOU WILL STILL BE FREE TO LOVE SOMEONE BECAUSE
YOU CAN SIMPLY CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE TO HATE
BUT FOR THE SCHIZOID PERSONALITY, WHO
EXPERIENCES HER LOVE AS DESTRUCTIVE, LOVING
SOMEONE BECOMES SOMETHING VERY TERRIFYING
BECAUSE ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE EXPERIENCED BY THE
SCHIZOID AS POTENTIALLY IMPRISONING AND DESTRUCTIVE
THE SCHIZOID IS “IMPELLED INTO” RELATIONSHIPS BY
HER DESPERATE NEED FOR LOVE AND CONNECTION BUT
THEN “DRIVEN OUT” BY HER FEAR EITHER OF EXHAUSTING
HER LOVE – OBJECT WITH HER INSATIABLE DEMANDS OR OF
LOSING HER IDENTITY AS A RESULT OF OVER – DEPENDENCE
“THIS ‘IN AND OUT’ OSCILLATION IS THE ‘TYPICAL SCHIZOID
BEHAVIOR’ AND TO ESCAPE FROM IT INTO DETACHMENT
AND LOSS OF FEELING IS THE ‘TYPICAL SCHIZOID STATE.”
(GUNTRIP 1992)

9. THE DILEMMA WITH WHICH GUNTRIP’S
SCHIZOID PATIENT IS CONFRONTED
WHETHER IN AN ALL – CONSUMING RELATIONSHIP
OR BREAKING AWAY TO INDEPENDENCE
THE PATIENT IS FACED WITH THE SPECTER OF UTTER LOSS
NAMELY, DESTRUCTION OF EGO AS WELL AS OBJECT
BEING IN RELATIONSHIP INVOLVES BOTH
LOSS OF THE OBJECT
AS A RESULT OF INCORPORATING THE LOVE OBJECT
THROUGH A HUNGRY DEVOURING OF IT
AND LOSS OF THE EGO
AS A RESULT OF IDENTIFICATION WITH THE LOVE OBJECT
BUT BEING OUT OF RELATIONSHIP ALSO INVOLVES BOTH
LOSS OF THE OBJECT
AS A RESULT OF ITS DESTRUCTION, THAT IS, COLLATERAL
DAMAGE FROM THE PATIENT’S FIGHTING HER WAY OUT TO FREEDOM
AND LOSS OF THE EGO
AS A RESULT OF LOSING THE OBJECT WITH WHOM
THE PATIENT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AND FROM WHOM
SHE HAD BEEN DERIVING HER SENSE OF IDENTITY

10. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP (MODEL 4)
IN SUM
WHEREAS FAIRBAIRN WRITES ABOUT PATIENTS
FOR WHOM ATTACHMENTS TO OBJECTS,
EVEN BAD OBJECTS, ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL,
GUNTRIP WRITES ABOUT (MODEL 4) PATIENTS FOR WHOM
ATTACHMENTS TO OBJECTS ARE INTOLERABLE
WHEREAS FAIRBAIRN’S PATIENTS ARE ENTANGLED
WITH, AND COMPULSIVELY ATTACHED TO, THEIR OBJECTS,
GUNTRIP’S (MODEL 4) PATIENTS HAVE ABANDONED RELATIONSHIPS
WITH ALL OBJECTS, BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL
FOR FAIRBAIRN, THE PATIENT’S REGRESSIVE LONGINGS
RELATE TO A DESIRE TO REMAIN ATTACHED TO HER BAD OBJECTS;
BUT, FOR GUNTRIP, THE (MODEL 4) PATIENT’S REGRESSIVE
LONGINGS RELATE TO A DESIRE TO RETREAT FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS AND TO WITHDRAW INTO TOTAL ISOLATION
FINALLY, FOR FAIRBAIRN, THE GREATEST RESISTANCE IN THERAPY IS
THE PATIENT’S TENACIOUS ATTACHMENTS TO HER BAD OBJECTS;
BUT, FOR GUNTRIP, THE GREATEST RESISTANCE IN THERAPY
IS THE (MODEL 4) PATIENT’S TERROR OF BEING IN RELATIONSHIP

11. D W WINNICOTT’S “FALSE SELF” (MODEL 4)
WINNICOTT’S FALSE SELF IS ALSO
A PATIENT WITH RELATIONAL DEFICIT
SUCH A PATIENT NEVER HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF A
GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER WHO WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE
A PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE / A FACILITATING ENVIRONMENT
WITHIN WHICH HER YOUNG CHILD’S
INHERITED POTENTIAL COULD BECOME ACTUALIZED
AS A RESULT, THE CHILD’S TRUE (OR AUTHENTIC) SELF
NEVER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO BEING
INSTEAD SHE DEVELOPS A FALSE SELF
AND LEARNS TO ACCOMMODATE HERSELF
CHAMELEON – LIKE
TO WHATEVER SHE SENSES IS EXPECTED OF HER
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SELF BECOMES SPLIT,
PART OF THE SELF RETREATING, ANOTHER PART OF THE
SELF GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF LIVING

12. D W WINNICOTT’S “FALSE SELF” (MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT LIVES, BUT THE EXISTENCE IS FALSE,
HOLLOW, NOT GENUINE, NOT AUTHENTIC
IT IS ONE BASED ON COMPLIANCE, CONFORMITY
THE PATIENT IS ONLY MAKING A SHOW OF BEING REAL
IT IS ONLY “AS IF” SHE WERE ALIVE
BUT IT IS A SHAM, A CHARADE, A PART
SHE IS PLAYING, A BORROWED IDENTITY
ASSUMED FOR THE OCCASION
BECAUSE THE LITTLE PEAPOD TRUE SELF,
THE SOURCE OF SPONTANEITY AND CREATIVITY,
HAS GONE INTO HIDING, AVOIDING AT ALL COST
THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPOSING ITSELF
WITHOUT BEING SEEN OR RESPONDED TO,
WITHOUT BEING “MET”

13. HEIDEGGER’S “INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE” (MODEL 4)
MODES OF BEING
AUTHENTIC – REFERS TO THE ATTEMPT TO LIVE ONE’S LIFE
ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF ONE’S INNER BEING, RATHER THAN
THE DEMANDS OF SOCIETY OR ONE’S EARLY CONDITIONING
AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD ALWAYS INVOLVES
THIS ELEMENT OF FREEDOM AND CHOICE
AUTHENTIC EXISTENCE = TRUE SELF = PRIVATE SELF
FREE SELF = SPONTANEOUS SELF = REAL SELF
INAUTHENTIC – REFERS TO LIVING ONE’S LIFE
AS DETERMINED BY OUTSIDE FORCES,
EXPECTATIONS, PRESSURES, DEMANDS, INFLUENCES
INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE = FALSE SELF = PUBLIC SELF
SOCIAL SELF
AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
vs. INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE

14. MODELL’S “COCOON TRANSFERENCE” (MODEL 4)
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF A VULNERABLE SELF
AND TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF
FURTHER TRAUMATIC DISAPPOINTMENT AND DEVASTATING
HEARTBREAK, THE PATIENT MUST KEEP HER AUTHENTIC
SELF AND HER REAL FEELINGS OUT OF RELATIONSHIP
ALTHOUGH A PART OF HER YEARNS TO BE KNOWN AND
UNDERSTOOD, ANOTHER PART OF HER ZEALOUSLY
GUARDS THE SACROSANCTITY OF HER PRIVACY,
KEEPING HIDDEN WHAT MOST MATTERS TO HER
AND REFUSING TO LET ANYONE INTO HER HEART
MODELL SUGGESTS THAT THE THERAPIST, EVER
APPRECIATING THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A PART OF THE
PATIENT THAT YEARNS TO BE SEEN, MUST USE HER
INTUITION TO ASSESS WHETHER, IN THE MOMENT, THE
PATIENT IS WANTING TO BE FOUND OR NEEDING, AT LEAST
FOR NOW, TO REMAIN HIDDEN, NOT KNOWN, NOT FOUND

15. MODELL’S “COCOON TRANSFERENCE” (MODEL 4)
ALSO VERY APT HERE IS MODELL’S DESCRIPTION OF
THE TERRIFIED PATIENT WHO FEELS A NEED TO PROTECT
THE INTEGRITY OF A PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
SELF FROM BEING SHATTERED OR FRACTURED
BY AN UNEMPATHIC RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT
MODELL OBSERVES THAT THE DEFENSIVE STANCE OF
SELF – PROTECTIVE ISOLATION, WHICH SUCH A PATIENT
ASSUMES IN ORDER TO AVOID DISSOLUTION OF THE
INTEGRITY AND COHESIVENESS OF THE SELF BY AN
IMPINGING AND POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE OBJECT,
IS SUPPORTED BY THE DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED
AND ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
MODELL USES THE APT METAPHOR OF A COCOON TO
DESCRIBE THE PATIENT’S INTERNAL EXPERIENCE OF
AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS, THE PATIENT ATTACHED BY
ONLY A THIN GOSSAMER FILAMENT TO THE THERAPIST
BUT ATTACHED NONETHELESS

16. MODELL’S “NONINTRUSIVE THERAPIST”
(MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT MAY PRESENT HERSELF AS GRANDIOSELY
SELF – SUFFICIENT AND AS NEEDING NOTHING –
BUT THE THERAPIST’S PRESENCE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
AND IF THE THERAPIST CAN REMAIN NONINTRUSIVE,
THIS STATE OF SELF – SUFFICIENCY CAN EVOLVE
INTO A STATE OF “COMPANIONABLE SOLITUDE”
THE PATIENT WILL FEEL AS IF SHE IS IN HER OWN COCOON,
WHICH IS IN TURN ENVELOPED BY THE THERAPEUTIC SETTING
MODELL REFERS TO THIS AS A SPHERE WITHIN A SPHERE
THE PATIENT IS IN A STATE OF SOLITUDE
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THERAPIST

17. MODELL’S “AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS” (MODEL 4)
A DEFENSE DIRECTED AGAINST A DANGER
THAT IS PERCEIVED IN THE PRESENT,
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF TWO PEOPLE
THE DEFENSE CAN BE TRACED TO TRAUMATIC
EARLY – ON EXPERIENCES AT THE HANDS OF
THE PARENTAL OBJECT AND CONSTITUTES AN
EFFORT TO AVOID REPEATING SUCH EXPERIENCES
IT IS A REACTION TO FEARS OF FRAGMENTATION
AND ANNIHILATION OF THE SELF AND IS
PROMPTED BY THE NEED TO PRESERVE THE
INTEGRITY AND COHESIVENESS OF THE SELF
IN ESSENCE, THE DEFENSE IS EXPERIENCED
AS NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION OF THE SELF

18. MODELL’S “NON – INTRUSIVE THERAPIST” (MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT MAY PRESENT HERSELF AS GRANDIOSELY
SELF – SUFFICIENT AND AS NEEDING NOTHING
AND THE THERAPIST MAY WELL FIND HERSELF REACTING
WITH SLEEPINESS AND A SENSE OF BOREDOM TO THE
PATIENT’S “MASSIVE AFFECT BLOCK” AND TO THE
REALIZATION THAT SHE IS WITH SOMEONE
WHO APPEARS TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN HER
THE THERAPIST’S TEMPTATION TO WITHDRAW
IS A HUMAN AND UNIVERSAL REACTION TO THE
PATIENT’S STATE OF AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS
BUT THE THERAPIST’S CAPACITY TO REMAIN PRESENT AND
EMPATHICALLY ATTUNED, EVEN SO, WILL BE ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL IF THE PATIENT IS EVER TO BE FOUND
THE PATIENT NEEDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE THE
THERAPIST AS A “NON – INTRUSIVE PRESENCE,” WHICH WILL
PROVIDE “SUPPORT FOR THE COHERENCE OF THE SELF”

19. THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS
DESPAIR AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
… WHEREBY BEING IN RELATIONSHIP IS
SO FRAUGHT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR
DISAPPOINTMENT AND HEARTBREAK,
THAT IT IS SIMPLY NOT AN OPTION
TO BE ENGAGED IN RELATIONSHIP
OR, EVEN, IN LIFE
NOT AN OPTION TO HOLD ON TO ANY HOPE WHATSOEVER
FOR SUCH PATIENTS, IT SIMPLY
HURTS TOO MUCH EVEN TO HOPE …
IN TRUTH, SUCH PATIENTS HAVE RETREATED FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS (BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF A VULNERABLE SELF
ALONE BUT SAFE

20. FACILITATING THE
EMERGENCE OF
MOMENTS OF MEETING
BY
OVERCOMING THE PATIENT’S
DREAD OF SURRENDER TO
RESOURCELESS DEPENDENCE
(KHAN 1989)

21. WINNICOTT MAKES THE
CRITICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN
ID NEEDS
WHICH MUST BE FRUSTRATED
AND
EGO NEEDS
WHICH MUST BE GRATIFIED
THAT IS, MUST BE MET
SUCH AS THE NEED FOR OMNIPOTENT CONTROL

22. THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION IN MODEL 4
BEING EVER LOVING, GENTLE, TENDER, PATIENT, KIND, NON – SHAMING,
VULNERABLE, TRANSPARENT, HONEST, AND DEVOTED
REMINISCENT OF WINNICOTT’S “PRIMARY MATERNAL PREOCCUPATION,”
WHEREBY THE THERAPIST (MOTHER) DOES HER VERY BEST TO
ADAPT HER EXISTENCE TO HER PATIENT’S (CHILD’S) EVERY NEED
DEEPLY APPRECIATING THE PATIENT’S NEED TO
REMAIN HIDDEN EVEN AS SHE IS LONGING TO BE FOUND
OFFERING PROFOUNDLY RESPECTFUL,
OPTIMALLY STRESSFUL FACILITATION STATEMENTS THAT
HIGHLIGHT THIS INTERNAL CONFLICTEDNESS WITHIN THE
PATIENT BETWEEN REMAINING HIDDEN AND BEING FOUND
PROVIDING A NON – DEMANDING, RELIABLE, DEPENDABLE PRESENCE
THAT HONORS THE PATIENT’S AMBIVALENCE ABOUT BEING IN
RELATIONSHIP AND GIVES HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGULATE
THEIR INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE AND DEGREE OF INTIMACY
IN ESSENCE
“MEETING THE OMNIPOTENCE” OF THE PATIENT
THAT IS, RECOGNIZING AND RESPONDING TO HER EVERY NEED
SUCH THAT THE PATIENT WILL BE ABLE TO FEEL (AND BE)
MORE IN CONTROL OF HER ENVIRONMENT

23. THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION IN MODEL 4
IN OTHER WORDS
CREATING A “SAFE SPACE” INTO WHICH THE PATIENT, OVER TIME,
WILL BE ABLE TO DELIVER WHAT MOST MATTERS TO HER
OFFERING THE PATIENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME
“ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT” UPON SOMEONE WHOM SHE COMES
TO EXPERIENCE, AT LEAST FOR A WHILE, AS
“ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY” FOR HER SENSE OF SAFETY IN THIS WORLD
WHICH WILL, OF NECESSITY, INVOLVE HELPING HER OVERCOME HER
“DREAD OF SURRENDER TO RESOURCELESS DEPENDENCE” (KHAN 1989)
PROVIDING A HOLDING (OR FACILITATING) ENVIRONMENT THAT
WILL FOSTER EMERGENCE OF THE PATIENT’S “TRUE” SELF
OFFERING THE PATIENT 100% RELIABILITY, CONSISTENCY, AND
PREDICTABILITY IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE EMERGENCE
OF “MOMENTS OF AUTHENTIC MEETING” THAT WILL RESTORE
PURPOSE, MEANING, AND DIRECTION TO AN EXISTENCE
THAT WAS OTHERWISE DESOLATE, IMPENETRABLE, AND EMPTY
IMPLICITLY INVITING THE PATIENT TO ENTER INTO
A “HARMONIOUS INTERPENETRATING MIX – UP” (BALINT 1992)
SUCH THAT PATIENT AND THERAPIST CAN BECOME PEACEFULLY UNITED

24. A MODEL 4 POSTSCRIPT
ONLY MORE RECENTLY HAVE I BEGUN TO APPRECIATE THE
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF GIVING THE MODEL 4 PATIENT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE, AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE, IN MAJOR
CONTROL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE THERAPY OFFICE
AS WE KNOW
MODEL 4 PATIENTS, WHOSE HEARTS HAVE BEEN SHATTERED
BY DEVASTATING EARLY – ON DISAPPOINTMENTS AND LOSSES, ARE
UNDERSTANDABLY TERRIFIED OF BEING DESTROYED ONCE AGAIN
BUT IF THEY CAN BE GIVEN THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING IN
“OMNIPOTENT CONTROL” OF A DEVOTED AND NON – DEMANDING
THERAPIST WILLING AND ABLE TO “MEET THEIR OMNIPOTENCE”
THAT IS, TO RECOGNIZE AND RESPOND TO THEIR EVERY NEED
IN MUCH THE WAY THAT A “GOOD ENOUGH” MOTHER WOULD
THEN THEY JUST MIGHT BE WILLING AND ABLE TO ALLOW
THEMSELVES TO BE FOUND AND TO TOLERATE “MOMENTS OF MEETING”
THAT WILL RESTORE MEANING, PURPOSE, AND DIRECTION
TO THEIR OTHERWISE DESOLATE AND IMPOVERISHED LIVES
AND THUS MY DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL 4 THERAPIST’S STANCE
AS ONE CHARACTERIZED BY RELIABILITY, PREDICTABILITY, DEVOTION,
TENDERNESS, LOVE, ACCOMMODATION, AND MALLEABILITY

25. TO REVIEW
THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION IN MODEL 4
MORE GENERALLY
FROM SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL, PSYCHIC RETREAT,
AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS, DETACHMENT,
ISOLATION, EXISTENTIAL ANGST, RELENTLESS DESPAIR,
HAUNTING LONELINESS, AND A LIFE UNLIVED
TO MEANINGFUL MOMENTS OF MEETING THAT
RESTORE PURPOSE, MEANING, AND DIRECTION
TO AN EXISTENCE THAT WAS OTHERWISE
DESOLATE, BARREN, AND EMPTY
AND A HEART THAT WAS OTHERWISE
BROKEN AND INCONSOLABLE
FROM DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED SUPPORTED
BY ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VULNERABILITY
AND THE NEED FOR OBJECTS

26. FAIRBAIRN’S
INTENSE ATTACHMENTS
TO THE BAD OBJECT

27. ACCORDING TO GUNTRIP
FAIRBAIRN HAD ONCE ASKED A CHILD
WHOSE MOTHER THRASHED HER CRUELLY:
“WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO FIND
YOU A NEW, KIND MOMMY?”
TO WHICH THE CHILD HAD RESPONDED:
“NO, I WANT MY OWN MOMMY.”
THEREBY DEMONSTRATING, FOR FAIRBAIRN,
THE INTENSITY OF NOT ONLY THE AGGRESSIVE
TIE TO THE BAD OBJECT BUT ALSO THE
“LIBIDINAL TIE TO THE BAD OBJECT”
AND REINFORCING THE IDEA THAT
THE DEVIL YOU KNOW IS BETTER THAN
THE DEVIL YOU DON’T AND CERTAINLY
BETTER THAN NO DEVIL AT ALL

28. AS WE SHALL SEE
FAIRBAIRN’S FORMULATIONS ABOUT THE
“ENDOPSYCHIC SITUATION”
EXPLAIN BOTH
THE RELENTLESS PURSUITS
AND
THE COMPULSIVE REPETITIONS
TO WHICH PATIENTS WILL FIND THEMSELVES
HELD HOSTAGE AS THEY STRUGGLE
TO MOVE FORWARD IN THEIR LIVES
UNLESS THEY CAN EXTRICATE THEMSELVES
FROM THE BONDS OF THEIR AMBIVALENTLY
CATHECTED INFANTILE ATTACHMENTS

29. FAIRBAIRN’S INTENSELY AMBIVALENT
ATTACHMENT TO THE BAD OBJECT
A TENACIOUS ATTACHMENT
THAT FUELS THE PATIENT’S
“RELENTLESS HOPE” (MODEL 2) AND
HER “RELENTLESS OUTRAGE” (MODEL 3)
“A BAD OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER
THAN NO OBJECT AT ALL”
IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO WHICH IS
GUNTRIP’S PSYCHIC RETREAT
FROM ALL OBJECTS
(BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WORLD OF OBJECTS
THAT FUELS THE PATIENT’S
“RELENTLESS DESPAIR” (MODEL 4)
“NO OBJECT AT ALL IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN
RUNNING THE RISK OF ENCOUNTERING A BAD OBJECT
THAT SHATTERS THE HEART INTO A MILLION PIECES”

30. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE WHAT FUELS THE
INTENSITY WITH WHICH RELENTLESSLY HOPEFUL
PATIENTS PURSUE THEIR OBJECTS
W R D FAIRBAIRN
“A BAD OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER
THAN NO OBJECT AT ALL”
A CONCEPT THAT ACCOUNTS IN LARGE PART FOR
THE RELENTLESSNESS OF THE PATIENT’S PURSUIT
BOTH THE RELENTLESSNESS OF HER HOPE
AND THE RELENTLESSNESS OF HER OUTRAGE
IN THE FACE OF BEING THWARTED
MANY HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT INTERNAL BAD OBJECTS
TO WHICH THE PATIENT IS ATTACHED BUT
FEW HAVE ADDRESSED THE CRITICAL ISSUE OF WHAT
EXACTLY FUELS THESE INTENSE ATTACHMENTS

31. SO IT IS TO FAIRBAIRN THAT WE TURN TO
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE PATIENT’S
ATTACHMENT TO HER INTERNAL BAD OBJECTS
AN ATTACHMENT THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR HER
TO SEPARATE FROM THE (NOW INTROJECTED) INFANTILE
OBJECT AND, THEREFORE, TO EXTRICATE HERSELF FROM HER
COMPULSIVE REPETITIONS AND HER RELENTLESS PURSUITS
WHAT DOES FAIRBAIRN SAY ABOUT HOW “BAD”
EXPERIENCES AT THE HANDS OF THE INFANTILE OBJECT
ARE INTERNALLY RECORDED AND STRUCTURALIZED?
WHEN A CHILD’S NEED FOR CONTACT IS FRUSTRATED
BY HER MOTHER, THE CHILD DEALS WITH HER
FRUSTRATION BY INTROJECTING THE BAD MOTHER
IT IS AS IF THE CHILD FINDS IT INTOLERABLY PAINFUL TO BE
DISAPPOINTED BY HER MOTHER AND SO, TO PROTECT HERSELF
AGAINST THE PAIN OF HAVING TO KNOW JUST HOW BAD HER
MOTHER REALLY IS, THE CHILD INTROJECTS HER MOTHER’S
BADNESS – IN THE FORM OF AN INTERNAL BAD OBJECT

32. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN
SITUATIONS OF ABUSE
THE PATIENT WILL RECOUNT EPISODES OF OUTRAGEOUS
ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF HER MOTHER (OR HER FATHER) AND
WILL THEN SAY THAT SHE FEELS NOT ANGRY BUT GUILTY
EASIER TO EXPERIENCE HERSELF AS BAD (AND UNLOVABLE)
THAN TO EXPERIENCE THE PARENT AS BAD (AND UNLOVING)
EASIER TO EXPERIENCE HERSELF AS HAVING DESERVED THE
ABUSE THAN TO CONFRONT THE INTOLERABLY PAINFUL REALITY
THAT THE PARENT SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE WHAT SHE DID
A CHILD WHOSE HEART HAS BEEN BROKEN
BY HER PARENT WILL DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST
THE PAIN OF HER GRIEF BY TAKING ON THE
PARENT’S BADNESS AS HER OWN, THEREBY
ENABLING HER TO PRESERVE THE ILLUSION
OF HER PARENT AS GOOD AND AS
ULTIMATELY FORTHCOMING IF
SHE (THE CHILD) COULD BUT GET IT RIGHT

33. IN ESSENCE
BY INTROJECTING THE BAD PARENT,
THE CHILD IS ABLE TO MAINTAIN AN ATTACHMENT
TO HER ACTUAL PARENT AND, AS A RESULT,
IS ABLE TO HOLD ON TO HER HOPE THAT
PERHAPS SOMEDAY, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY,
WERE SHE TO BE BUT GOOD ENOUGH, TRY
HARD ENOUGH, OR SUFFER LONG ENOUGH,
SHE MIGHT YET BE ABLE TO COMPEL
THE PARENT TO CHANGE
AND SO IT IS THAT THE CHILD REMAINS
INTENSELY ATTACHED TO
THE (NOW INTROJECTED) BAD OBJECT
AS FAIRBAIRN OBSERVES, A RELATIONSHIP WITH A BAD
OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL
BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH THE OBJECT IS BAD, THE
CHILD CAN AT LEAST STILL HOPE THAT
THE OBJECT WILL SOMEDAY BE GOOD

34. BUT, AGAIN, WHAT DOES FAIRBAIRN SUGGEST
IS THE ACTUAL NATURE OF THE CHILD’S
ATTACHMENT TO THIS INTERNAL BAD OBJECT?
THE CHILD WHO HAS BEEN FAILED BY HER MOTHER TAKES
THE BURDEN OF THE MOTHER’S BADNESS UPON HERSELF
INTROJECTION IS THEREFORE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE
ACCORDING TO FAIRBAIRN, A BAD MOTHER IS A MOTHER
WHO FRUSTRATES HER CHILD’S LONGING FOR CONTACT
BUT, SAYS FAIRBAIRN, A SEDUCTIVE MOTHER,
WHO FIRST SAYS YES AND THEN SAYS NO,
IS A VERY BAD MOTHER
FAIRBAIRN’S INTEREST IS IN THESE VERY BAD MOTHERS
THESE SEDUCTIVE MOTHERS
SO WHEN THE CHILD HAS BEEN FAILED BY A
MOTHER WHO IS SEDUCTIVE, THE CHILD INTROJECTS
THIS EXCITING BUT ULTIMATELY REJECTING MOTHER

35. SPLITTING IS THE SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE
ONCE THE BAD OBJECT IS INSIDE,
IT IS SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS,
THE EXCITING OBJECT THAT OFFERS THE
ENTICING PROMISE OF RELATEDNESS
AND THE REJECTING OBJECT THAT
ULTIMATELY FAILS TO DELIVER
TWO QUESTIONS
IS THE REJECTING (DEPRIVING) OBJECT
A GOOD OBJECT OR A BAD OBJECT?
IS THE EXCITING (ENTICING) OBJECT
A GOOD OBJECT OR A BAD OBJECT?

36. QUESTION
IS THE REJECTING (DEPRIVING) OBJECT
A GOOD OBJECT OR A BAD OBJECT?
ANSWER
A BAD OBJECT
QUESTION
IS THE EXCITING (ENTICING) OBJECT
A GOOD OBJECT OR A BAD OBJECT?
ANSWER
ALSO A BAD OBJECT

37. SPLITTING OF THE EGO GOES HAND IN
HAND WITH SPLITTING OF THE OBJECT
THE LIBIDINAL EGO
ATTACHES ITSELF TO THE EXCITING
OBJECT AND LONGS FOR CONTACT
HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT THE
OBJECT WILL BE FORTHCOMING
THE ANTILIBIDINAL EGO
WHICH IS A REPOSITORY FOR ALL THE HATRED
AND DESTRUCTIVENESS THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED
AS A RESULT OF FRUSTRATED LONGING
ATTACHES ITSELF TO THE REJECTING
OBJECT AND RAGES AGAINST IT

38. SO WHAT, THEN, IS THE NATURE
OF THE PATIENT’S ATTACHMENT
TO THE BAD OBJECT?
IT IS, OF COURSE, AMBIVALENT
IT IS BOTH LIBIDINAL AND
ANTILIBIDINAL IN NATURE
THE BAD OBJECT IS
BOTH NEEDED
BECAUSE IT EXCITES
AND HATED
BECAUSE IT REJECTS

39. REPRESSION IS THE THIRD LINE OF DEFENSE
REPRESSION OF THE EGO’S ATTACHMENT
TO THE EXCITING / REJECTING OBJECT
ACCORDING TO FAIRBAIRN, THEN, AT THE CORE
OF THE REPRESSED IS NOT AN IMPULSE,
NOT A TRAUMA, NOT A MEMORY
RATHER, AT THE CORE OF THE REPRESSED
IS A “FORBIDDEN” RELATIONSHIP
AN INTENSELY CONFLICTED RELATIONSHIP WITH A
BAD OBJECT THAT IS BOTH LOVED AND HATED
SUCH A RELATIONSHIP INVOLVES BOTH LONGING AND
AVERSION, DESIRE AND REVULSION – ALTHOUGH,
BECAUSE THE ATTACHMENT IS REPRESSED, THE
PATIENT MAY BE UNAWARE THAT BOTH SIDES EXIST

40. WHAT THIS MEANS CLINICALLY
IS THAT PATIENTS WHO ARE
RELENTLESS IN THEIR PURSUIT
OF THE BAD OBJECT MUST
ULTIMATELY ACKNOWLEDGE
BOTH THEIR LONGING FOR
THE OBJECT AND THE PAIN
OF THEIR GRIEF IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THE OBJECT’S
FAILURE OF THEM

41. AND UNTIL THE PATIENT HAS
DONE THE NECESSARY GRIEVING,
SHE WILL REMAIN AMBIVALENTLY
ATTACHED TO THE BAD OBJECT
AND WILL BE UNABLE TO
EXTRICATE HERSELF FROM
HER RELENTLESS PURSUITS AND
HER COMPULSIVE REPETITIONS

42. RELATIONAL
SADOMASOCHISM

43. THE PATIENT’S RELENTLESS PURSUIT
HAS BOTH MASOCHISTIC
AND SADISTIC COMPONENTS
HER RELENTLESS HOPE
WHICH FUELS HER MASOCHISM
IS THE STANCE TO WHICH SHE DESPERATELY
CLINGS IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFRONTING
INTOLERABLY PAINFUL REALITIES ABOUT
THE OBJECT AND ITS SEPARATENESS
HER RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
WHICH FUELS HER SADISM
IS THE STANCE TO WHICH SHE RESORTS IN
THOSE MOMENTS OF DAWNING RECOGNITION THAT
THE OBJECT IS INDEED SEPARATE AND UNYIELDING

44. I DO NOT LIMIT SADOMASOCHISM
TO THE SEXUAL ARENA
RATHER, I CONCEIVE OF IT AS A
DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONAL DYNAMIC
THAT WILL GET PLAYED OUT
TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT
IN MOST OF THE PATIENT’S RELATIONSHIPS
ESPECIALLY IF THE PATIENT HAS NOT
YET COME TO TERMS WITH THE
EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL REALITY THAT
HER OBJECTS WILL NEVER BE ALL THAT
SHE WOULD HAVE WANTED THEM TO BE

45. MASOCHISM AND SADISM ALWAYS GO HAND IN HAND
IN OTHER WORDS
THE MASOCHISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS HOPE
AND THE SADISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
ARE FLIP SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
THEY ARE BOTH DEFENSES
AND SPEAK TO THE PATIENT’S REFUSAL
TO CONFRONT THE PAIN OF HER GRIEF
ABOUT THE OBJECT’S LIMITATIONS,
SEPARATENESS, AND IMMUTABILITY
IN ESSENCE
THEY SPEAK TO THE PATIENT’S REFUSAL
TO CONFRONT THE PAIN OF HER GRIEF
ABOUT THE OBJECT’S REFUSAL
TO BE POSSESSED AND CONTROLLED

46. MASOCHISM IS A STORY ABOUT THE PATIENT’S HOPE
HER RELENTLESS HOPE
HER HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT PERHAPS
SOMEDAY, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY,
WERE SHE TO BE BUT GOOD ENOUGH,
TRY HARD ENOUGH, BE PERSUASIVE ENOUGH,
PERSIST LONG ENOUGH, SUFFER DEEPLY ENOUGH,
OR BE “MASOCHISTIC” ENOUGH,
SHE MIGHT YET BE ABLE TO EXTRACT FROM THE OBJECT
SOMETIMES THE PARENT HERSELF
SOMETIMES A STAND – IN FOR THE PARENT
THE RECOGNITION AND LOVE DENIED HER AS A CHILD
IN OTHER WORDS
SHE MIGHT YET BE ABLE TO COMPEL
THE IMMUTABLE OBJECT TO RELENT
NOTE THAT THE INVESTMENT IS NOT SO MUCH IN
THE SUFFERING PER SE AS IT IS IN HER
PASSIONATE HOPE THAT PERHAPS THIS TIME …

47. SADISM IS A STORY ABOUT THE RELENTLESS
PATIENT’S REACTION TO THE LOSS OF HOPE
EXPERIENCED IN THOSE MOMENTS OF DAWNING
RECOGNITION THAT SHE IS NOT GOING TO GET, AFTER
ALL, WHAT SHE HAD SO DESPERATELY WANTED AND
FELT SHE NEEDED TO HAVE IN ORDER TO GO ON
ORDINARILY A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN TOLD NO
MUST CONFRONT THE PAIN OF HER DISAPPOINTMENT
AND COME TO TERMS WITH IT
THAT IS, SHE MUST GRIEVE
THE PATIENT MUST ULTIMATELY MAKE HER PEACE
WITH THE SOBERING REALITY THAT
BECAUSE OF EARLY – ON PARENTAL FAILURES
IN THE FORM OF BOTH ABSENCE OF GOOD (DEPRIVATION AND NEGLECT)
AND PRESENCE OF BAD (TRAUMA AND ABUSE)
SHE NOW HAS PSYCHIC SCARS THAT MAY NEVER
ENTIRELY HEAL AND WILL MOST CERTAINLY MAKE
HER JOURNEY THROUGH LIFE RATHER MORE
DIFFICULT THAN IT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN

48. BUT A PERSON WHO IS UNABLE TO ADAPT TO
THE REALITY THAT HER OBJECTS WILL NEVER BE
ALL THAT SHE WOULD HAVE WANTED THEM TO BE
MUST DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT INTOLERABLY PAINFUL REALITY
AND SO, INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING THE PAIN OF HER
DISAPPOINTMENT, GRIEVING THE LOSS OF HER ILLUSIONS,
ADAPTIVELY INTERNALIZING WHATEVER GOOD THERE WAS,
AND RELINQUISHING HER UNYIELDING PURSUIT,
THE RELENTLESS PATIENT DOES SOMETHING ELSE
AS THE PATIENT COMES TO UNDERSTAND THAT SHE
IS NOT, IN FACT, GOING TO BE REWARDED FOR
HER UNSTINTING EFFORTS, SHE REACTS WITH THE
SADISTIC UNLEASHING OF A TORRENT OF ABUSE
DIRECTED EITHER TOWARDS HERSELF
FOR HAVING FAILED TO GET WHAT SHE HAD SO DESPERATELY WANTED
OR TOWARDS THE SEDUCTIVELY DISAPPOINTING OBJECT
FOR HAVING FAILED TO PROVIDE IT

49. WHEN THE RELENTLESS PATIENT HAD BEEN CAUGHT UP IN
HER HOPE AND EXPECTATION THAT GOOD WOULD ULTIMATELY
BE FORTHCOMING WERE SHE BUT ABLE TO GET IT RIGHT,
IT WAS CLEARLY A (MODEL 2) STORY ABOUT
DEFENSIVE DISPLACEMENT OF NEED FOR GOOD,
ILLUSION, AND POSITIVE MISPERCEPTION
BUT ONCE THE RELENTLESS PATIENT IS CONFRONTED HEAD – ON
WITH THE INTOLERABLY PAINFUL REALITY THAT WHAT SHE
HAD BEEN ANTICIPATING IS NOT, IN FACT, GOING TO HAPPEN,
THEN PATHOGENIC INTROJECTS
BECOME ACTIVATED AND KICK IN
VICTIMIZER / VICTIM ~ ABUSER / ABUSEE
SUCH THAT IT BECOMES A (MODEL 3) STORY ABOUT
DEFENSIVE PROJECTION OF NEED FOR BAD,
DISTORTION, AND NEGATIVE MISPERCEPTION
SO THE MASOCHISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS HOPE
IS A STORY ABOUT MODEL 2,
WHEREAS THE SADISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
IS A STORY ABOUT MODEL 3

50. IN THE AFTERMATH OF INTOLERABLY PAINFUL DISILLUSIONMENT
THE RELENTLESS PATIENT MAY ALTERNATE BETWEEN
ENRAGED PROTESTS AT HER OWN INADEQUACY
AND SCATHING REPROACHES AGAINST THE OBJECT
FOR HAVING FRUSTRATED HER DESIRE
SADISM, THEN, IS A STORY ABOUT THE
PATIENT’S RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
IN THE FACE OF BEING THWARTED
AND THEREBY CONFRONTED WITH THE LIMITS
OF HER POWER TO FORCE THE OBJECT TO CHANGE
IN OTHER WORDS
WHEN THE PATIENT’S NEED
TO POSSESS AND CONTROL
THE OBJECT IS FRUSTRATED,
WHAT COMES TO THE FORE WILL BE THE
PATIENT’S NEED TO PUNISH THE OBJECT
BY ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY IT

51. SO IF A PATIENT IN THE MIDDLE OF A THERAPY
SESSION SUDDENLY BECOMES ABUSIVE,
WHAT QUESTION MIGHT THE THERAPIST THINK TO POSE?
IF THE THERAPIST ASKS
“HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT I HAVE FAILED YOU?”
AT LEAST SHE KNOWS ENOUGH TO ASK THE QUESTION,
BUT SHE IS ALSO INDIRECTLY SUGGESTING
THAT THE ANSWER WILL BE PRIMARILY
A STORY ABOUT THE PATIENT
AND THE PATIENT’S PERCEPTION OF HAVING BEEN FAILED
THEREFORE BETTER TO ASK “HOW HAVE I FAILED YOU?”
HERE THE THERAPIST IS SIGNALING HER RECOGNITION OF THE
FACT THAT SHE HERSELF MIGHT WELL HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO
THE PATIENT’S EXPERIENCE OF DISILLUSIONMENT AND HEARTACHE
THE THERAPIST MUST HAVE BOTH THE WISDOM TO RECOGNIZE AND
THE INTEGRITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PART SHE MIGHT HAVE PLAYED
BY FIRST STOKING THE FLAMES OF THE PATIENT’S DESIRE AND
THEN DEVASTATING THROUGH HER FAILURE, ULTIMATELY, TO DELIVER

52. IN ANY EVENT
THE SADOMASOCHISTIC CYCLE IS REPEATED
ONCE THE (SEDUCTIVE) OBJECT
THROWS THE PATIENT A FEW CRUMBS
THE SADOMASOCHIST
EVER HUNGRY FOR SUCH MORSELS
WILL BECOME ONCE AGAIN HOOKED
AND REVERT TO HER ORIGINAL STANCE
OF SUFFERING, SACRIFICE, AND SURRENDER
IN A REPEAT ATTEMPT TO GET WHAT
SHE SO DESPERATELY WANTS AND FEELS
SHE MUST HAVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE

53. MODEL 4 IS A STORY ABOUT SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL
AS A RESULT OF TRAUMATIC EARLY – ON HEARTBREAK
ALTHOUGH EVEN THE THOUGHT OF IT IS TERRIFYING,
THERE IS A DESPERATE YEARNING TO FIND CONNECTION
MODEL 4 IS NOT A STORY ABOUT PATIENTS
“ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM”
THAT IS, PATIENTS WHO
HAVE POOR INTERPERSONAL AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS;
LACK EMPATHY AND HAVE TROUBLE FIGURING
OUT WHAT OTHERS ARE THINKING AND FEELING;
ADHERE RIGIDLY TO ROUTINES AND SPEND TIME IN REPETITIVE
BEHAVIORS IN ORDER TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY
AND MAINTAIN THE PREDICTABILITY OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT;
AND ARE OBSESSIVELY FASCINATED BY THINGS LIKE DINOSAURS, AIRPLANES,
GUNS, VOLCANOES, ASTRONOMY, MATHEMATICS, NUMBERS, AND SYSTEMS
MODEL 4 IS ABOUT PATIENTS WHO ARE DESPERATE TO RECONNECT BUT
TERRIFIED OF BEING RETRAUMATIZED AND THEN FRACTURED / SHATTERED
BY A CATACLYSMICALLY DEVASTATING RESPONSE FROM OBJECTS
WHOM THEY EXPERIENCE AS NECESSARY FOR THEIR SURVIVAL
53

54. WHEREAS PATIENTS “ON THE SPECTRUM” WOULD SEEM
TO BE ALMOST HARDWIRED TO BE CONTENT WITH
LIMITED SOCIAL CONTACT AND A LIFE RELATIVELY DEVOID
OF GENUINE, HEARTFELT ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHERS,
THE SCHIZOID PERSONALITY, DESPITE THE EXPERIENCE OF
EARLY – ON DEVASTATING HEARTBREAK, IS DESPERATE TO
BE IN RELATIONSHIP BUT INTENSELY CONFLICTED ABOUT IT
ON THE ONE HAND, THERE IS AN INTENSE NEED TO PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY OF A PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SELF FROM BEING
SHATTERED BY AN UNEMPATHIC RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT
AND THUS THE WITHDRAWAL, DISENGAGEMENT, AND DETACHMENT
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS AN EQUALLY INTENSE BUT OPPOSING
NEED TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE WORLD OF OBJECTS –
AN ENGAGEMENT THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO
AVOID THE POTENTIAL RISK OF EGO DISSOLUTION AND
FRAGMENTATION OF THE TENUOUSLY ESTABLISHED SELF
AND THUS THE YEARNING FOR CONNECTION
(MODELL 1996)
THE SCHIZOID (NEED – FEAR) DILEMMA
HOW TO BE APART FROM THE WORLD WITHOUT DISAPPEARING
HOW TO BE A PART OF THE WORLD WITHOUT BEING DESTROYED 54

55. THE MODEL 4 PATIENT’S INTENSE AMBIVALENCE
ABOUT ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WORLD OF OBJECTS
THE PATIENT HAS A LONGING TO BE FOUND, TO BE
KNOWN, AND TO SURRENDER THE SELF TO THE OTHER
BUT SHE HAS AN EQUALLY INTENSE THOUGH OPPOSING NEED
TO REMAIN AUTONOMOUS, SELF – SUFFICIENT, AND ANONYMOUS
IN ESSENCE, THE PATIENT’S “DEFENSIVE QUEST FOR AN ILLUSORY
SELF – SUFFICIENCY” (GUNTRIP 1973) IS IN CONFLICT WITH HER
ANTITHETICAL WISH TO MERGE AND TO BECOME ENMESHED
WHEREAS MODEL 1 IS ABOUT CONVERGENT CONFLICT
BETWEEN ONE FORCE PRESSING “YES” AND
A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED COUNTERFORCE PROTESTING “NO”
THIS LATTER FORCE “PRESENT” ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE FORMER FORCE
MODEL 4 IS ABOUT DIVERGENT CONFLICT
BETWEEN TWO FORCES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE PRESSING “YES”
AND BOTH “PRESENT” IN THEIR OWN RIGHT
MODELL (1996) REMINDS US THAT
“WE MUST NOT ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE
PARADOXES BY STRAINING FOR A NEW SYNTHESIS” 55

56. VIKTOR FRANKL ~ MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING (1997)
AN EXISTENTIAL PSYCHIATRIST
THE FOUNDER OF LOGOTHERAPY
A FORM OF EXISTENTIAL ANALYSIS
“BETWEEN STIMULUS AND RESPONSE IS A SPACE.
IN THAT SPACE IS OUR POWER TO CHOOSE OUR RESPONSE.
IN OUR RESPONSE LIES OUR GROWTH AND OUR FREEDOM.”
IN THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE BEEN USING
IN THE SPACE BETWEEN IS OUR POWER TO
REACT DEFENSIVELY OR RESPOND ADAPTIVELY
FRANKL’S FORMULATION IS AS FOLLOWS:
D (EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR) = S (SUFFERING) – M (MEANING)
MY SLIGHT PARAPHRASE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
D (RELENTLESS DESPAIR) = S (SOLITARY SUFFERING)
– M (MEANINGFUL MOMENTS OF MEETING)
THIS REFLECTS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT “MOMENTS OF AUTHENTIC
MEETING” WITH OTHERS ARE WHAT GIVE ONE’S LIFE MEANING

57. MODEL 4 THEMES
A HEART SHATTERED BY A CATASTROPHICALLY DEVASTATING
RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT (WHETHER PAST OR PRESENT) UPON
WHOM ONE HAD BEEN OR HAS BECOME ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT
SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL ~ PSYCHIC RETREAT ~ EXISTENTIAL ANGST
THE HAUNTING SPECTER OF A MEANINGLESS EXISTENCE UNTO DEATH
RELENTLESS DESPAIR ~ HARROWING LONELINESS ~ A LIFE UNLIVED
D (RELENTLESS DESPAIR) = S (SOLITARY SUFFERING)
– M (MEANINGFUL MOMENTS OF MEETING)
RELENTLESS HOPE ~ MOVEMENT TOWARDS (MODEL 2)
RELENTLESS OUTRAGE ~ MOVEMENT AGAINST (MODEL 3)
RELENTLESS DESPAIR ~ MOVEMENT AWAY (MODEL 4)
SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL ~ THE INNERMOST SELF SECRETLY WITHDRAWS
THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS
PSYCHIC RETREAT FROM THE WORLD OF “PEOPLE” –
WHO ARE EXPERIENCED AS FRIGHTENING AND POTENTIALLY
RETRAUMATIZING BECAUSE OF HOW LITTLE CONTROL
ONE HAS OVER THEM – INTO THE COMFORT AND SECURITY
OF A MUCH MORE PREDICTABLE INNER WORLD – POPULATED
BY “THINGS” OVER WHICH ONE HAS MUCH MORE CONTROL 57

58. MODEL 4 THEMES
PREOCCUPATION WITH AN ACTIVE, RICH, AND
INTRICATELY DETAILED FANTASY LIFE
PASSION FOR, LOVE OF, OR FASCINATION WITH THE OUTDOORS,
THE OCEAN, THE MOUNTAINS, NATURE, ANIMALS, PETS, THE WEATHER,
VIDEO GAMES, TELEVISION, MOVIES, COMPUTERS, THE INTERNET,
TRIVIA, SCIENCE FICTION, STAR WARS, ACTION HEROES, COMICS,
MAGIC, PUZZLES, GAMES, CARD TRICKS, SOLITAIRE
THE PRIVATE (TRUE) SELF ~ IDIOSYNCRATIC PREOCCUPATIONS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND OTHER “PRIVATE” ADDICTIONS
A SOCIAL (FALSE) SELF “PROTECTIVE ARMOR” OVERLAY
A PRIVATE SELF ENCLOSED INSIDE
A FALSE SELF PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE
SECRETS ~ LIES ~ CONCEALMENTS ~ PRETENSIONS ~ IMPENETRABILITY
A DEFENSIVE STANCE OF SELF – PROTECTIVE ISOLATION
AND DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED
SUPPORTED BY ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
TO AVOID DISSOLUTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF A FRAGILE SELF
WITHDRAWAL ~ EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT ~ RETREAT ~ RESIGNATION ~ DESPAIR
ANGST ~ INNER VOID ~ SUFFERING ~ ISOLATION ~ ANNIHILATION PANIC 58

59. MODEL 4 THEMES
SELF – PROTECTIVE PSYCHIC RETREAT TO AVOID
THREATS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE SELF
FROM A WORLD EXPERIENCED AS DANGEROUS,
IMPINGING, AND DESTRUCTIVE – THE FEAR IS OF
BEING ENGULFED, ENMESHED, ANNIHILATED,
ENTRAPPED, IMPRISONED, SHATTERED, FRACTURED,
DEMOLISHED, BROKEN, DESTROYED
THE PATIENT FEELS A NEED TO PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY OF THE PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
SELF FROM BEING FRAGMENTED BY A DEVASTATINGLY
UNEMPATHIC RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT
BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE PATIENT FEELS A NEED
TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PRECARIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED SELF FROM BEING FRAGMENTED
BY THE TERRIFYING EXPERIENCE OF UNMITIGATED
LONELINESS AND OVERWHELMING ISOLATION
59

60. MODEL 4 THEMES
THE SCHIZOID PATIENT HAS A PROFOUND DREAD
OF ENTERING INTO AUTHENTIC ENGAGEMENT AT
A DEEP EMOTIONAL LEVEL BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH
SHE YEARNS FOR CONNECTION, SHE CAN ONLY
SUSTAIN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP INTERMITTENTLY
THE SCHIZOID DILEMMA
HOW TO LIVE WITH THE WORLD AND HOW TO LIVE WITHOUT THE WORLD
HOW TO LIVE AS PART OF THE WORLD AND HOW TO LIVE APART FROM THE WORLD
WINNICOTT’S “FEAR OF BREAKDOWN” IS RELEVANT HERE AS WELL
BUT THE FEAR OF BREAKDOWN, HE SUGGESTS, IS ACTUALLY
THE FEAR OF A BREAKDOWN THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED
BUT THAT WAS NOT EXPERIENCED AT THE TIME
COLD ISOLATION AND RAW SOLITUDE
60

61. A BITTERSWEET (MODEL 4) POEM
BY ERIN HANSON
WHICH CAPTURES THE ESSENCE
OF HOW A SCHIZOID PERSONALITY
MIGHT “RELATE” TO SOMEONE ELSE
MY ICE, IT’S SO THIN
I NEED YOU TO KNOW
AND IT IS SO DARK
AND COLD DOWN BELOW
I’M WAY TOO FRIGHTENED
TO LET YOUR WARMTH IN
BECAUSE YOU SEE I
DON’T KNOW HOW TO SWIM
61

62. RELATIONAL CONFLICT vs.
RELATIONAL DEFICIT
THE PATIENT’S FEAR OF BEING
FAILED IS SUCH THAT
EITHER SHE WILL RECREATE
THE OLD BAD TRAUMATIC
FAILURE SITUATION
RELATIONAL CONFLICT (MODEL 3)
OR SHE WILL FIND
HERSELF UNABLE TO BRING
HER AUTHENTIC SELF
INTO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL
RELATIONAL DEFICIT (MODEL 4)
62

63. WHEREAS THE PATIENT WITH
RELATIONAL CONFLICT WOULD
APPEAR TO HAVE A NEED
FOR THE OLD BAD OBJECT,
THE PATIENT WITH
RELATIONAL DEFICIT WOULD
APPEAR TO BE SO FEARFUL
OF BEING FAILED
THAT SHE WILL EITHER KEEP
THOSE PARTS OF HERSELF
THAT ARE MOST AUTHENTIC
OUT OF RELATIONSHIP
OR AVOID RELATIONSHIP
ALTOGETHER
63

64. MODEL 2
THE MASOCHISTIC DEFENSE OF
RELENTLESS HOPE
MODEL 3
THE SADISTIC DEFENSE OF
RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
MODEL 4
THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF
RELENTLESS DESPAIR
AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MODEL 2 AND MODEL 3
DEFENSES AND THE MODEL 4 DEFENSE
RELENTLESS HOPE (MODEL 2) AND RELENTLESS OUTRAGE (MODEL 3)
ARE STORIES ABOUT HOLDING ON AND STILL EXPECTING
BUT RELENTLESS DESPAIR (MODEL 4)
IS A STORY ABOUT LETTING GO AND RETREATING
64

65. TO REVIEW
THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR
AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
BECAUSE OF INTOLERABLY PAINFUL EARLY – ON
DISAPPOINTMENTS AND HEARTACHE, THE INNERMOST SELF
OF THE SCHIZOID PATIENT HAS SECRETLY WITHDRAWN
THE NEED IS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF A PRECARIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED SELF FROM BEING SHATTERED (OR FRACTURED)
BY A HEARTBREAKING RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT
THUS THE PSYCHIC RETREAT (SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL) AND DENIAL OF
OBJECT NEED SUPPORTED BY ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
ON THE ONE HAND
THE SCHIZOID PATIENT YEARNS TO BE IN RELATIONSHIP
BUT FEARS CATASTROPHIC REJECTION
ON THE OTHER HAND
LACK OF CONNECTION IS ACCOMPANIED BY FEAR OF EGO
DISSOLUTION, FRAGMENTATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF A
PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SELF, AND TERRIFYING AWARENESS
OF THE PATIENT’S ULTIMATE SEPARATENESS AND ALONENESS 65

66. THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR
AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
THE DILEMMA OF THE SCHIZOID IS THAT SHE HAS
AN UNDERLYING INTENSE LONGING FOR CONNECTION
BUT A TERROR OF BEING SHATTERED
AND SO IT IS THAT SHE DETACHES HERSELF
COMPLETELY FROM OBJECTS AND RENOUNCES ALL HOPE
THE GOAL IS TO CANCEL RELATIONSHIPS,
TO MAKE NO DEMANDS, AND TO WANT NO ONE
THE NEED – FEAR DILEMMA (BURNHAM 1969)
THE NEED IS TO BE CLOSE TO THE OBJECT
BUT THE FEAR IS THEN OF BEING FOUND
BUT ALSO
THE NEED IS TO BE SELF – SUFFICIENT AND TO NEED
NO OBJECTS BUT THE FEAR IS THEN OF EGO DISSOLUTION
AND ANNIHILATION OF THE PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SELF
66

67. RUSSELL BRAND’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDICTED SELF
ALL ADDICTS, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANCE OR THEIR
SOCIAL STATUS, SHARE A CONSISTENT AND OBVIOUS SYMPTOM;
THEY’RE NOT QUITE PRESENT WHEN YOU TALK TO THEM
THEY COMMUNICATE TO YOU THROUGH A
BARELY DISCERNIBLE BUT UNIGNORABLE VEIL
WHETHER A HOMELESS SMACK HEAD TROUBLING YOU FOR
<MONEY> FOR A CUP OF TEA OR A COKED – UP, PINSTRIPED
EXEC FOAMING OFF ABOUT HIS SPEEDBOAT,
THERE IS A TOXIC AURA THAT PREVENTS CONNECTION
THEY HAVE ABOUT THEM THE AIR OF ELSEWHERE,
THAT THEY’RE LOOKING THROUGH YOU TO
SOMEWHERE ELSE THEY’D RATHER BE
AND OF COURSE THEY <WOULD RATHER BE SOMEWHERE ELSE>
THE PRIORITY OF ANY ADDICT IS TO ANESTHETIZE
THE PAIN OF LIVING TO EASE THE PASSAGE
OF THE DAY WITH SOME PURCHASED RELIEF 67

68. RUSSELL BRAND’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDICTED SELF
“AMY WINEHOUSE AND I SHARED AN AFFLICTION, THE DISEASE OF ADDICTION”
THE FIRST TIME RUSSELL, BY THEN IN EARLY RECOVERY, HEARD HIS
FRIEND AMY SING, HE WAS OVERWHELMED AND FILLED WITH AWE,
THE AWE “THAT ENVELOPS WHEN WITNESSING A GENIUS”
“FROM HER ODDLY DAINTY PRESENCE, THAT VOICE, A VOICE
THAT SEEMED NOT TO COME FROM HER BUT FROM SOMEWHERE
BEYOND, FROM THE FONT OF ALL GREATNESS – A VOICE
THAT WAS FILLED WITH SUCH POWER AND PAIN THAT IT
WAS AT ONCE ENTIRELY HUMAN YET LACED WITH THE DIVINE”
ADDICTION IS A SERIOUS DISEASE – IT WILL END WITH JAIL, A MENTAL
INSTITUTION, OR DEATH – AND SOMEDAY THERE WILL BE A PHONE CALL
THE SINCERE HOPE IS THAT THE CALL WILL BE FROM THE
ADDICT HERSELF, TELLING YOU THAT SHE HAS HAD ENOUGH,
THAT SHE IS READY TO STOP, READY TO TRY SOMETHING NEW
BUT OF COURSE YOU FEAR THE OTHER CALL, THE SAD
NOCTURNAL CHIME FROM A FRIEND OR RELATIVE
TELLING YOU THAT IT’S TOO LATE, THAT SHE’S GONE
NOW AMY WINEHOUSE IS DEAD – WE HAVE LOST A BEAUTIFUL AND
TALENTED WOMAN TO THIS DISEASE – AND IT WAS SO UNNECESSARY 68

69. LONELY YOU; LONELY I by MARK R SLAUGHTER (2009)
YOU SAY YOU ARE LONELY.
ARE YOU? COME SEE MY SOLITARY WORLD.
I AM LONELY:
NOT THE “GENERALLY FEELING LONELY” FEELING –
YOU KNOW, THE “I NEED A CUDDLE ‘COS I’M FEELING
A BIT LONELY TODAY” FEELING;
OR THE “I’M ON MY OWN TODAY SO I THINK
I NEED TO CALL UP A FRIEND” FEELING.
NO, I MEAN THE TERROR AND DEPRESSION OF COLD ISOLATION;
THAT BLACK HOLE OF RAW SOLITUDE;
THE NADIR YOU ARRIVE AT AFTER A STEADY SPIRAL DOWNWARDS, INWARDS.
AND SUFFOCATION BY THE BLANKET OF SOCIAL INVISIBILITY
WHICH INSIDIOUSLY GREYED OUT YOUR PSYCHE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWING.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ALIGHT ON THE PLATFORM
OF ENDLESS ALCOHOLIC DAYS;
WHEN YOU’RE SPRAWLED VACANT AND NAKED
IN THE CORNER OF YOUR FILTHY ROOM,
OBLIVIOUS TO THE SCURRYING LIFE OUTSIDE –
THAT WHICH DOESN’T ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EXISTENCE ANYWAY:
THAT’S LONELY.
69

70. FAIRBAIRN
GUNTRIP
WINNICOTT
MODELL
70

71. GUNTRIP, WINNICOTT, AND MODELL
ALL WRITE ABOUT PATIENTS
WHO ARE UNABLE TO ENGAGE
AUTHENTICALLY WITH OTHERS
FOR FEAR OF BEING FAILED
ALL SUCH PATIENTS HAVE
AN UNDERLYING DESPAIR AND
A SENSE OF PROFOUND
HOPELESSNESS WITH RESPECT TO
BEING ABLE, EVER, TO FIND AUTHENTIC,
SATISFYING, AND MEANINGFUL
ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHERS
71

72. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP
WHEREAS THE “ENDOPSYCHIC SITUATION” OF THE SCHIZOID
PERSONALITIES IN WHOM FAIRBAIRN IS INTERESTED
IS ONE OF INTENSE ATTACHMENT TO THE INTERNAL
BAD (SEDUCTIVE ~ EXCITING / REJECTING) OBJECT
TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
THE ENDOPSYCHIC PICTURE OF THE SCHIZOID
PERSONALITIES IN WHOM GUNTRIP IS INTERESTED
IS ONE OF RETREAT FROM ALL RELATIONSHIPS
FROM NOT JUST EXTERNAL OBJECTS BUT INTERNAL OBJECTS AS WELL
I USE FAIRBAIRN’S DEPICTION OF THE ENDOPSYCHIC
SITUATION FOR HIS SCHIZOID PATIENTS
ONE THAT INVOLVES INTENSE AND AMBIVALENT
ATTACHMENT TO THE INTERNAL BAD OBJECT
AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
THE (MODEL 2) MASOCHISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS HOPE AND
THE (MODEL 3) SADISTIC DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS OUTRAGE
AND NOT FOR THE (MODEL 4) SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR
72

73. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP
I AM NOW PROPOSING THAT WE USE GUNTRIP’S DEPICTION
OF THE ENDOPSYCHIC SITUATION FOR HIS SCHIZOID PATIENTS
ONE THAT INVOLVES A MORE EXTREME RETREAT FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS (BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
AS OUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE
OF RELENTLESS DESPAIR AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
ON THE ONE HAND, FAIRBAIRN BELIEVES THAT, FOR
THE SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES ABOUT WHOM HE IS WRITING,
“A BAD OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN NO OBJECT AT ALL”
ON THE OTHER HAND, GUNTRIP, IN WRITING ABOUT HIS
SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES, DESCRIBES THE SCHIZOID STANCE
AS ONE OF WITHDRAWAL, DETACHMENT, AND RETREAT –
THE HEART OF SUCH PATIENTS HAVING TAKEN FLIGHT FROM
EVERYONE BECAUSE ENGAGEMENT IN RELATIONSHIP
AND, EVEN, IN LIFE ITSELF SIMPLY HURTS TOO MUCH
FOR SUCH SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES, IT IS TOO PAINFUL EVEN
TO HOPE FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT
73

74. GUNTRIP ~ SCHIZOID PHENOMENA
ALTHOUGH GUNTRIP NEVER ACTUALLY WRITES THIS,
IN DESCRIBING HIS SCHIZOID PERSONALITIES
HE COULD WELL HAVE WRITTEN,
“NO OBJECT AT ALL IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN
RUNNING THE RISK OF ENCOUNTERING A BAD OBJECT”
GUNTRIP BELIEVES THAT IT IS THE FEAR OF BEING FAILED
THAT MOTIVATES THE PATIENT TO DETACH HERSELF
COMPLETELY FROM OBJECTS AND TO RENOUNCE ALL HOPE
AS WE KNOW, BECAUSE OF INTOLERABLY PAINFUL
EARLY – ON DISAPPOINTMENTS AND HEARTACHE,
HER INNERMOST SELF HAS SECRETLY WITHDRAWN
THE PATIENT ATTEMPTS TO CANCEL RELATIONSHIPS,
TO WANT NO ONE, AND TO MAKE NO DEMANDS
THE RESOLVE IS TO LIVE IN A DETACHED FASHION, ALOOF,
UNTOUCHED, WITHOUT FEELING, KEEPING PEOPLE AT BAY,
AVOIDING AT WHATEVER COST COMMITMENT TO ANYONE
THE FEAR IS OF BEING FOUND AND DISAPPOINTED;
THE NEED IS TO REMAIN HIDDEN 74

75. GUNTRIP’S SCHIZOID PERSONALITY
IF YOU EXPERIENCE YOUR HATE AS DESTRUCTIVE, THEN
YOU WILL STILL BE FREE TO LOVE SOMEONE BECAUSE
YOU CAN SIMPLY CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE TO HATE
BUT FOR THE SCHIZOID PERSONALITY, WHO
EXPERIENCES HER LOVE AS DESTRUCTIVE, LOVING
SOMEONE BECOMES SOMETHING VERY TERRIFYING
BECAUSE ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE EXPERIENCED BY THE
SCHIZOID AS POTENTIALLY IMPRISONING AND DESTRUCTIVE
THE SCHIZOID IS “IMPELLED INTO” RELATIONSHIPS BY
HER DESPERATE NEED FOR LOVE AND CONNECTION BUT
THEN “DRIVEN OUT” BY HER FEAR EITHER OF EXHAUSTING
HER LOVE – OBJECT WITH HER INSATIABLE DEMANDS OR OF
LOSING HER IDENTITY AS A RESULT OF OVER – DEPENDENCE
“THIS ‘IN AND OUT’ OSCILLATION IS THE ‘TYPICAL SCHIZOID
BEHAVIOR’ AND TO ESCAPE FROM IT INTO DETACHMENT
AND LOSS OF FEELING IS THE ‘TYPICAL SCHIZOID STATE.”
(GUNTRIP 1992) 75

76. THE DILEMMA WITH WHICH GUNTRIP’S
SCHIZOID PATIENT IS CONFRONTED
WHETHER IN AN ALL – CONSUMING RELATIONSHIP
OR BREAKING AWAY TO INDEPENDENCE
THE PATIENT IS FACED WITH THE SPECTER OF UTTER LOSS
NAMELY, DESTRUCTION OF EGO AS WELL AS OBJECT
BEING IN RELATIONSHIP INVOLVES BOTH
LOSS OF THE OBJECT
AS A RESULT OF INCORPORATING THE LOVE OBJECT
THROUGH A HUNGRY DEVOURING OF IT
AND LOSS OF THE EGO
AS A RESULT OF IDENTIFICATION WITH THE LOVE OBJECT
BUT BEING OUT OF RELATIONSHIP ALSO INVOLVES BOTH
LOSS OF THE OBJECT
AS A RESULT OF ITS DESTRUCTION, THAT IS, COLLATERAL
DAMAGE FROM THE PATIENT’S FIGHTING HER WAY OUT TO FREEDOM
AND LOSS OF THE EGO
AS A RESULT OF LOSING THE OBJECT WITH WHOM
THE PATIENT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AND FROM WHOM
SHE HAD BEEN DERIVING HER SENSE OF IDENTITY 76

77. FAIRBAIRN vs. GUNTRIP (MODEL 4)
IN SUM
WHEREAS FAIRBAIRN WRITES ABOUT PATIENTS
FOR WHOM ATTACHMENTS TO OBJECTS,
EVEN BAD OBJECTS, ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL,
GUNTRIP WRITES ABOUT (MODEL 4) PATIENTS FOR WHOM
ATTACHMENTS TO OBJECTS ARE INTOLERABLE
WHEREAS FAIRBAIRN’S PATIENTS ARE ENTANGLED
WITH, AND COMPULSIVELY ATTACHED TO, THEIR OBJECTS,
GUNTRIP’S (MODEL 4) PATIENTS HAVE ABANDONED RELATIONSHIPS
WITH ALL OBJECTS, BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL
FOR FAIRBAIRN, THE PATIENT’S REGRESSIVE LONGINGS
RELATE TO A DESIRE TO REMAIN ATTACHED TO HER BAD OBJECTS;
BUT, FOR GUNTRIP, THE (MODEL 4) PATIENT’S REGRESSIVE
LONGINGS RELATE TO A DESIRE TO RETREAT FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS AND TO WITHDRAW INTO TOTAL ISOLATION
FINALLY, FOR FAIRBAIRN, THE GREATEST RESISTANCE IN THERAPY IS
THE PATIENT’S TENACIOUS ATTACHMENTS TO HER BAD OBJECTS;
BUT, FOR GUNTRIP, THE GREATEST RESISTANCE IN THERAPY
IS THE (MODEL 4) PATIENT’S TERROR OF BEING IN RELATIONSHIP
77

78. DEPRIVATION (MODELS 2 AND 3)
vs. PRIVATION (MODEL 4)
DEPRIVATION – THE PATIENT HAD IT
THAT IS, SOME KIND OF ATTACHMENT
TO THE SEDUCTIVE (EXCITING / REJECTING) OBJECT
AND THEN, FOR WHATEVER COMPLEX
MIX OF REASONS, LOST IT
PARADISE HAD, PARADISE LOST,
AND PARADISE NEVER REGAINED
ABOUT WHICH FAIRBAIRN WRITES
PRIVATION – THE PATIENT NEVER
HAD PARADISE TO BEGIN WITH
ABOUT WHICH GUNTRIP WRITES
78

79. D W WINNICOTT’S “FALSE SELF” (MODEL 4)
WINNICOTT’S FALSE SELF IS ALSO
A PATIENT WITH RELATIONAL DEFICIT
SUCH A PATIENT NEVER HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF A
GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER WHO WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE
A PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE / A FACILITATING ENVIRONMENT
WITHIN WHICH HER YOUNG CHILD’S
INHERITED POTENTIAL COULD BECOME ACTUALIZED
AS A RESULT, THE CHILD’S TRUE (OR AUTHENTIC) SELF
NEVER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO BEING
INSTEAD SHE DEVELOPS A FALSE SELF
AND LEARNS TO ACCOMMODATE HERSELF
CHAMELEON – LIKE
TO WHATEVER SHE SENSES IS EXPECTED OF HER
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SELF BECOMES SPLIT,
PART OF THE SELF RETREATING, ANOTHER PART OF THE
SELF GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF LIVING
79

80. D W WINNICOTT’S “FALSE SELF” (MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT LIVES, BUT THE EXISTENCE IS FALSE,
HOLLOW, NOT GENUINE, NOT AUTHENTIC
IT IS ONE BASED ON COMPLIANCE, CONFORMITY
THE PATIENT IS ONLY MAKING A SHOW OF BEING REAL
IT IS ONLY “AS IF” SHE WERE ALIVE
BUT IT IS A SHAM, A CHARADE, A PART
SHE IS PLAYING, A BORROWED IDENTITY
ASSUMED FOR THE OCCASION
BECAUSE THE LITTLE PEAPOD TRUE SELF,
THE SOURCE OF SPONTANEITY AND CREATIVITY,
HAS GONE INTO HIDING, AVOIDING AT ALL COST
THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPOSING ITSELF
WITHOUT BEING SEEN OR RESPONDED TO,
WITHOUT BEING “MET”
80

81. HEIDEGGER’S “INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE” (MODEL 4)
MODES OF BEING
AUTHENTIC – REFERS TO THE ATTEMPT TO LIVE ONE’S LIFE
ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF ONE’S INNER BEING, RATHER THAN
THE DEMANDS OF SOCIETY OR ONE’S EARLY CONDITIONING
AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD ALWAYS INVOLVES
THIS ELEMENT OF FREEDOM AND CHOICE
AUTHENTIC EXISTENCE = TRUE SELF = PRIVATE SELF
FREE SELF = SPONTANEOUS SELF = REAL SELF
INAUTHENTIC – REFERS TO LIVING ONE’S LIFE
AS DETERMINED BY OUTSIDE FORCES,
EXPECTATIONS, PRESSURES, DEMANDS, INFLUENCES
INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE = FALSE SELF = PUBLIC SELF
SOCIAL SELF
AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
vs. INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE
81

82. MODELL’S “COCOON TRANSFERENCE” (MODEL 4)
TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF A VULNERABLE SELF
AND TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF
FURTHER TRAUMATIC DISAPPOINTMENT AND DEVASTATING
HEARTBREAK, THE PATIENT MUST KEEP HER AUTHENTIC
SELF AND HER REAL FEELINGS OUT OF RELATIONSHIP
ALTHOUGH A PART OF HER YEARNS TO BE KNOWN AND
UNDERSTOOD, ANOTHER PART OF HER ZEALOUSLY
GUARDS THE SACROSANCTITY OF HER PRIVACY,
KEEPING HIDDEN WHAT MOST MATTERS TO HER
AND REFUSING TO LET ANYONE INTO HER HEART
MODELL SUGGESTS THAT THE THERAPIST, EVER
APPRECIATING THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A PART OF THE
PATIENT THAT YEARNS TO BE SEEN, MUST USE HER
INTUITION TO ASSESS WHETHER, IN THE MOMENT, THE
PATIENT IS WANTING TO BE FOUND OR NEEDING, AT LEAST
FOR NOW, TO REMAIN HIDDEN, NOT KNOWN, NOT FOUND
82

83. MODELL’S “COCOON TRANSFERENCE” (MODEL 4)
ALSO VERY APT HERE IS MODELL’S DESCRIPTION OF
THE TERRIFIED PATIENT WHO FEELS A NEED TO PROTECT
THE INTEGRITY OF A PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
SELF FROM BEING SHATTERED OR FRACTURED
BY AN UNEMPATHIC RESPONSE FROM THE OBJECT
MODELL OBSERVES THAT THE DEFENSIVE STANCE OF
SELF – PROTECTIVE ISOLATION, WHICH SUCH A PATIENT
ASSUMES IN ORDER TO AVOID DISSOLUTION OF THE
INTEGRITY AND COHESIVENESS OF THE SELF BY AN
IMPINGING AND POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE OBJECT,
IS SUPPORTED BY THE DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED
AND ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
MODELL USES THE APT METAPHOR OF A COCOON TO
DESCRIBE THE PATIENT’S INTERNAL EXPERIENCE OF
AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS, THE PATIENT ATTACHED BY
ONLY A THIN GOSSAMER FILAMENT TO THE THERAPIST
BUT ATTACHED NONETHELESS
83

84. MODELL’S “COCOON TRANSFERENCE” (MODEL 4)
WHEREBY THE PATIENT WILL FEEL AS IF SHE IS IN
HER OWN COCOON, WHICH IS IN TURN
ENVELOPED BY THE THERAPEUTIC SETTING
MODELL REFERS TO THIS AS
A SPHERE WITHIN A SPHERE
IN ESSENCE, A PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE
WITHIN A PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE
THAT THE THERAPIST BE EXQUISITELY ATTUNED
EVEN HAVING ANTICIPATED THE PATIENT’S NEED
FOR LATER
84

85. MODELL’S “NONINTRUSIVE THERAPIST”
(MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT MAY PRESENT HERSELF AS GRANDIOSELY
SELF – SUFFICIENT AND AS NEEDING NOTHING –
BUT THE THERAPIST’S PRESENCE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
AND IF THE THERAPIST CAN REMAIN NONINTRUSIVE,
THIS STATE OF SELF – SUFFICIENCY CAN EVOLVE
INTO A STATE OF “COMPANIONABLE SOLITUDE”
THE PATIENT WILL FEEL AS IF SHE IS IN HER OWN COCOON,
WHICH IS IN TURN ENVELOPED BY THE THERAPEUTIC SETTING
MODELL REFERS TO THIS AS A SPHERE WITHIN A SPHERE
THE PATIENT IS IN A STATE OF SOLITUDE
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THERAPIST
85

86. MODELL’S “AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS” (MODEL 4)
A DEFENSE DIRECTED AGAINST A DANGER
THAT IS PERCEIVED IN THE PRESENT,
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF TWO PEOPLE
THE DEFENSE CAN BE TRACED TO TRAUMATIC
EARLY – ON EXPERIENCES AT THE HANDS OF
THE PARENTAL OBJECT AND CONSTITUTES AN
EFFORT TO AVOID REPEATING SUCH EXPERIENCES
IT IS A REACTION TO FEARS OF FRAGMENTATION
AND ANNIHILATION OF THE SELF AND IS
PROMPTED BY THE NEED TO PRESERVE THE
INTEGRITY AND COHESIVENESS OF THE SELF
IN ESSENCE, THE DEFENSE IS EXPERIENCED
AS NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION OF THE SELF
86

87. MODELL’S “NON – INTRUSIVE THERAPIST” (MODEL 4)
THE PATIENT MAY PRESENT HERSELF AS GRANDIOSELY
SELF – SUFFICIENT AND AS NEEDING NOTHING
AND THE THERAPIST MAY WELL FIND HERSELF REACTING
WITH SLEEPINESS AND A SENSE OF BOREDOM TO THE
PATIENT’S “MASSIVE AFFECT BLOCK” AND TO THE
REALIZATION THAT SHE IS WITH SOMEONE
WHO APPEARS TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN HER
THE THERAPIST’S TEMPTATION TO WITHDRAW
IS A HUMAN AND UNIVERSAL REACTION TO THE
PATIENT’S STATE OF AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS
BUT THE THERAPIST’S CAPACITY TO REMAIN PRESENT AND
EMPATHICALLY ATTUNED, EVEN SO, WILL BE ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL IF THE PATIENT IS EVER TO BE FOUND
THE PATIENT NEEDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE THE
THERAPIST AS A “NON – INTRUSIVE PRESENCE,” WHICH WILL
PROVIDE “SUPPORT FOR THE COHERENCE OF THE SELF”
87

88. MODELL’S “NON – INTRUSIVE THERAPIST” (MODEL 4)
AND IF THE THERAPIST CAN REMAIN NON – INTRUSIVE,
NON – DEMANDING, AND NON – INTERPRETIVE, THE PATIENT’S
STATE OF “GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY” WILL EVENTUALLY
EVOLVE INTO A STATE OF “COMPANIONABLE SOLITUDE”
THE PATIENT IS IN A STATE OF SOLITUDE
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THERAPIST
HOLDING PROVIDES AN ILLUSION OF
SAFETY AND PROTECTION FROM DANGERS
BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT
FROM RAW SOLITUDE TO COMPANIONABLE
88

89. THE SCHIZOID DEFENSE OF RELENTLESS
DESPAIR AND PROFOUND HOPELESSNESS
… WHEREBY BEING IN RELATIONSHIP IS
SO FRAUGHT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR
DISAPPOINTMENT AND HEARTBREAK,
THAT IT IS SIMPLY NOT AN OPTION
TO BE ENGAGED IN RELATIONSHIP
OR, EVEN, IN LIFE
NOT AN OPTION TO HOLD ON TO ANY HOPE WHATSOEVER
FOR SUCH PATIENTS, IT SIMPLY
HURTS TOO MUCH EVEN TO HOPE …
IN TRUTH, SUCH PATIENTS HAVE RETREATED FROM ALL
RELATIONSHIPS (BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF A VULNERABLE SELF
ALONE BUT SAFE
89

90. MODEL 4
A HEART SHATTERED AND THE UNLIVED LIFE
THE PRIVATE (TRUE) SELF vs. THE PUBLIC (FALSE) SELF
AN EXISTENTIAL – HUMANISTIC
APPROACH TO THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION
RELENTLESS DESPAIR ABOUT
AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
FROM NIHILISTIC REJECTION OF EXISTENCE
TO EXISTENTIAL ACCEPTANCE OF ITS DUALITIES
RESONATE EMPATHICALLY WITH THE INTRINSIC CONFLICT BETWEEN
“BEING FOUND vs. REMAINING HIDDEN”
DONALD BURNHAM’S “NEED – FEAR DILEMMA”
“NEED TO BE MET vs. FEAR OF BEING FOUND”
LONGING FOR MEANINGFUL AND AUTHENTIC MOMENTS OF MEETING vs.
TERROR OF BEING FOUND AND DESPAIR ABOUT AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
90

91. MODEL 4 ~ RELATIONAL DEFICIT
THE EXISTENTIAL – HUMANISTIC APROACH TO THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY ~ INAUTHENTIC BEING – IN – RELATIONSHIP
ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY ~ INAUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
FROM SCHIZOID RETREAT TO ACCESSIBILITY / EMOTIONAL AVAILABILITY
FROM RELENTLESS DESPAIR TO AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
AND AWAKENED HOPE
(HOPE THAT WAS THERE ALL ALONG, WAITING TO BE FOUND)
FROM RESIGNATION TO A LIFE LIVED
FROM RELATIONAL ABSENCE TO AUTHENTIC PRESENCE
FACILITATION STATEMENTS ~
RESONATE EMPATHICALLY WITH THE DUALITIES OF EXISTENCE, RECONCILE
THE DIALECTICAL TENSION BETWEEN POLARITIES, AND EVOLVE TO A HIGHER
LEVEL OF INTEGRATION, COMPLEX UNDERSTANDING, AND DYNAMIC BALANCE
FROM OPPOSITION TO COMPLEMENTARITY
EVOLVE FROM THE DICHOTOMIZATION OF “EITHER / OR”
“A PART OF YOU NEEDS … , BUT ANOTHER PART OF YOU FEARS …”
TO THE COMPLEMENTARITY OF “BOTH / AND”
“YOU HAVE THE FEAR AND THE DESPAIR … ,
BUT, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE …”
JUST AS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS, WHERE PARTICLES AND WAVES
ARE THOUGHT TO BE DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS OF A SINGLE REALITY
DEPENDING UPON THE OBSERVER’S PERSPECTIVE
FROM LAING’S “DIVIDED SELF” TO BROMBERG’S “MULTIPLICITY OF SELF” 91

92. THE EXISTENTIAL – HUMANISTIC APROACH TO THE THERAPEUTIC ACTION
RONALD FAIRBAIRN ~ AMBIVALENT ATTACHMENT TO THE BAD (EXCITING / REJECTING) OBJECT
A BAD OBJECT IS INFINITELY BETTER THAN NO OBJECT AT ALL
MARTIN HEIDEGGER ~ INAUTHENTIC AND AUTHENTIC EXISTENCE
DONALD WINNICOTT ~ ABSOLUTE DEPENDENCE ~ THE NEED FOR OMNIPOTENT CONTROL
GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER ~ ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISION ~ CONTINUITY OF BEING
ALONE IN THE PRESENCE OF ~ PRIMARY ALONENESS ~ TRANSITIONAL SPACE
FALSE SELF THAT PROTECTS THE TRUE SELF FROM IMPINGEMENT
MICHAEL BALINT ~ BENIGN REGRESSION TO DEPENDENCE ~ BASIC FAULT ~ A NEW BEGINNING
HARMONIOUS INTERPENETRATING MIX – UP
HARRY GUNTRIP ~ SCHIZOID WITHDRAWAL, EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT,
AND INABILITY TO EXPERIENCE MOMENTS OF AUTHENTIC MEETING
VIKTOR FRANKL ~ MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING ~ DESPAIR EQUALS SUFFERING WITHOUT MEANING
BETWEEN STIMULUS AND RESPONSE IS A SPACE
ALBERT CAMUS ~ ACCEPTING ABSURDITY AROUSES A REVOLT THAT CAN BECOME FRUITFUL
DONALD BURNHAM ~ NEED – FEAR DILEMMA ~ SCHIZO – DYNAMICS
MASUD KHAN ~ PRIVACY OF THE SELF ~ DREAD OF SURRENDER TO RESOURCELESS DEPENDENCE
R D LAING ~ DIVIDED SELF ~ ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY
ARNOLD MODELL ~ DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED ~ ILLUSIONS OF GRANDIOSE SELF – SUFFICIENCY
SELF – PROTECTIVE ISOLATION ~ MASSIVE AFFECT BLOCK
1 – PERSON vs. 2– PERSON DEFENSES
DEFENSE OF AFFECTIVE NONRELATEDNESS TO AVOID DISSOLUTION OF THE
INTEGRITY AND COHESIVENESS OF A PRECARIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SELF
BY AN IMPINGING AND POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE OBJECT 92

93. BOTH DEFENSE AND ADAPTATION ARE
SELF – PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS
MOBILIZED BY PATIENTS TO PRESERVE
THEIR HOMEOSTATIC BALANCE
IN THE FACE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE
AS SUCH, THEY HAVE A YIN – YANG RELATIONSHIP
REPRESENTING, AS THEY DO, NOT OPPOSING BUT COMPLEMENTARY FORCES
IN FACT
JUST AS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS, WHERE PARTICLES AND WAVES
ARE THOUGHT TO BE DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS OF A SINGLE REALITY
– DEPENDING UPON THE OBSERVER’S PERSPECTIVE –
SO, TOO, DEFENSE AND ADAPTATION ARE CONJUGATE PAIRS
DEMONSTRATING THIS SAME DUALITY (”BOTH / AND” NOT “EITHER / OR”)
NONETHELESS
DEFENSES ARE GENERALLY LESS EVOLVED,
ADAPTATIONS MORE EVOLVED
AND DEFENSES ARE REFLEXIVE AND RIGID,
WHEREAS ADAPTATIONS ARE MORE REFLECTIVE
AND MORE FLEXIBLE
WE REACT DEFENSIVELY IN ORDER TO SURVIVE
BUT WE RESPOND ADAPTIVELY IN ORDER TO THRIVE
93

94. IN THE WORDS OF VIKTOR FRANKL
“BETWEEN STIMULUS AND RESPONSE IS A SPACE.
IN THAT SPACE IS OUR POWER
TO CHOOSE OUR RESPONSE.
IN OUR RESPONSE LIES OUR
GROWTH AND OUR FREEDOM.”
IN THE LANGUAGE WE ARE USING HERE
… IN THAT SPACE LIES OUR POWER TO CHOOSE
WHETHER WE REACT DEFENSIVELY
THEREBY THWARTING OUR GROWTH
OR RESPOND ADAPTIVELY
THEREBY EMBRACING OUR FREEDOM
WHETHER WE CLING TO OUR DEFENSIVE RETREAT
FROM AUTHENTIC BEING – IN – THE – WORLD
AND OUR DEFENSIVE DENIAL OF OBJECT NEED
OR WHETHER WE DARE TO PUT OUR AUTHENTIC
SELF OUT THERE AND TAKE THE CHANCE
94

95. IF ALL GOES WELL IN THE TREATMENT
THE THERAPEUTIC PROCESS WILL INDEED ADVANCE THE PATIENT
FROM DEFENSE TO ADAPTATION
FROM DEFENSIVE REACTION TO ADAPTIVE RESPONSE
FROM EXTERNALIZING BLAME TO TAKING OWNERSHIP
FROM WHINING AND COMPLAINING TO BECOMING PROACTIVE
FROM DISSOCIATING TO BECOMING MORE PRESENT
FROM FEELING VICTIMIZED TO BECOMING EMPOWERED
FROM BEING JAMMED UP TO HARNESSING PSYCHIC ENERGY
AND CHANNELING IT INTO THE PURSUIT OF ONE’S DREAMS
FROM DENIAL TO CONFRONTING HEAD – ON
FROM BEING EVER CRITICAL TO BECOMING MORE COMPASSIONATE
FROM RETREAT TO ACCESSIBILITY
FROM RESIGNATION AND EMOTIONAL SHUTDOWN TO ALIVENESS
FROM RELENTLESS DESPAIR TO GLIMMERINGS OF MATURE HOPE
FROM NIHILISTIC REJECTION OF EXISTENCE
TO EXISTENTIAL ACCEPTANCE OF ITS DUALITIES 95