Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by gardenergirl on March 24, 2004, at 6:34:35
I used to say my emotional self and my rational self, because that's the lines it generally falls into. But it's not perfectly accurate (but then, what is). My rational self has feelings. My rational self can get angry and spout off polysyllabic eloquent diatribes. While my emotional self becomes wordless when angry. My emotional self can think, and occasionally is wiser than my rational self, although the access to vocabulary isn't as good.
So I ended up with "She Who Is As She Should Be" and "She Who Is As She Is". That seems to sum it up better than any other descriptor.
The inner child metaphor can be useful because everyone understands and identifies with it. But it can cause trouble at times too. When I went to the EMDR therapist and she was going over my DES results (which said I don't dissociate very much at all) she was using the inner child metaphor. She was saying that we all had inner children that needed to be put away most of the time so that the adult side of us could interact with the world (I'm paraphrasing here as I was upset at the time). And I was saying "You know... You're talking to *me*. It really isn't polite to call someone an archaic inner child remnant to their face!" I don't think she got what I was trying to tell her. I left her office in tears and managed to reach my therapist who was trying to explain to me that she meant no offense while barely stifling his amusement at the terminology.
Which may be the real reason that EMDR didn't work so well. I tried to get past that, and maybe I did. But maybe I didn't.
I've read the Inner Systems Theory some, but it didn't really resonate. Perhaps I read it wrong and got offended again at the limited role each part was assigned. That's generally what happens. Touchy touchy I am. :)
poster:Dinah
thread:327180
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040321/msgs/328539.html