Past, present, and future

Dr. G.C. Dilsaver
November 17, 2022
min read

The following is an excerpt from Psychomoralitics: The Soul-Deep Alternative to the Failed Mental Health Professions.

Throughout life a person is called to respond to greater and greater impacting reality, even if that reality impacted years ago. The pain of the past is always present, for it can never be undone. The pain of the past may not be consciously present, indeed may even be suppressed and buried, but the defenses that so do the suppressing are themselves evidence of the past's ever-abiding presence. The suppression of past experiences is especially prevalent when the impacting reality was traumatic and/or out-of-season. Again, certain levels of impacting reality are age or developmentally appropriate. When impacting reality is too brutalizing, defenses are built that can lead to rigid coping or habitual ego-reactivity. Psychomoralitics turns such an out-of-season impacting reality from a festering, even if deeply buried, debilitation into a psychomoral catalyst that accelerates openness to reality and thus full human maturation and essential well-being.

Psychomoralitics is specifically necessitated by the disruption of a gradual process of maturation. The disruption of gradual maturation is due to an out-of-season trauma that can be either from a happenstance occurrence or from an intentional commission of an overwhelming negative impacting reality. It can also be from the mere absence of a positive impacting reality, such as, and especially, the lack of paternal love.

In lieu of a proper and gradual maturation, psychomoralitics facilitates a more abrupt, and even jarring, maturation or openness to reality. But the abruptness and jarring impact is derived solely from that which is already present, again even if deeply buried, within the therapant: the psychomoral existence of a traumatic and resisted impacting reality. With this greater abruptness of psychomoralitic maturation that is necessitated by the presence of persistent ego-reactivity also comes a unique opportunity to enter into an accelerated maturation that does not even entail the blunting defenses of permeable coping mechanisms found in the normal or gradual maturation process.

Indeed, psychomoralitics utilizes the very presence of trauma that has been an impediment to maturation and essential well-being as a catalyst for these. In doing so, the coping mechanisms and passions of the ego are transcended completely in an accelerated maturing or psychomoralitic manner. This is the key to psychomoralitics' efficacy and the mental health professions' inefficacy. For those who suffer persistent ego-reactivity, and the symptomology of so-called mental disorder, have manifestly not been able to successfully order their egos unto reality. Thus the mental health professions' attempt to develop adequate coping mechanisms for an already disordered pseudo-self, has superficial results at best. Psychomoralitics not only recognizes that such efforts are ultimately futile but that the very lack of adequate coping places the therapant in a propitious position for positive psychomoralitic metamorphosis.

In psychomoralitics, unlike mental health psychotherapy, it is not the memory of actual or imagined occurrences that is of utmost importance. Rather it is the passional experience and impact that is associated with that memory that is of utmost importance. There is no clinical doubt that recovered memories can be notoriously inaccurate. But the recognition of this does not discount the psychomoral experience of a person who has these memories. These memories and the extent of their traumatic nature accurately convey the psychomoral trauma a person has had, and has. A person with recovered memories first feels the trauma passionately, then labels these passions with what is perceived to be the source. Whether these memories are indeed memories, or imaginations, or a mixture of both, is psychomoralitically non-essential. What is essential is the psychomoral trauma that exists. Thus even the accuracy of the memories of events are not essential for psychomoralitic treatment, and their validation should not become a stumbling block.

Another reason not to focus on the actual historic events is that those historic events deemed objectively equivalent to each other do not necessarily subjectively affect different persons equivalently. So too, the recounting and focusing on the actual past events can re-traumatize in a way that reinforces ego defenses, and this is counterproductive psychomoralitically. Finally, because the facts of the traumatic event cannot be undone, it is not the facts that should be focused on psychomoralitically, but rather the passionate, that is felt rather than labeled, psychomoral trauma that is present.

In regards to past trauma, mental health professionals and others often prescribe the coping mechanism of forgiveness. Here a person will unilaterally "forgive" those that have hurt him so as to get past or be done with that hurt. Such supposed unilateral forgiveness also allows a person to feel virtuous as well. But unilateral forgiveness is not possible, rather it is an intentional and defensive forgetfulness that only buries the hurtful offense. For true forgiveness has as its prerequisite the victim's full acceptance of the psychomoral pain of an offense against him.

In fact, true forgiveness is by definition a bi-lateral process that occurs when the hurt is shared in a receptive manner by both the victim and the perpetrator. In forgiveness, the perpetrator is humbled and sorrowful; that is, the perpetrator is receptive to the humiliation and sorrow of his committed offense, rather than fighting it. So too, in forgiveness the victim is forgiving; that is, the victim is himself receptive of the pain of the offense against him and not reacting egoistically or revengefully against it. It is thus when both perpetrator and victim share the psychomoral pain of the offense that true forgiveness occurs.

Without a penitent perpetrator, the best a victim can do unilaterally is to be receptive to the pain caused to him and therefore not allow it to fester in the realm of the ego. This receptivity places the victim in the position of proffering forgiveness if and when the perpetrator is also receptive to the pain he has caused the victim. Again, it is the receptivity to the pain itself, the humiliation and sorrow, that allows a victim to be free of the festering hurt and debilitating defenses that can occur in reaction to an evil done unto him. Pretending one is over an offense, by unilaterally saying, "All is forgiven," is but a coping mechanism that allows that offense to fester, even if buried deep.

Do you need help from
a psychomoralist?
Yes please!