the kind of willing counselors do is for their own good.
Whose own good? Anyway, the intent is irrelevant. The point is, the average person will resist efforts to will them by willing the wilier with equal determination to stop willing, or by applying their own will to themselves. In a way that frustrates the will of the wilier.
That is utterly perverse.
If I don’t say so myself.
You “snake in the grass.” You have turned the good will of good people against themselves.
And I have developed a terrific support system.
I don’t think I want to hear this.
I have moved up a notch to the supervisory level. The same logic that made me focus on helpers rather than clients led me to realize that if I can tempt supervisors to will their supervisees to will their clients, my efficiency would reach astronomical levels.
How do you do this?
By getting everyone to focus on method and technique, rather than the nature of their presence.
But isn’t there such a thing as being a professional?
Or a hack.
And how do you distinguish between a professional and a hack?
They may both do what they do with polish. But the hack is not transformed by his experience.
I am beginning to see where you are going.
As long as I can focus helpers on the right technique, the less they are affected, themselves, by the outcome of what they do; and the more they leave out the variable of their own growth and presence, then the more they miss the Creator’s focus on becoming; and the more frustrated they become at not being able to will, then the harder they try to exert their will; and the harder they try to exert their will. . . .
I get it, I get it. The more they act like they are omnipotent. And this fits in with omniscience, doesn’t it? On the one hand you get everyone to keep willing insight into unmotivated people and on the other you get publishers to perpetually produce books on technique in order to preserve the illusion of power.
Actually we have a secret agreement, the publishers and I. Recently we made a compact. They publish books full of data and technique, and I seduce everyone into violating the omnipotence limitation. It works well for both of us. It’s a huge conglomerate and includes publishers in the world of therapy, religion, education, management, government.
Have you given it a name?
What would you think of Faust Publications?
Your persistence and stamina are truly extraordinary.
As with all my disciples, it comes naturally, from our lack of self-regulation. Let me give you one of my latest success stories. I have just tempted the supervision committee of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy to rule that all supervision must view family therapy in the context of sociological and cultural factors. In other words, the counselor and the therapist and ultimately the client must be focused on these irrelevancies to maturity.
You make it sound as though a person’s background is unimportant.
Cultural camouflage is one of my greatest inventions, and the focus on cultural diversity one of my most attractive temptations. But culture is as irrelevant to maturity as gender. In fact, whenever people explain their functioning in terms of their background, that is not more information to be stored; such moments are exercises in denial of personal responsibility. As I have it now set up, many trainers with great savvy who disagree with an exclusivistic focus on culture and who might have stood in my way are going to be rejected or forced to conform their thinking to the new standards.
But that is the committee’s right.
Don’t you get it? I have gotten them to squelch diversity in the name of diversity. I just love the symmetry.
I suppose you would say that’s one of the spin-offs of seducing people into thinking omnipotently.
Of course. It’s one thing, after all, to set standards for theoretical knowledge, or clinical experience, or personal growth. That doesn’t lead to omnipotence, but saying there is only one true way to do things does. Why, I haven’t had such success since Torquemada, Judge Jefferies, or Cotton Mather. In religion, this would be called inquisitional, in politics it would be called totalitarian, in business monopolistic. And they’re doing it in the name of heaven, or at least democracy. The AAMFT committee on supervision is going to bring back the auto-da-fe.
But no burning at the stake.
Today that’s all done by disenfranchisement from the health insurance plans.
This may be the most disturbing thing you have said yet.
Wait till you hear what’s coming.
You know; what you are saying tends to undercut the importance of gender differences. I suppose you are opposed to the women’s movement.
How well I have disguised myself. On the contrary, I am delighted with all the recent freedom movements, particularly the liberation of women. Having women seek equality everywhere is just what I have been waiting for. As I said earlier, I always thought Eve had more on the ball than Adam. Equality for woman has made them more of a challenge. In the old days, women were just too easy to tempt. All I had to do was be charming. But now it’s much more exciting.
Next thing I know you will tell me that feminism was your idea.
Not quite, though over the centuries I have succeeded in converting most isms into some form of idolatry, eventually.
What about Judaism?
Especially JudaISM.
I fully supported the women’s movement in the beginning, but then I realized that it could get out of hand. It was all right for Adam to have all of that power because he generally squandered it. But Eve and power, I saw that could really be dangerous, so I did my usual thing to throw them off course.
And you do this by . . . ?
By doing the same thing I did to the Marxists, by getting them to equate power with maturity, to confuse equality with spirituality, and to politicize intimacy.
And the temptation is?
Getting their leaders all focused on the issue of abuse.
Now wait a minute. That is absolutely ludicrous. Abuse is a very serious problem.
Obviously, men abusing women is an important issue, but it is not the most dangerous aspect of their relationship. There is something men do that is far more harmful and enslaving than physical abuse, or even the abuse of economic or political power.
That’s sure news to me.
Once
