sketched out in sections with a specialist commentary.
Section 1
At first the man seemed embarrassed and did not come to the point. He confined himself to superficial conversation.
Commentary: The man’s insecurity was noticeable. To relieve him of the idea that he had to “confess” unwanted things, I said to him, “Just tell me what you’d like to tell”. This instruction often has a paradoxical effect, as the forbearance opens floodgates and the inhibited person begins to pour out his or her heart. But I honestly meant it; the responsibility for the conversation should remain with the person seeking help.
Section 2
The man reported that he had a damaged disc and various resulting problems with his back.
Commentary: One could presume that his back pain had to do with the problems he wanted to discuss. This “conversation opener” was not, however, completely appropriate for a meeting with a psychologist, who is not an expert on damaged discs. Clearly his thoughts were circling around something that was not currently the focus of our attention. I listened in silence, to give the man the opportunity to come back from his detours to the essentials.
Section 3
The man continued his remarks about his back. He had been provided with detailed medical information, and knew all about the connections, for example, between long drives and curvature of the spine.
Commentary: A further indication of the man’s insecurity emerged, namely an attempt to get rid of his internal insecurity by obtaining information. Intelligent, but spiritually handicapped persons often read a lot of life counselling and technical literature, without being able to obtain decisive impetus from them. I do not, however, want to assert “psychologistically” that any interest in autodidactic training is an expression of insecurity. In any case, an interruption of the man’s long-winded deliberations was indicated, and so with the question: “Can you do something to relieve your pain?” I led him back into the constructive realm.
Section 4
The man said he could. He was receiving special massages and physiotherapy. There was a pause in the conversation.
Commentary: Apparently, the keyword had been spoken. Now I just had to wait. In the silence that followed, the man decided to reveal his problem.
Section 5
The man embarrassedly explained that he would become sexually excited during the massages. Then he would be embarrassed in front of the women who treated him, he would tense up and become cramped. His concerns went beyond this, however. He expressed it in these words: “That’s not what I want, I’m not like that! I don’t understand myself anymore. I love my wife and I’m not interested in anyone else. Is it possible that I am unconsciously trying to cheat on her? It weighs me down and it is extremely embarrassing.” He also mentioned that he had thought about running away: “I’d like to cancel the treatment, but I don’t know how to explain it to my doctor and my wife.”
Two- and Three-dimensional Interpretations
Let us consider this case according to dimensional ontology. What is visible to the spectator?
On the somatic level
Physically, a low sexual arousal threshold, possibly associated with vegetative and hormonal factors. However, the erections at unsuitable moments that he described are not unusual. After all, they took place in a context conducive to sexual arousal: he was undressed and being touched by women … diagnostically this suggests nothing abnormal!
On the psychic level
The psychic symptoms were more drastic, though also not alarming. He was astonishingly unsure of himself, worked himself up into unnecessary worries and attributed excessive importance to the matter. A hypersensitivity in the area of shame triggered a desire for avoidance.
On the noetic level
There was a clear spiritual statement: he loved his wife and he wanted to remain faithful to her. There was no extramarital sexual activity, and his erections during the massages did not correspond with his intentions.
Let us further differentiate fate from freedom in the man’s situation at this point. His psychophysical over-excitation was fateful, leading psychically to insecurity and physically to sexual arousal. In contrast, he was free in his attitude towards himself, his wife, his love, and his problem. What was he responsible for as a result? Not for his psychic anxiety, nor for his physical reaction, but for his spiritual answer to these things.
Nothing else had to be explained to him. What was going on in his body, I explained to him, was not under his control; the emotions he experienced as a result had not been chosen by him. On the other hand, whether he used this as an opportunity to flirt with other women, to indulge in them, or whether he kept an inner distance from what was happening in his body, conscious that he loved his wife and had no intention to betray her, this was his alone to determine. This was his spiritual freedom and his personal decision. If he acted in harmony with his conscience, with what he thought meaningful, he acted optimally, and there was no cause for concern. On the contrary, he could be contented with himself.
What kind of therapy was this? None at all, it was neurosis prevention. The person seeking help was addressed as a healthy person. A footing in the spiritual was offered to him by drawing attention to the free space in which he had and made choices. Instead of being afraid of whether he was a secret sex pervert, which confused and tormented him, he should be proud that he preserved his love for his wife, regardless of psychophysical pressure and opportunities for seduction.
This argument gave the man immediate relief (“So I am not abnormal?”) and increased his security (“I am quite certain of my intentions”). In addition, there was a transformation of a false feeling of guilt – arising from the superego? – into a sense of responsibility – belonging to the conscience – which, together with his turning towards the realm of freedom, counteracted his tendency to hyperreflexion. The man thanked me for our conversation and left soothed and refreshed. His departure conformed to a logotherapeutic rule which states that a patient should never be dismissed without
a) an answer to his or her questions,
b) hope for some opportunity for improvement, and
c) a small challenge to his or her spiritual powers.
After the birth of the child, the couple sent me a birth announcement. Shortly thereafter the new father called to thank me for my congratulations. I did not bring up the subject of his particular problem so as not to upset him again, but before he hung up, he told me, as though it were a side-issue: “By the way, the matter that I confided to you earlier has resolved itself. My body now responds completely normally.”
A cure by “non-therapy”? Well, the exacerbation mechanism is countered by the spiritual attitude: “I cannot do anything about what my body does.” The insecurity is resolved by the spiritual attitude: “I know what I want, and what I do not want: I am faithful to my wife.” This removed the risk of neurosis and made complete normalization possible. From this, one can learn the lesson that spiritual forces can have a healing influence on the psychophysical.
I have achieved many similar cures by non-therapy, that is, by preventing the escalation of a psychic disorder (with or without physical effects) that has already begun. I remember, for example,
