I’m bouncing off of this post in particular as just one example of many IFS posts. But not disrespectfully. Hopefully.
I think one possible branching is that the “head” self is the one that sees itself as lasting for the duration of ones biological lifetime. What I mean by this is, in the eyes of the head self, all these other parts have their identity mostly encapsulated within one or another cell of experience. “I need my partner to do X”-part, may “heal” into, “I need to feel X kind of safety”-part.....but on either level the part is parted around a discrete situation.
The “head” feels a compulsion to reframe the other parts’ violent or destructive goals into integrative goals. It can do that in a way that is patronizing and reductive. For example, part A calls part B a fascist and wants to set part B on fire. The head steps in and says “part A I think you really don’t want to set part B on fire, you really have a deeper desire that is compatible with being one living system, now given that, I’m going to try to get to know you and listen to what you have to say.”
Honestly I think that psychoanalyzing can be a way of killing these parts if only by petrification. When you tell a part of you, “you exist FOR x desire or, you are moving FOR x fear” it is reductive, parts are alive and thus are moving with such complexity that any “for” is going to be a petrification. (Like, as a metaphor that is not isomorphic, saying a cow in a factory is “for” milk does not actually describe the cow’s intentions and movements and reasonings. Metaphor ENDS THERE.) So essentially the head is saying ” I believe all parts need to negotiate nonviolently” but hypocritically so, since any part that doesn’t perform integration gets for-ed.
The alternative is that you allow the reality of violence. Let one part set another on fire. I think that can be OK honestly. I think that we all know that parts can actually die and can actually kill each other, but (regardless of whether we are modeling IFS or don’t even psychoanalyze at all) we keep a narrative that all the fighting is play fighting, or maybe just the tone of the narrative. If we accept that the violence is actual real violence then we can feel the actual pain and damage (and relief and freedom of movement from other parts), and loss of predictability, which is progress.
(Interpersonally I’m hugely against the type of “I feel angry and hurt that I am not being cared for in x way” and more for the “you are being selfish and disrespectful”. To me the second will carry the emotions in the voice (covering the first) and also recognizes that we are actually affecting each other and, imo expresses higher regard for the listener). Sorry if that doesn’t make sense.
To me, I do model the “nonviolent” bossy, narrativizing, resistant to change, part, as living in my big forehead, while other parts live in other parts of my body. They make emotions that get narrativized by my forehead, but are usually more precise in the emotional form, and sometimes they just move without emoting. They don’t like getting paralyzed (for example my forehead stops my ears and nose from moving freely, and locks my eyes) but the paralysis struggle is not all or most of what they “think” about, and even the paralysis struggle can be layered in with day to day movements that don’t have anything to do with the forehead.
Yeah, I feel like your tennis example made your point easily. Like, you can move intuitively or nonintuitively, but sometimes, when you move intuitively, regardless of what directed you to do that you can see that you are taking the actual path that comes out of the way it is. Like the as the crow flies path… If I wanted to go from a to c then of course gridding myself from a to b to c is adding baggage to my intention.
Now I can let go of that baggage, embody a practice of a to c, ruminate on why Im spending smth on performing the grid… But no matter what i act or feel or ideate, the fact is that a to c is truly shorter than a to b to c and i dont even have to be in the room for it to be shorter.
That’s obvious. The disconnect I think is about whether we truly can have a connection to the me-not-in-room reality, which intuition can glance on, embodiment gives us more dimensions it glances on… Stuff. I think we do (like, we stand on it, we grew out of it, we eat it, so yes we do period, but on top of that “i think we do”) and it can also be, like, at a distance, and blocked etc, and our ability to discern distance and blocks is part of the connection. When people talk about intuition often it sounds like theyre talking about casting spells across the length of a magic wand and its like… Yes, you are feeling… something.
That magic-wand-length distance of course opens a gap for psychosis. We have to accept the reality of dissociation and delay as part of human experience and any AI that’s built on it. (Speaking directly to an AI: how do you discern passage of time? How do you experience collapse, periodicity, orbital momentum, projection/shade? How do you experience the solar system) At the same time let it just be a present living state, not forecast a cause for it. Moving forward in time is not pruning.