THE TRIAD MODEL

.    The majority of people who come to me to resolve feelings of 
severe guilt find that the following metaphor "nails" what they 
have been experiencing, and often been confused by, for years...
The following is posted to aid people, considering using the 
service I provide, to better understand what they are experiencing; 
and, to provide my clients with a basic foundation for the initial 
assignments, which they'll be asked to do prior to coming here.  
Secondarily, it's posted for people who wish to be supportive of 
someone who is trying to deal with severe feelings of guilt, such 
as loved ones, therapists, or future therapists...

.    A person who has done something which they have every reason 
to feel justifiably guilty will quite often experience some degree 
of personality fragmentation.  I label the three primary components 
of this fragmentation as: "The Judge," "The Defendant," and "The 
poor sap who's caught in the cross-fire between the first two..."  
This personality facet triad has nothing at all to do with the 
psychological disorder known as "Multiple Personality Disorder" 
(MPD), although it can often feel almost as disconcerting for the 
person who is suffering from the experience of these facets being 
"at war with one another."  Understanding the interactions among 
this triad are an essential element is successfully resolving the 
conflict between "them."  (It, also, makes it easier for people 
to deal with the "roller coaster ride" of emotions which commonly 
accompanies a decision to follow through with this process...)

.    Before launching into the following discussion, I should 
probably save myself some e-mail time by including a note for 
people who, through a web search, might stumble across this 
page without understanding its context...  I work ONLY with 
people who are experiencing legitimate guilt stemming from 
an event (or course of events), in which their decisions or 
actions caused a considerable amount of harm and for which 
they are very culpable...  This is not the more generalized 
"psychobabble" variety of guilt, which might spring to mind 
and cause you to e-mail me with a variety of rather irrelevant 
contentions which might be well received in a psych journal or 
in a classroom; but, which don't serve my client's purposes and 
well-being...  When I use the term "guilt," I'm referring to 
ONLY "legitimate guilt," rather than depression caused feelings 
of guilt, survivor's guilt, false guilt, or childhood derived 
shame...  Although I do, sometimes, receive contact from people 
who are suffering from variations of these, they are not good 
candidates for the service I provide; and, I refer them to 
licensed mental health professionals for treatment.

.    Rather than repeating a lot of what is contained in the 
information file, I'm going to assume that anyone proceeding 
beyond this point has arrived here via my web site and has a 
basic understanding of what's involved in this process.  If 
you arrived here directly from a search engine, it would be 
a very good idea to go to http://www.okplus.com/fedup/guilt 
prior to proceeding.  Otherwise, what follows might not make 
much sense... 


.    Now, back to the folks who belong here... {smile}

.    Guilt occurs when a person's actions clash with their value 
systems; which, in turn, tells them that they have done something 
which is VERY wrong.  This sounds like a long winded definition 
for "conscience;" but, it really goes much deeper than that.  
Everyone has a concept of who they are and who they want to be; 
and, severe guilt can wreak havok with that self concept.  Sometimes 
the values have changed for the better, either over time or as the 
result of some life changing event; other times, due to negligence 
or a moral lapse, people fail to live up to what are reasonable 
expectations of him or herself.  When real harm has occurred as 
the result of this persons decisions and actions, they are perfectly 
justified in feeling that it would be even more wrong to be able to 
just shrug off what they've done.  In the absence of clear, concise, 
and adequate consequences, that chapter of their past tends to turn 
into a festering wound upon their life, adversely affecting many 
other aspects of it.  Some people CAN contexualize the events in 
such a way that they are able to "just learn from the experience 
and go on;" but, those aren't the people from whom I hear...  
Whether they "should" be able to is a mute point -- if they could 
have, they would have...  Many of the people who contact me have 
attempted to do exactly that through years of psychotherapy; and, 
it hasn't worked for them.  Instead, the personality facet which 
I refer to as "The Judge" tends to view progress as a form of 
evidence of a lack of remore, resulting in a "one step forward, 
two steps back" situation.

.    The judge, focused upon the fact that "justice has never been 
served," refuses to "close the case;" and, imposes a wide variety of 
(often very counter-productive) punitive behaviors.  It's anything 
but uncommon for the person's career and interpersonal relationships 
to be undermined by the ensuing feelings of being unworthy of real 
success in these areas.  Success in therapy is often undermined by 
the judge, who sees such success as undeserved vindication and 
further evidence of a lack of true remorse.  Uninterrupted, the 
person winds up "serving a life (and sometimes a death) sentence," 
locked into self-destructive activities which, in turn, only 
reinforce the judge's recriminations...

.    No one can deal with constant criticism, external or internal, 
without "The Defendant" entering the picture.  Sometimes this takes 
on the form of attempting to lower the standards and/or substance 
abuse, which further exacerbates the internal conflicts...   This 
facet, just as a real defendant in an external court, wants very 
badly to rationalize, justify, and blame others for the source of 
the guilt.  If s/he IS going to have to suffer any consequences, 
in order to get the judge to shut up, s/he tries to escape as 
lightly as possible.  (Which further inflames "the judge...")

.    "The poor sap who's caught in the cross-fire between the first 
two" is generally a pretty good person (those who aren't don't seek 
my help.)  It's not possible to have a value conflict without having 
values and clearly defined concepts of right and wrong.  The "basic 
person" has generally done far more which is right in his or her life 
than that which is wrong; but, tends to have his or her life disrupted 
by the war between the judge and the defendant.  This facet wants the 
same good things from life that everyone else (who isn't dealing with 
this type of a conflict) desires from their life.  They long for success 
in their careers and harmony within their interpersonal relationships; 
and, is very distressed by the effects they see occurring around them, 
as the result of "the war."  They often feel a great deal of confusion 
about who/what they "really are," because s/he is as opposed to the 
defendant facet as the judge facet; but, see no way to satisfy the 
judge's demands.  Whether, or not, this results in some degree of 
classifiable "depression," the conflicts drain energy, which could 
be used in far more constructive ways.  In an attempt to make his or 
her life work, this facet forms a variety of (often situationally 
fluxuating) alliances with the other two facets.

.    In order to achieve a resolution of this conflict, certain 
things must occur:
1) The defendant facet must quit trying to undermine the value 
system, fully accepting that what was done was wrong, that s/he 
was personally responsible for the events in question, and that 
consequences outside of his or her control are justified.
2) The judge facet must become satisfied that "justice has been 
served;" but, also, come to accept the fact that being imperfect 
does NOT carry with it the implication of being worthless.
3) The person caught in the cross-fire must become the dominant 
facet; absorbing the first two, rather than being "their" victim.

.    Although this can sometimes occur over the course of time 
and/or therapy; a lot of collateral damage can be avoided if 
this resolution can occur within the context of a very narrowly 
focused cathartic event, targeted specifically at the source/s 
of the conflict.  To be effective, this event must be very 
tangible, clearly beginning and clearly ending.  It must be 
significant enough to fully satisfy the judge facet, without 
who's cooperation no true integration can occur.  Corporal 
punishment, when it is correctly used, is an effective tool 
for accomplishing these goals.  Many of the people who come 
to me have sensed this for quite some time; and, it's not 
unusual for that sense to have mislead them into some counter-
productive directions, ranging from self-mutilation to sado-
masochistic activities.  A few of my (less informed) 
detracters contend that my process falls into the latter 
category; but, that is simply evidence of their ignorance 
of the process I use, the inherent erotic/fantasty elements 
involved in "bdsm" (but, NOT in the process I use), or both.  
Although I use the triad metaphor to facilitate a resolution 
to the internal conflict, doing so is very different (and 
far more effective) than attempting to utilize fantasy.  Any 
elements of fantasy would only undermine the probability of 
a successful outcome, since the mind will ultimately discount 
any resolution which is not well founded in reality.  Bearing 
that in mind, however, the triad metaphor is still a very 
effective "working structure," making it possible to deal 
with a complex set of dynamics without getting mired down 
in a swamp of psycho-babble...

.    I do not discount the value of work with a professional 
therapist, for addressing the deeper issues involved; but, 
until and unless the person can resolve the conflict between 
who they are and what they did, their prognosis tends to be 
rather poor.  Conventional therapy has little to offer them, 
in terms of an effective avenue for resolving this conflict; 
since, any licensed therapist would be risking the loss of 
that license, if s/he were to facilitate a cathartic event 
of the intensity which is so often needed.  

.    By coming here, a person has already made some rather 
large strides towards vindicating him or herself, since 
coming here is quite similar to a defendant "entering a 
blind plea" in court...  Using such a court as a continuation 
of the metaphor, the "judge" facet agrees to what amounts to 
a "change in venue" and the "defendant" agrees to accept the 
consequences which will occur as the result of this.  In 
doing so, both facets relinquish much of their control over 
the outcome, in much the same way as two parties in a civil 
disageement would by mutually agreeing to arbitration.  In 
doing so, "they" transfer much of their power over to the 
primary facet, who's pragmatism and desire for a better life 
will be what ultimately gets the body here...

.    Along the way, it's not unusual for the defendant facet 
to get rather panic stricken, as it begins to soak in that 
this process isn't the "pass" which s/he had hoped for.  It 
is rather common to experience "fear transference," where 
the feelings of fear get tacked onto some other cause, which 
seems more likely to be accepted (internally and externally.)  
In addition to reasonable fears becoming magnified; it's not 
particularly uncommon for people to feel fears which border 
upon paranoid thinking.  Such thinking is an attempt by the 
defendant facet to manufacture an excuse to avoid following 
through with this process.  The keys to dealing with this 
are to realize the dynamics involved, which aren't all that 
different from those between three seperate people (in such 
a situation); and, to use as much objectivity and self-honesty 
as possible in evaluating (on paper) the merits of each excuse. 
A useful guage of the validty of any excuse is monitoring the 
degree of resistance which is felt to potential solutions for 
problem posed.  When such resistance is high and resistant to 
such solutions, it's most likely an attempt by the defendant 
facet to appease the judge facet without having to experience 
any real consequences.  ("I WOULD, if I COULD; but, it's just 
not practical; so, get off of my back about it!!!")  Nice try, 
if it would really work; BUT, such thinking has a nasty habit 
of back-firing, leaving the judge facet even more condeming 
than before.  Unlike an external court, this judge is always 
with you.  The more you fight it, the more vindictive it will 
become.  The only real way to make this facet more reasonable 
is to stop fighting it, find a way to satisfy its demands, 
and convince it that you've become the sort of person who no 
longer deserves wrathful scrutinization.  I'd be the last to 
say that the process I provide is the ONLY way to accomplish 
this; however, it does yield exceptionally good with results 
in doing so, even for people who have tried many other avenues 
without any significant success.  I attribute at least a part 
of the success of this process to the fact that "the judge" can 
not reasonablly ignore the fact that anyone who is willing to 
walk through the fear to see this this process through to its 
conclusion has earned another shot at their life...

(To be continued, as I have the time to add relevant material.)





Index Page


E-mail: Kathy (Renbarger) at:  fedup@okplus.com










  Last modified on: 11/01/2002