RE: Seeing my ROLE MODEL for the first time!! -Zürich Freetour
I remember when this guy blew up on social media, and the backlash wasn't for no reason, he really wasn't a good guy, I don't know how you can consider him a role model.
There's another way to read his story than you write here. He completely implodes, then after recovering he gets back into the same kind of business. It's all marketing and manipulation.
I had a look at what he's doing now and it doesn't look good either. I'm glad that you were able to get something out of it but I think that all came from you. It's been pretty well established that the idea of letting rage out, regressing or that kind of catharsis, it doesn't really work.
Those kinds of things are closer to the kind of group building rituals that cults do, such as many shamanic traditions or born again Christians "speaking tongues".
If I were you I would look at the big picture of this guy and look critically about the claims he makes, and the bogus authority he makes them with.
He said that if he were some other person at that time, and he read everything that was written about him, he would hate himself too.
I consider him a role model because of things he did so far, his social and public speaking skills, his abillity to make an impact on people, his understanding and embodyment of spirituality. etc.
I'm not saying he's not doing marketing now, but why do you consider it as manipulation? His product made me feel again, made me being more relaxed around other people, made me feel more comfortable in my skin, etc. and I even haven't got to release the major traumas in my life yet.
At the same time while doing this, I'm reading some of the original works in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, and I got to read this paragraph which was written by Freud: ![]
)
(
I mean if that doesn't work, what was happening in his cases then?
And what's bad with those group rituals and shamanic traditions? Have you ever been exposed to shamanic experience, or tried to give these subconscious meditations a try, or you're talking about someone else's view?
What to you doesn't look good about the work he's doing now?
Thanks for leaving your thoughts on this!
Like I said, I am glad for you but I think you're bringing that healing to the table yourself. But on the other hand perhaps that's not for me to say.
I don't think that him owning up to the obvious truth of how he is perceived is anything other than good business sense, this guy has a good skill for it. I can think of 5 other people who I'd perfer advice and guidance from though over this guy. It's about his ideas, personality and the fact that it's clear he hasn't changed much from the character who centred his practice around manipulating others.
On catharsis, there aren't many Freudian fundamentalists out there any more. His ideas and contribution to the understanding of psychology is almost unparalleled, but you don't have to look far to find the things he was wrong about.
This article is an okay summary of the trend away from the practice of "letting it out": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/200909/you-cant-punch-your-way-out-anger
There's a video somewhere too that goes into it, I could find it if you want, about the trend in the 70's for this kind of thing, and how it ultimately failed it's practicioners. I think what we're seeing is a recycling of that stuff built around a kind of guru personally cult.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and with kindness.
Julien is not supporting the idea that you must act on feelings in order to let them go. He clearly emphasizes in his TM program that letting go of anger can be done without punching the wall, or whatever raging action people might think will help them.
He's saying that you should totally own and acknowledge the feelings that come up, and in some intense sessions like there is in the video I linked, where the environment is "safe" and you're free to experience anything, these emotions can take over and a lot of guys reported that it feels like dying. They're not consciously choosing to let the anger out, but it takes over them in a sense.
Again, you're not getting at anything concrete with your critics of him, so I would like for you to elaborate, which ides, what personality, what kinds of manipulation?
I know that Freudian mostly contributed to laying down the foundations for unconsious theory, and that there's simply no reason to look at his work as some ultimate thruth, but he described quoted proccess from his practice with patients, not out of his head.
Thank you too for making a constructive debate!