New thoughts on flashbacks
Juniper
that I saw in that article astri posted.
W. went to a conference on new understandings of trauma recovery
recently, and he said that at that conference he learned that clinicians
now are thinking that flashbacks aren't really *symptoms* of PTSD. What
they are are the mind trying to process the memory of the trauma. They
are signs of progressing recovery, not signs of disorder.
Apparently trauma survivors who are in treatment and those who are not
both experience flashbacks -- because they're part of the natural
process of recovery from the trauma. They're not pleasant or whatever,
but the fact that one is experiencing them means that one is
experiencing one's mind healing. I guess it's sort of "I'll keep doing
this until I get it right." The mind keeps going over the memory (or
taking the person through the memory) in order to try to file the memory
within normal memory storage mechanisms. Apparently it takes a while to
get the memory refiled.
Oh, and he put a lot of effort into confirming that what I experience
*are* flashbacks, and I don't need to minimize and deny my difficulty by
saying that since what I experience isn't full sensory Technicolor then
I don't "rate" a diagnosis of PTSD.
Right now I am extremely grateful to have him.
Juniper
Wolfie of Confused
> Tonight in T I talked to W. about the idea of "emotional flashbacks"
> that I saw in that article astri posted.
seems like that article stirred things up
>
> W. went to a conference on new understandings of trauma recovery
> recently, and he said that at that conference he learned that clinicians
> now are thinking that flashbacks aren't really *symptoms* of PTSD. What
> they are are the mind trying to process the memory of the trauma. They
> are signs of progressing recovery, not signs of disorder.
>
> Apparently trauma survivors who are in treatment and those who are not
> both experience flashbacks -- because they're part of the natural
> process of recovery from the trauma. They're not pleasant or whatever,
> but the fact that one is experiencing them means that one is
> experiencing one's mind healing. I guess it's sort of "I'll keep doing
> this until I get it right." The mind keeps going over the memory (or
> taking the person through the memory) in order to try to file the memory
> within normal memory storage mechanisms. Apparently it takes a while to
> get the memory refiled.
this sounds familiar. think i read it somewhere?
>
> Oh, and he put a lot of effort into confirming that what I experience
> *are* flashbacks, and I don't need to minimize and deny my difficulty by
> saying that since what I experience isn't full sensory Technicolor then
> I don't "rate" a diagnosis of PTSD.
>
yes, your experiences are valid
> Right now I am extremely grateful to have him.
>
:)
slunky
Hey, W must have gone to the same conference our thrpst went to a couple
months back because she told us she went to conference and heard the
same thing too!
--
-slunky
Juniper
slunky <slu...@cryptobug.com> wrote:
> Hey, W must have gone to the same conference our thrpst went to a couple
> months back because she told us she went to conference and heard the
> same thing too!
It was in Dedham, MA, but this guy giving it goes all over. I forget
how long ago. This fall.
Juniper
Juniper
Wolfie of Confused <nospamsometi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Juniper wrote:
> > Tonight in T I talked to W. about the idea of "emotional flashbacks"
> > that I saw in that article astri posted.
>
> seems like that article stirred things up
Yeah. The way I said it to him was that when P (my old much-loved
psydoc) said that there was no such thing as emotional flashbacks, I
rearranged my internal filing system based on that information. But it
was incorrect, so now my files of self-understanding are disordered.
Gotta reorganize internal understanding based on new knowledge.
Seems like the definition of flashback that I'm left with now is
"anything from back Then which is intruding and taking me over (feels
like possession) Now is a flashback." Doesn't have to be sensory. Can
be emotional.
Juniper
slunky
Don't know where our thrpst went to the conference.
--
-slunky
confused
> In article <6qu9rgF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Wolfie of Confused <nospamsometi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Juniper wrote:
>>> Tonight in T I talked to W. about the idea of "emotional flashbacks"
>>> that I saw in that article astri posted.
>> seems like that article stirred things up
>
> Yeah. The way I said it to him was that when P (my old much-loved
> psydoc) said that there was no such thing as emotional flashbacks, I
> rearranged my internal filing system based on that information. But it
> was incorrect, so now my files of self-understanding are disordered.
> Gotta reorganize internal understanding based on new knowledge.
frustrating. hard work
>
> Seems like the definition of flashback that I'm left with now is
> "anything from back Then which is intruding and taking me over (feels
> like possession) Now is a flashback." Doesn't have to be sensory. Can
> be emotional.
>
oh, like that. we understand better. yes. we always had trouble with the
word "flashback" because of definition we were working with I guess
gathring
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hi!
>
> Juniper <jun...@juniper.asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> Seems like the definition of flashback that I'm left with now is
>> "anything from back Then which is intruding and taking me over (feels
>> like possession) Now is a flashback." Doesn't have to be sensory. Can
>> be emotional.
>
> doesn't come with an explicit knowledge type memory?
>
> How do I know a sudden sadness is an emotional flashback vs. a mood
> swing (or a partial/complete switch without being from "back then"),
> for example?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hannah(s).
for us, that often meant thinking about what happened right before the
'mood swing', and thinking about what in the past resulted in our
feeling that way. finding out what 'triggered' the emotion, and working
on realizing that now is not then, made specific current day happenings
less likely to elicit the same emotional response.
--
“There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence.” -- Jeremy S. Anderson
gathring
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hi!
>
>> Hannah wrote:
>>> Juniper <jun...@juniper.asarian-intl.org> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>
>>>> Seems like the definition of flashback that I'm left with now is
>>>> "anything from back Then which is intruding and taking me over (feels
>>>> like possession) Now is a flashback." Doesn't have to be sensory. Can
>>>> be emotional.
>
>>> Interesting... But... How does one *know* it's from "back then" if it
>>> doesn't come with an explicit knowledge type memory?
>
>>> How do I know a sudden sadness is an emotional flashback vs. a mood
>>> swing (or a partial/complete switch without being from "back then"),
>>> for example?
>
>> 'mood swing', and thinking about what in the past resulted in our
>> feeling that way. finding out what 'triggered' the emotion, and working
>> on realizing that now is not then, made specific current day happenings
>> less likely to elicit the same emotional response.
>
> that works only on the intellectual level. There's, for example, one
> trigger where I know what happened then, at least very coarsely (no
> images/details), I know what current triggers are and what trigger
> responses I have, but that knowledge didn't help to reduce the trigger
> responses.
>
> So it seems I need something different for "it" (positive changes) to go
> deeper.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hannah(s).
think by putting it into one paragraph and summarizing it, i made it
sound simple. it really breaks down into many parts for us, and some of
those steps are not very easy at all. so:
1. figuring out the current event that caused the current emotional change
2. figuring out what in the past was similar, or what in the past caused
that or similar feelings
3. of the things that caused similar feelings, figuring out which one(s)
is/are the one(s) related to the trigger
4. working with t or through writing/processing to remember then is not
now (may require multiple iterations)
--
But a reality check here: this is not some great moral failing. It's
part of learning to be securely human in a confusing world. - Baba Yaga
Puddles
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Hannah wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>
>>> == make it boring. that means repeating it enough times in enough ways
>>> that it is no longer emotionally charged (az tpist suggested that
>>> generally meant revisiting it 10-12 times in various ways, on average).
>>> doesn't become boring if it's repeated in flashbacks in isolation. but
>>> sometimes/frequently have to experience the flashback repeatedly in a
>>> safe-enough interpersonal setting while attempting to tell the
>>> narrative so that you can get thorough the narrative. and eventually it
>>> does all become "boring" and you can move on from it, leaving it as a
>>> "normal" memory and not a traumatic memory.
>>
>> Mmmh. In a book I read that for "good" processing (that provides
>> healing effects), the narrative needs to have some kind of closure,
>> i.e. one should eventually manage to go on up to the *end* of the
>> traumatic situation (and perhaps even a little bit beyond, to see
>> that one isn't stuck anymore, that it's over).
>>
> think maybe pdoc t doesn't agree.
> know he and I talked about this, can't remember so much what he saaid.
>
> think maybe he believes that instead of going to end of memory he thinks
> you can find other ways. (having troubles with words)like connecting
> the memory with other things less traumatic
>
>>> at that point, you can notice the differences between now and then, and
>>> the memory is truly then.
>>
>> Mmmh. Perhaps that's also the point of the "closure" thing, to make the
>> "inside" see that point.
>
> oh, ok. that might be more similar to what pdoc t is saying. closure can
> imply resolution. I think his point is it may not resolve (really
> struggling with words here)
>>
>>> you can also or may also need to strategize about how to prevent such
>>> occurrences happening for real in the now.
>>
>> You mean the trigger/cue, or a repetition of the real traumatizing event
>> (such as someone *really* burning me, even if only by accident)?
>>
>>> and some people actually seem to have some success at retelling the
>>> story with different endings (think eventually). don't think that's
>>> ever really been something we've done.
>>
>> *nods* Heard of that technique/intervention idea. Perhaps some trance
>> logic thing, rescuing the inner children/inside kids now, in imagery,
>> even if *then* they weren't rescued (yet) (and inside, they might still
>> be stuck) - and having, in imagery, the rescue happen *immediately*,
>> directly linked to the event. Has its logic, and I guess it'll probably
>> be more possible to do that if there's already a narrative which you can
>> then change?
>>
> pdoc t has proposed that for nightmares. it has helped a small bit
is this just for flashbacks? can it work for body remembers? or just for
things with bad endings?
confuzzled
umm... think it could work for body remembers
astri
>> Hmmm. Resolution? As in "the situation is completely well again"?
>> No, I guess that can't be had with the "original" memory/narrative
>> in all cases. I guess closure can "just" imply the heavy duty
>> traumatic stuff being clearly over in the memory/narrative before
>> one stops looking at it. (In the techniques where one does not/not
>> yet re-write the story.)
>>
> hmmm... I guess I'm struggling with the idea of "over'. What makes it
> over?
no longer reacting as it being traumatic? it becoming just another
regular memory? (that seems to have happened to jessica's stuff)
-- astri
======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================