https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=AhhHsQsR9lM
Welcome everyone to another Voices with Raveki. I’m excited to have back Seth Allison. His last video, Four Voices with Raveki, was really well received and provocatively so. It was very thought provoking and very rich. And very happy to have you back, Seth. So welcome and I’ll turn it over to you to frame how you’d like to move into this discussion, what you’d like to talk more about. And then we’ll just take it from there. Thank you, John. And yeah, I really enjoyed our last conversation too and was very, very gratified by people’s interaction with it. That was really neat, actually. And since we last talked, I had the privilege of doing a couple of workshops through your foundation. Excellent, yeah. And the attachment one, which, you know, just expanded on our conversation. We got to use some video of a couple actually going through emotion-focused therapy and really made it come alive. It was great. We hope to offer it again. I hope so too. Yeah, and then we did one on our topic today, internal family systems. And that was also wonderful. So I thought part two, I don’t know, but I think we’re going to find a way to weave attachment into this. I said to you at the end of our last talk that I believe IFS is an attachment-based psychotherapy. Interesting, interesting. And so I want to see if we can tie them together. But to set the intention today, talking about this psychotherapy model, I think we have, you know, you’re coming from cognitive science, philosophy and psychology. I’m coming from the clinical setting, a practitioner. And so I think there’s a, I’m hoping we have a really neat dialogue that weaves in an experienced distant conceptual struggle with IFS, which it can be conceptually very frustrating with the experience near value that it brings and what it is like. I like that. For who are listening. I like the dis- Yes. …and the nearness value. That’s very good. Yeah. And I think that’ll be great. I also think if we tie in Jung a little bit, especially around the conceptual piece, I think they interact so much, but, and also depart in some ways. And I’ve had the pleasure of listening to some of your talks with Anderson Todd. Yes. I think I would refer people to those discussions, which are wonderful. And if we don’t get enough experience distant, your episode eight, I think, in after psychosis. Yes. Is that where you talk about IFS? Yep. Just really wonderful explicating of the model. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, I enjoyed it very much. I’m glad. So, I also, John, do you want to add anything to the table? No. I’m really happy with that framing. And I like the metaphor. I like the spatial metaphor you’re using for sort of giving the polarity we’re going to be playing with and with Ian. That was great. Right. That was great. Right. Good. Good. I mean, I think there’s value in both. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. I have to make a distinction between sort of theory and theory. Theories when your reflection and theory is when you’re contemplating through it, right? And things like that. I love that. The different ways of knowing. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things that always stands out to me and I spend time in psychological theory is something that certainly isn’t mine. I can’t remember who said it, but that all theory is biography. And so I really think it’s helpful to know a bit about the biography of Dick Schwartz. Right. And how he came to the creation of this model. And also, I want to contrast it with a bit of biography from Carl Jung. Oh, that’s a proposal. I like that. I mean, I haven’t thought about it that way. I do have some. I have criticisms of both the theoretical criticisms, ontological criticisms of both the Jungian framework and the Schwartzian. I guess that’s the adjective framework. Schwartzian. Yeah. Framework. But I think it starting in this sort of narrative fashion is probably very good. So please, please, please proceed. Yeah. So here’s my here’s my take. When when I’ve struggled with Jung, which you and I have both worked in Jungian analysis personally. It can be he is conceptually at times contradictory. It could be really hard to get the experience distant is can be very difficult with him, I think, to get it all together. But I when I put it in context of who he was, when he was thinking and what his who his audience was, it begins to make more sense to me. So I have a go ahead. I also want to say, and this sort of sits on the boundary between the theoretical and the biographical. I have a hard time placing Jung like he doesn’t seem to be a psychologist in any way that lands for me. He’s not even a like a psychologist, philosopher like James or Yaspers. Right. And he but there’s also some there’s also almost like a philosopher in there, too. And then there’s there’s something like a poet or a prophet. And it’s it’s hard for me because, of course, each one of those and this goes towards your biographical point, unless I don’t know what agency he’s assuming. I don’t know what the proper kind of criticism to bring to bear is. I’m often frustrated by that. Right. I think that’s lovely. That’s a great observation. So let’s see what happens when we put it in the context of the person and not his vocation. So my my just overview of Jung and where his theory comes out of is that he is a pretty brilliant physician and really Freud’s number one pupil, the heir to the psychoanalytic kingdom in, you know, the first half of the early 20th century. And he he would be Mr. Psychoanalysis in his time. And this was cutting edge. He’s a he’s adhering to the structural model that Freud developed and psychoanalysis has a very rich theory of mind. Freud and Jung consider themselves scientists. They’re they’re they’re facing the academy as they’re developing this. And Jung especially, I think, is sensitive to this as he goes later in his life to develop his own theory. He’s seeking legitimacy. And then but there is a moment that I want to use this phrase for both him and Schwartz where the container fails, where the center doesn’t hold and his way of experiencing the world and himself cannot be held by sort of Freudian orthodoxy. And I think to understand Jung, it really helps me to appreciate that this is a guy in his late 30s who goes through a profound mental breakdown and has we may think of it as a manic episode. I think it clearly had elements of a psychotic break and it was it was prolonged and it was terrifying for him. And then you have what comes out of it. And it’s documented in the Red Book, which is one of the most amazing pieces. I have it now. I have the big version with all the pictures. Yes. Isn’t it great? Yeah, I have it sitting over here. I see his his theory comes out of the profound existential problem he has with making sense out of what is happening to him as he goes through this psychological crisis. And so I ask you a question. Yeah. No, I haven’t read as much as you have. And I just got the Red Book. But I have a sense that it’s not like this existential crisis isn’t just internal. I think like he seems to have a foreboding of what’s going on in Europe. Well, since of the mean crisis, the ambivalent status of Christianity, all these things seem to also be playing out. The idea of the center isn’t holding in the container is failing is I think part of where synchronicity comes in later is that that is happening internally and externally. Things are failing. And I do believe and I don’t know if I have this totally right that part of the resolution of the psychotic break is that, you know, the war breaks out in Europe and he realizes that the visions and the dreams he’s been having actually have resonance in the outer world. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Weren’t completely from inside. But I want to I want to make this point. So Jung has a structural theory of mind that is all about instincts. And what’s happening to him is he’s being flooded with so much psychic material. There’s so much, you know, psychoanalysis. There’s this hydraulic model of pressure, yeah, from Freud, id, ego, super ego. And he has to come to terms with it. What’s happening to him doesn’t fit within the drive model. And so he develops a model about psychic energy. And it’s about what to do and how to make sense out of being so terribly flooded. I just need to intervene here a sec. Seth is using psychic in a somewhat older sense than it might be used by certain new age authors or movements. He’s meaning that which is has content within the psyche rather than claims of extraordinary power or anything like that. I just want to make clear that that’s how Seth is using the word, just because the word has been largely captured by that alternative meaning. And in psychology, I’m very well aware of it. Psychologists like James would use the adjective psychic all the time. And now we can’t because of that. So I just wanted to land that for people just so they were. What’s he talking about? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So being psychic, being just any indicative of the psyche, yes, which is just so what essentially he’s trying to solve for is where is all this material coming from? That I am being flooded by. And they were really intense, bizarre, profound images, some violent, some sexual, but often just deeply symbolic. It doesn’t fit with the edible complex for him. So he has to wrap his mind around what’s going on. And what comes out of that is a theory, a structural theory of mind that incorporates the idea of a collective unconscious, that there is a barrier between the human psyche and something bigger that he would call the collective. And that this energy is coming through and permeating what he called a psychoid space, this this sort of liminal space between the personal psyche and the human psyche. And the theory of archetypes comes out of this. And we begin to see a model of a dialogical. So, yes, develop. And the concept of self becomes extremely fundamental. And I want to play this out with you a little bit as we go into these. That’s what’s on my. Yes, so Jung is taking pains to try and again, he’s facing the academy with this. Right. And so he is he’s trying very hard to put this into a system that holds up. And it’s a very, very, very difficult to understand. So because you have all this data that he is saying in some ways comes from outside the mind, but isn’t outside the mind. Yeah. And so the theory of archetypes becomes important. So I wanted to use a definition I heard from Don Kalshed. No, that it is he says the metaphor uses is like a riverbed that it holds this energy that comes through it. But if there isn’t any energy there, it’s just a piece of the puzzle. And so he’s trying to make it a little bit more interesting. And so he’s trying to make it a little bit more interesting. And so he’s trying to make it a little bit more interesting. But if there isn’t any energy there, it’s just a piece of ground. It’s not really a thing. An archetype isn’t really a thing. It’s a something that holds things coming through. So a symbol. Thank you for watching this YouTube and podcast series is by the Verveke Foundation, which in addition to supporting my work also offers courses, practices, workshops and other projects dedicated to responding to the meeting crisis. If you would like to support this work, please consider joining our Patreon. You can find the link in the show notes. Well, current dynamical systems language coming out of your arrow and stuff like that is where you make a distinction between causes, which are relationships between events that are changing actuality and constraints, which are ways in which possibility is organized. And and then the idea would be something like, like, so, for example, you have all these microchemical causes that cause the structure of the tree. But the structure of the tree changes the probability of a photon hitting a chlorophyll atom and metabolizing. And so constraints are altering the probability space so that the causes are shaped in a particular way. And then the self organizing system runs. I like it. It sort of. And there’s there’s there’s selective and enabling constraints. There’s constraints that limit the options for a self organizing system. And then there’s enabling constraints that open the options up. And it’s sort of between those evolving between the variation and the selection. That’s sort of the model. I love that. So archetypes aren’t just kind of the riverbed that takes any old water. It also is a constraint. Yeah, it’s both affording and limiting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, very much. That’s great. That’s great. So that’s his way of making sense out of symbols that are appearing to him as he’s going through psychosis. And he’s trying to kind of elaborate and find purpose and meaning in this. I don’t know how much further we want to go into his structural theory. I mean, there’s the tension of persona shadow, the ego anima animus. I think one thing that’s helpful, if we’re going to use this eventually to contrast with IFS, is that Jung’s theory of healing involves a kind of the self is this basic archetype. He’s the archetype of archetypes. It’s a movement essentially towards unity and wholeness. And it’s propelling forward seeking. He called it individuation. It is the ego’s encounter. Yeah, that’s what I was wanting to ask you about. The way I’ve heard it, something like the ego is the archetype for consciousness, and then the self is the archetype for the whole of the psyche. And what is needed, the healing, is to establish a proper functioning dialogical relationship between the ego and the self. And it’s very different from Freud’s hydraulic model. That’s part of what Rekur was talking about. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Exactly. This is important because it sets up our talk about IFS and the self. Excellent. Yeah. So I think Jung kind of takes us away from the joke with classical analysis, is that the goal of analysis is analysis. It’s insight, right? It’s where it was, ego shall be. And I think Jung kind of fills that out and says, well, now the goal isn’t just that. It’s wholeness, it’s balance, it’s this expansion that also is able to hold tensions. And that resonates deeply in IFS. So I want to, unless you have further comments on that. There’s one I wanted to pick up on because it’s a thread that I think I’ll first see. I’m going to try and bring into the conversation. So a lot of this, Jung’s model is not Newtonian, not hydraulic. It’s organismic. It’s dynamical. So it’s much more, it wouldn’t be a mechanical system. It would be a dynamical system and things like that. But that language of ego and self. But I’m trying to get that there seems to be also an element here of, there’s like a neoplatonic strain to this, a gnostic strain, a neoplatonic strain. First of all, the dialogical playing an important role and elements like that coming in. Does that make sense to think, I mean, because this model seems to be deeply influenced by sort of implicit platonic ways of thinking. You’ve got notions of participation running through it. You have the coincidence of opposites like Nicholas of Cusa running through it. So I don’t think I’m reading into this unfairly. There seems to be this also this thread running through it that I think is important. Yeah. So this is where I start to feel like as a clinician, I can’t speak as well to the experienced distant piece. And I think I would say this. Jung the theoretician, I believe was quite different than Jung the therapist. Oh, this is interesting. Okay. I think what’s being written is being written. And this is the whole point of this coming from a place where he’s he’s not he’s trying to capture some very experienced near things and struggling to present them in a way that has scientific validity. And I think in some ways he can’t totally do it. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. And so it’s it’s it’s it’s difficult. And this is 10 times more true with Schwartz, who I don’t think is trying that hard to sell it to the Academy. Yeah, yeah. So I don’t know if I’m not really speaking to I when I hear Gnostic, I think of that separation of like flesh and spirit. I’m thinking for me, it’s more the platonic and neoplatonic. There’s this the sense of that symbols are participatory. They’re not just representational. The holding of attention, the tonus, the coincidence of opposites. This has a long history, especially in later neoplatonic Christian thought. And so that’s yeah, I don’t know, because you know, I don’t know how much that that. That was sort of presenting itself in his experience or if he’s bringing it as an interpretive framework to bear on his experience. I don’t know. I I don’t know either, but I tend to enter it from the experiential side of of I think the kind of the the blind men with hands on the elephant. I think he and Schwartz are kind of on the elephant. And I think they’re both tracking the movement of energy and trying to make sense out of it. Well, there is a there is a precedence and I don’t know of its provenance. That’s what I’m sort of asking. So Proclus is one of the later pagan Neoplatonists sort of challenged Plotinus’s idea that we could sort of directly know the ontological one. But what we could know is the the one within us that is our way of participating in the one without. And that sounds a lot like the Jungian notion of self. Right. And yeah. Yes. Right. Which isn’t the easiest thing to like experientially grasp or or conceptually. But that’s right. And I think the one within the whole is a big thing. Right. And I think what I would like to say here is that we’re going to get confused around that word self. Yeah, I don’t like it. I know it means the same stuff and something different, but we’re using the same word and it’s confusing. So if I could pivot here, Dick Schwartz, let’s go to his biography. Yes. So I’m going to tell a brief story and I highly doubt Dick Schwartz is going to watch this. So I hope he’s OK with it. But I had met him a couple of times. There’s no way he would have remembered me. But I was at a psychoanalytic conference in Boston. And I was there. And I was there. And I was there. And I was there. And I was there. And I was there. And I was there. I was at a psychoanalytic conference in Boston and he was one of the keynotes. And I went into the bathroom and who was there next to me? That’s like some movie trope, right? That’s great. Yeah. Yeah. And I took the opportunity awkwardly. I say hi. We have a friend in common. And he was very kind. And I said, well, how are you feeling? And he said, I’m nervous. I’m nervous. My father was a physician. And standing in front of 200 analysts, you know, I’m a little nervous about this. I deeply appreciate it. And what I saw there was his humanity. And I also saw something about his theory that he was nervous to face the academy. He was nervous to face the psychoanalyst. And I don’t blame him. I don’t blame him. He is a very experienced, near theory. And so he did his usual thing. I’ve seen him do it many times. And what I really appreciate about Dick is he’s not this like charismatic cult leader of a guy. He’s actually relatively flat. And what that does is it lets the model speak for itself. And that’s pretty cool. So when Dick Schwartz discovers this, he goes through a similar arc in a way to Jung. He’s earlier in his career, very early in his career. He’s a Ph.D. student in family therapy. Now, I think it’s important to recognize that psychoanalysis dominates the first half of the 20th century. And then there’s this big swing towards behaviorism, which has virtually no theory of mind other than the idea of conditioning. And then we get into cognitive behavioral therapy. But really, thoughts are just treated as things to be kind of manipulated and moved around. And then family systems kind of branches off of that. We’re just going to work with the environment. We’re going to work within the structure of a family system. And the therapist is seen as very much kind of at the head of this project being directive. Not there isn’t a sense of there’s some magic flow or self is here. It’s going to move. It’s it’s looking at a family system. And I think Schwartz is primarily coming out of structural family systems, which is Salman’s work. And it goes like this. Problems in living are coming out of hierarchical systems within the family. So the systems would be the parenting subsystem. There’s a spousal subsystem and there’s a sibling subsystem. If these systems have poor boundaries and are enmeshed or overly rigid, there’s problems. If there isn’t sufficient leadership and clarity about the rules, there are problems. So a family therapist comes in and they join with the family system. They’re kind. They’re empathic. They try to enter it and get to know it. They start tracking the patterns and understanding where structurally the feedback loops are not working. And then they intervene. And their intervention is I’m going to create boundaries. I’m going to pull these systems apart and I’m going to install parents where they should be. And we’re going to make rules and we’re going to do communication. And essentially we’re going to make secure attachments and we’re going to make them functional. But it sounds like they’re primarily dealing with sort of conceptual confusion. Like what are they working with when they’re working with people? You talked very abstractly there, right? You go in and move, but they’re ultimately talking to people. So I’ll paint the picture. Right. I’ll paint the picture. So first off, it’s not an individual in a room. Right. That’s the most important thing. You have an entire family sitting in the counseling room. And so when you say joining with the family, hey, why are we here? What’s the problem? Mom, what do you think? Dad, what do you think? John, Jane, you know, give us your perspectives. OK, it sounds like and it’s now the problem is going to start to be framed in terms of the dynamics in the family. Well, you know, when Johnny does this, dad gets angry. Mom tries to protect and come in between the two of them. And they they track that dynamic. And then the therapist goes through experiential exercises. I’m going to pull mom out of the middle. And this is going to start to sound like I.F.S. I’m going to pull this protective managerial part of the system. I’m going to pull it out of here and have it stand. Sometimes I’m even going to have mom go out of the room. And now I’m going to have dad and Johnny have a conversation without mom here. Right. And we’re going to see how this goes. And if dad’s getting flooded, I’m as a therapist going to step in, I’m going to step in and I’m going to be a little bit directive. And I may say, Johnny, you just sit over here. I’m going to talk with dad, but you can watch. You can listen. Dad, what’s going on for you? And that we try to process and get dad to clearly articulate what’s right. OK. OK. Feel understood by the therapist. That’s that’s the general process. I understand it much better. Thank you. Yeah. So that’s Dick Schwartz. Right. He’s a family therapist. That’s what he does. So, you know, who he’s trying to do this with is eating disordered patients. And here the container doesn’t hold. It breaks just like you. Right. His guiding ethos, the way he makes sense out of what he’s supposed to be doing, fails miserably. Everything he tries to do to get the symptoms to reduce isn’t right. And so he is his brilliant move was essentially to say, I have no clue. And he enters a kind of beginner’s mind, but not totally beginner’s mind. He’s a family. Yeah, he’s any. That grandma. Right. Yeah, I see that right now. Right. So so he goes into the internal world because his eating disordered female clients. They’re saying, well, part of me keeps saying this and I hate that part of me, but it keeps doing this. And he does what he knows to do. He does Salmon, but he’s doing it inside people’s systems. And he even uses some of the same techniques. OK, let’s actually listen to this part. I can’t. I hate it. Well, let’s pivot to that part that hates it. Let’s understand it. So it feels like we’re with it. But then let’s ask it to step back. And now let’s come back. And so we can start talking about what I have this looks like. But I think it’s really important to understand the model. You have to understand. Doesn’t that help it make sense? You know, I read his book and he made that argument. And I’m not trying to damn him by contrast of praise, but he did it much better. Like he just doing that, like see the structural analogy between what you’re doing externally and what you’re doing internally. Yeah, yeah. Excellent. Very helpful. Yeah, it’s and I think the funny thing is that because it had family systems on the on the tag internal family systems, it got lumped in when you learned it in grad school in the 90s. And even still, it’s lumped in in the family therapy class, where you’re learning about how to work with a family in a room. You’re also going to learn this. And they’re not you don’t generally do I.S.S. You can do I.F.S. couples work, but it’s nothing like doing family. Right. I.F.S. is done individually. Eyes closed generally going in and working with different parts of people. It is much more like Jungian work in that way than it is like doing family systems work with family therapists. But what you what Schwartz does not feel compelled to do is develop a robust theory of mind. He is extremely pragmatic. He’s coming from a tradition that doesn’t really care about what’s in there that can’t be measured or seen. What he’s doing is he’s getting results. So what happens as he’s I think he’d say, I’m discovering this theory. I’m not creating this theory is that as parts back up, listen and calm down, that there is a spontaneous thing that happens that he comes to call self or probably the better term is self energy, that this kind of energy, this kind of state of being, I think you calls it called it like a wise mind that has these eight C’s compassion, clarity. I can never remember all of them. But and and just by pulling apart, right, just by just by setting the boundaries the way a good family therapist would you see a system begin to flow and function normally. And that was really then he needed some language around it so that he could describe it to other clinicians and teach the model. And I think it was primarily just measured by how effective it was, not how much kind of consistency or congruence it had as a theory. Yeah. And I think the reality is, is like it’s extremely effective. Yeah. And it’s now well researched and outcome based and and incredibly user friendly. Yeah. Really, really incredible. Yeah, I noted young I mean, so people with their with mental imager ability, they fall on our spectrum, like a Gaussian distribution. And young is clearly way over here in the like about vividness and clarity and distinctiveness and fullness. And then, of course, we know there are people that they completely other end who that’s me. Right. And so I can’t do right. And I’m sort of over here. Yeah. I’ve got pretty good spatial mental imagery, but the visual is right. And so I found a lot of the Jungian practices that like the dream work. That’s a different thing. I’ll put that over here. When I was in yes, I did dream. Right. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about, well, can we do active imagination? And I like, can you picture this? And I was like, well, sort of. And, you know, and it’s like, and so it doesn’t have enough. I don’t know what to call it cognitive clarity to get any significant affect. And I would often go into these things going, well, that was sort of mildly interesting. And it’s like, right. Not transformative. Right. Exactly. Yeah. When I was doing the I.F.S. and it was dialogical. That just opened up so much more for me. And so I got interested in it because of that. But then I but then I wanted I wanted an answer in him. But why? Right. And that answer that I just gave wasn’t there. Right. And right. And so. Right. And so. Right. And, you know, I’m a scientist when I see weight, then I start to look, are there other mismatches? And I won’t go into it, but like I have problems with like he’s got the self, but he also has this other thing, the seat of consciousness or something like that, which is like, what is that? And right. And then there’s there’s all this spatial stuff that is functional, but it’s not. Sorry, I just I don’t want to go. I’m with you. This is where I want. Yeah. No, this is where I wanted to go, because there’s this real tension in I.F.S. that some people may be put off by. Because I think you described it as it’s it’s experiential language. It’s also very pragmatic. It’s a language of training, but it’s not the language of explaining. Like it’s like, like that’s great. Mnemonics. I can use these mnemonics to improve my memory, but they do not give me an accurate representation of how memory works or how it functions. Like the language of training, the language of explaining you. And I’ve got I’ve now developed a whole set of examples. If you just import one into the other, you’re terrifically misled about how attention works, how memory works, et cetera. And that’s the danger, right? It’s like how much bullshit we can believe. And so it’s tough to test this theory other than by its results in terms of how it works with trauma and reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, PTSD. I don’t know the application. I don’t know. But we’ve had enough where we can find equal efficacy between very different psychotherapeutic modalities and you have the dodo problem and that sort of stuff. And so I’m already standing back because I can’t not know that I know it. Right. And so I’m standing back. Right. Well, it’s very efficacious. But like here’s two modalities that are very different from each other. Psychoanalytic and, you know, EFT and they, you know, their efficacious are roughly equal. And the rapport between the therapist and the patient seems to be the single best predictor. And you know all this. And so that’s why I’m sort of right. I don’t deny the efficacy and I don’t. I think the efficacy is evidence that there’s excellent language of training. But to say that that is good evidence for explaining, I don’t buy it. That’s my problem. I’m 100 percent with you. And as a clinician, I can kind of let go of that, which is nice. Yes, of course. Because that right. Right. But I think I think you’re it’s not a it’s not a really robust model of the mind. It’s a very pragmatic user friendly one. But I wanted to. I guess I want to ask you right now. There are a lot of ways people could go watch videos about what I have. But if it would be helpful to kind of walk through the process a little bit, do we assume people kind of know that I think the Schwartz’s concept of self is really interesting? I think the title is misleading and it really isn’t. Self, the way Jung’s talking about. No, I think here’s what please. And I’m borrowing this from my from my therapist, who I brought this to. And when I said what you’re you know, you were president of the institute. Tell me, I don’t know what is what is what is this actually? And he said, you would probably say that that Dick is talking about the ego, that he’s talking about the ego when it’s not in the grip of the complex, when it is at a very kind of a resting state, a wise mind place. But that Jung Jung wouldn’t call what he’s calling the self. He wouldn’t call it this. Yeah, it doesn’t have that humanist quality to it. It was not on the list of all the seas. Right. And that that was like, right. And therefore it doesn’t lend itself to the kind of theorizing that Jung did about religion and spirituality. It’s like, OK. Am I is that landing with you? Is that fair to say? Well, it’s I think the problem I have in teasing this out as I go through I.F.S. It again, it’s not experiential because when you when parts step back, this energy comes in that is very different and the system really does kind of autocorrect. Well, can I talk about that? That is pretty amazing. Yeah, it didn’t come up as the union self. It came up like Socrates. And what I found was happening is that what would be effective with a part was right. Right. To be socratically reflective to it. Like I’d be talking to the part and I’d like Socrates, I’d say, it seems to me you’re using this normative structure. You’re running things by this rules. Oh, yeah. And do you think you’re actually following that rule yourself? And then the part would like, whoa. And then then something would shift. And I was thinking that that’s very different from what I’m reading in this material. I love that you’re using that. I appreciate you using your own experience as an example, because I think that helps a lot. And I think you described it as putting the part into a port. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I think one one of the most important pieces of doing I.F.S. as I was trained was that there’s the moment of encounter with a part. And then there is a bit of discernment about in the model, you’d say, are you are you in self or are you blended with? Yeah, yeah. You know, and the diagnostic question is, how do you feel towards this part part you’re encountering? And if you don’t feel curious, compassionate, fairly centered, if you don’t feel that that self energy, then the assumption is you’re probably blended with the part. So the question I’d put back to you is, was that a Socratic part of you? Like I think in the model of I.F.S., we’d say that could probably be a manager part, you know, a very strong developed intellectual manager part who in the you know, part of I.F.S. is these parts are actually very distinct. I mean, he really, I think, believes their little beings in a sense that have their own autonomy in there. And this part has a lot of ego strength, the Socratic part. And so if it comes in with some, he would probably say self like energy or a part that has a high degree of self energy. And this is where the model starts getting really murky. Yeah, that’s that. That was the phenomenological problem for me. It’s like, well, that’s right. When I when when and I didn’t I didn’t impose that. That’s what sort of came up spontaneously. But it’s like that seems right. I seem to have all the C’s right. And right. And it’s right. It’s clearly not sort of standard egoic, John, that’s moving around the world and doing this stuff. And so and then yeah, yeah, that’s where I just sort of. Well, go ahead. So this Socrates was insatiably curious. Yes, very true. And and and and that curiosity. Well, I think the people being asked the questions may have felt trapped. I don’t perhaps is the intention is just to follow the curiosity. Well, what came up was the intention to sort of follow the curiosity and midwife the part that was being talked to. Right. Well, so so right. This is where I think this is why I think the term self energy ends up being a little more useful than getting into what is the cell. And because it is to know it by its sort its fruit or its traits, it is is essentially what the model is about. So is there the presence of curiosity and compassion? If there isn’t, this isn’t going to go very well. You’re probably blended with a part that’s reacting or is in some sort of. Locked in in a dialogue together, maybe what young would call a complex. Right. Right. In a sense. So, you know, the action is identifying how I feel towards this part and then pivoting. You know, if you had had a negative reaction, let’s say the common thing is we encounter a critic. Yeah, and it wasn’t that I’m very clear it wasn’t that it was very like the when I’m when when I when I’m being a good teacher and I enter into this curiosity exploration, helping a student unfold themselves, helping them to reflect on themselves so they get a greater self awareness. And yeah, it was very much that feeling to it. So I mean, that sounds like a great description of self energy and the weather that is self the end. And by the way, I went through I went through the most recent Dix Schwarz book, which I would highly recommend actually to anybody who’s interested. No bad parts. Right. And I tried to count up the number of ways he used the word self. And I got up to about seven like yourself, the self, ourself, a self, sometimes all capital, sometimes just capital S. And I thought, OK, we I don’t I don’t see a way of teasing all this. Right. But pragmatically for people. In doing the work, the. The pulling apart like a good family therapist is what you’re looking to do, and there’s certain ways of doing that. I think it well, why don’t I pause there? What do you think is salient and useful so far in this conversation? All of this is tremendously helpful. I think the idea about energy flowing through a particular function rather than a particular ontological entity discovered or presencing itself is certainly much clearer to the phenomenology I experienced. And then I had a question around and it helps me articulate a question around blending because. And, you know, and Schwartz talks about this in other ways, and also it comes out in ally work and others you at some in some ways you’re lending your voice right to the part. And that’s your voice. And but you know what? And it’s this semi-autonomous thing. And it’s like. Where does that shade into blending and where does it be a proper part of the practice? And and like you, you know, you can just sort of sort of pragmatic your way through it in the particular experience. But there’s a sense of right. And this is the martial artist in me says, yeah, but like there is a function for practical theory in that it helps you get sharper at your skills. And if and if my framing of it’s vague, my skills will remain vague. And so that was another concern that came up. And it’s like because it’s like when I’m when I’m sharing my voice, am I sort of secretly projecting and then I’m blending in the Schwartz sense? But like, sorry, I. Well, this is no, that’s great. That’s great. So. Again, I love that we’ve we’ve we’ve embodied the tension between experience. Yeah, yeah, I think so very well. Because the practice of I.F.S. feels to me like martial arts. It feels like the the it’s embodied, it’s creative. I mean, one of the seasons for self-energy is creative. There is a very much flow experience to it. Now, it’s grounded in technique that actually is rather mechanical. And one of one of the things that I used to be cynical about with I.F.S. is it’s sort of like going to the McCann. I mean, it really is. It’s like and that. But what it is, is that’s the family therapist. Yeah, yeah. The family therapist looking at it. You sounded like a technician, right? It sounds like a technician. Yeah, it’s a very technical model if you’re a therapist. And that’s great because it’s not to become a really good psychoanalyst is almost cost prohibitive these days for how much time and energy you have to put into it. And this is one of the other genius parts of Dick Schwartz is he did create this incredibly accessible thing that could be used much more broadly. And people can afford to go learn it. I just want to say and I think you know this, but I want to make sure people listening, I’m only criticizing it because I think it’s valuable. Right. Oh, yeah. Oh, and I don’t worry about me with that. I’m I. Yeah, it’s fine. It’s great. So the flow that happens that is is constrained by here’s the here’s the sequencing. Here’s the model. So let’s make sure we’re let’s make sure we’re actually practicing this. So one of that how do you feel towards question is an important safeguard and learning to discern the answer to that question. You know when your your thought of am I blended or am I not? Well, there is a technique. There is a technique to discerning. And that is slowing that slowing it down even more. And just checking out. How am I actually feeling towards this part? If your general response is pretty even, pretty neutral, curious, then you’re you’re good. It’s OK. It’s it’s good enough as you experienced. Right. You had this experience of this part engaging in dialogue with you. And actually, that part ends up moving and transforming a bit in its thinking. And I would imagine actually, I’m curious how your relationship to that part changed coming out of that experience. Or we could say how its relationship to you might have. Well, when in a couple instances where I put it in, well, like not not I put it in, but the what I was doing, put it into that kind of self-reflective aporia. It felt. It did. It felt like the part. Experienced. A release and I felt like I was less being I don’t know how to put it charged at by the part. Do you know what I mean? It’s not I’m trying to capture both the electrical sense and the military sense. Oh, that’s great. Right. And the part that that’s why I keep doing this. The part would go like that. And that that charge would drop away. And then it felt like well, it felt more like what happens when you know, when I’m doing my dialogical practices and then this other thing could happen. And and sometimes the I wouldn’t get the clear sort of visually represented transformation that Schwartz talks about. It changed from like a monster into a wizard. Or I wouldn’t get anything like that. But I would just get the sense that this isn’t quite the right word. So bear with me, Seth. But the part became and I mean this platonically. I don’t mean it Cartesian. It became more rational. It became more responsible to to normative considerations. It was started caring about the true, the good, the beautiful with me in interesting ways. Now, I don’t mean theoretically or anything. It wasn’t theorizing, but it was like, oh, right. It’s like we could talk about a bigger picture. We could both talk about a bigger. I’ll borrow your phrase. I’ll borrow your phrase. Relevance realization. Yeah. Yeah. It’s so that leads me right into why this is excellent. This is an. I want to say that that that’s exactly right. It’s like it’s like something unlocked in the parts capacity for relevance realization. Yes. Excellent. Excellent. Right on the nose. Yes. Right. Here’s how it attaches to attachment. I didn’t mean to say that. But like so family therapy, you’re working on creating boundaries and ultimately creating safety. So picture the strange situation test we talked about last time when I leaves the room. Right. Right. And you have an anxious attachment system. Well, you have every nervous system that goes up when it feels the disconnection with the safe attachment object, the provisional regulating secure attachment object that we all use to manage our nervous systems. It disappears on us. What’s the we have total autonomic arousal. We have higher functioning goes offline cognitive functioning. We don’t think in a linear way. We’re now in a survival fight, flight, freeze kind of mode. Mom comes back in. And what we see normally is we see we see this come down and we see the developmentally appropriate stuff come back online, i.e. the child goes to play. We talked. Yeah. So think about that part. What happened that in disconnect from you? It’s heightened. It’s not thinking. It’s it’s it’s over aroused. It’s charged. And it is it is coming at you. The picture of anxious attachment when a mom comes back in the room, the normal picture was kid reaches for mom. Mom picks up the kid soothes and the kid calls the the feedback loop works. It works. And the system corrects itself in the anxious attachment. The kid doesn’t calm down, but starts hitting the right and getting further ramped up. So think of this. Think of it this way. You’re not in that self-energy. You’re in another part that’s trying its best to address this. This this heightened part over here. But the more it tries to help, the more this part actually like like when mom comes back in the room, it’s actually more upsetting. Because why? Because I see the the object that I want soothing from, but it’s not working. That that happens internally. The parts escalate and they they they polarize and they go at each other. And the bringing in of self. The calming down the moving of one part that’s trying to do the job that it can’t do. And the bringing in of a Socratic calm, curious energy. This part is now encountering something that can regulate it. And it and it comes down and it’s a relationship. It is an attachment. That’s brilliant. It’s happening in turn. I hope you’re writing this somewhere. That’s a. I’m sure it’s written down. It’s it’s it’s EFT integrated with internal. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, that’s wonderful. That’s wonderful. Yeah. Yeah. I it’s the two things that the two theories that meant the most to me in the second kind of part of my career coming out of I actually was trained as a family therapist. Oh, wow. That was my beginning. Yeah. So I started out as a structural strategic family therapist and then moved into psychoanalysis. And this is a very happy marriage of those two here of doing this relational work internally. It is so it is very much because sorry, sorry for interrupting, but I know. So have you ever done like EFT with a part like asked it what it’s where it’s what it’s feeling, where it’s feeling it in its. Yeah, that’s how I do. I have. Oh, my gosh. I do. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Yeah. To go together. The Socratic stuff and the the EFT very well go together. Yes. I actually don’t experience a whole lot of difference anymore in it when I’m practicing. It feels very similar. There’s more energy in the room when there’s a couple. Yeah. There’s just more energy in the room. And I love it. But the set of the progression of questions and techniques feels just about the same as working with parts. That’s interesting. Because it’s it’s an attachment. This is Schwartz is using an attachment model. It’s it’s a relational model between a part that’s in a role of regulating and leadership. feeling under resourced, overstimulated or tasked with something that it can’t let go of. And so, you know, the supplying of that energy, this part is trying to imprint. But you connected it with relevance realization, too, and you’re connecting the attachment and the relevance realization. I think that’s wonderful. And that makes me think of something. I didn’t put this together. But like when I’ve done EFT, you get this thing that like when you when you sort of get below the capping emotion to the buried emotion, there’s something therapeutic in the emotion just being able to being recognized. Right. There’s you don’t have to like that. You know, I did. And I did work with Les Greenberg. And of course, every every innovator is over over extends what their claims. But like he was, oh, that’s all you need to do. But and I don’t totally agree with that. But I get what he was talking about. You just do. And it’s underneath the anger is this sadness. And that was just the sadness being able to express itself is alleviating and ameliorating. And I hadn’t put that together. But it’s yeah, that’s that’s really cool. Yeah. Yes, it is really cool. So it’s you know, the dialogical self. Yeah. I don’t know if we come up with a more attachment based term because it is I think Dick moves down as a family therapist into a field of attachment internally. So it’s it is like the attached. It’s art is the self, the center of consciousness, the observing interacting ego. Is that is that in a place where and in EFT, you know, there’s the acronym A.R.E. is the attachment figure available, responsive and emotionally. Yeah. Well, that’s what Schwartz is asking. He’s are you calm? Are you curious? Are you creative? Are you present to this part in a way you want to show up where you can be responsive part as if you’re an EFT therapist to a degree? That’s what that’s well, that’s right. He coaches that. I mean, in the self in the self I.F.S. stuff, you’re actually encouraged to kind of take a therapeutic stance towards the part. That’s very helpful. Imagine being a therapist here to this part. Yeah. Do you have you because you’ve got and this is what I mean about theoretical precision gives a more precise skill and it even allows you to ask questions that weren’t formulated before. Have you encountered that different parts have different attachment styles like some might be anxious, some might be avoided? Oh, that’s fascinating. Oh, yeah. That’s fascinating. It is really it freaks me out a little bit because then we get into, well, are these really autonomous? Yeah. Self here, you know that and he he shorts, you know, it’s it sells all the way down. It’s it’s all you know, parts have parts. Yeah, I have. And I have the book he wrote with with Falcone or Falcon, Falcon, Falconer. I don’t know which show it is. Minds oneself. Oh, OK, I actually haven’t read that. Well, and the problem is I’m reading the book and that book, to my mind, is trying to make a theoretical argument. And it’s I don’t want to be unkind. It’s not doing a very good job. There’s even some, you know, scholastic errors, miscitations, the wrong etymology of a word is proposed. And it’s like, that’s not actually the etymology of that word. Like there’s a lack of scholastic care. There’s there’s also gems of insight running through it. I don’t I’m not saying people don’t buy the book, but it was it was. But but what you’re. I think it’s a very fair criticism and we’ve made it several in several rounds. And it is it it just is. But it lacks some. But I like I like what this what’s happening here. And so, well, now, now we’ve got a bit more time and I don’t want to derail if you’ve got a sense of flow. But we’re now getting to you. You raised it. You raised the ontological question. And of course, this is something I’m very interested in as a cognitive scientist, as a philosopher. And and and and I think we both agree that the Schwarzian framework doesn’t really have a place or even what you do when an archetypal element comes up in some kind of which happened to me. And that was one of the things that sort of threw me off sort of unexpectedly. And I was wondering if that was part of why you’re making the contrast between the Schwarzian and the Jungian. I would love to go there. I think I didn’t know if we’d get to it either. But the you in episode eight, you shared your experience of encountering her. Yes, quite spontaneously. And I know you’ve you’ve talked more about it recently. And that is a thing that is documented in the IFS model. And he calls it a guide, which, you know, triggers people like crazy. But, you know, that’s the label that he uses. And I think his idea is that this is a part of the self. This is a part of this system that is not coming from out here, but is coming from in here. But it possesses wisdom and a certain perspective. That it’s trying to impart to you to to contribute to. I didn’t know about this. Lend to healing to fullness. Yeah. What was your conception? Well, I forget the name of the book. I was doing the self therapy book and Schwartz wrote an approving forward for it. So I thought it was kind of formally approved. And there was there was the talk of like there’s there’s guardians and there’s parts and then there’s exiles. But I don’t remember ever reading it. So that’s it’s in this most it’s in no bad. And there’s a there’s a new book. And this is we’re going to open up part three here, but there’s a new book that he wrote. And I’m forgetting the author, but she works with psychedelics and integrates IFS into psychedelic work. And they as you know, they have a very special group of people who are in charge of the guide. And they, as you might imagine, encountering guides is a lot more common in that work. And so it’s elaborated. Is the book published or is it forthcoming? Yeah, it’s out. You can’t remember the name. I just want to get I can look it up. I can look it up. Oh, it’s psychedelic, I think, or something like that. He’s one of the. He’s yes, he’s he’s on there. I’ll look for it. It’s OK. Don’t don’t get derailed. OK, OK. So I was ignorant of that part of his framework. I did not been taught. It’s it’s newer. Yeah, it’s newer. But it is something that I think he’s trying to account. OK. And he places it he places it as a type of part in the psyche. You see, even that doesn’t feel right to me, because if you allow me to use my language, her me, please shows up more transjectively, the parts show up very subjectively. And that that. Oh, God, that’s well said. Really well said. Yeah. And that you’re right. This is where I think the Jungian frames a lot more. OK, OK. It just you know, you I actually I don’t remember if we talked about. I have a Hermes tattoo. It’s like really connected to me when I heard this story, because there’s a wonderful book for for those approaching in or trying to make its sense out of midlife by an author named Murray Stein. And it is called In Midlife, but it is a meditation on Hermes. Oh, really? And oh, it’s lovely. It is he’s a Jungian. And and for those looking to I really want to plug this. Those looking for an introduction to Jung that is not translated from German and is so accessible and wonderful. Murray Stein, the author that I mentioned, Jung’s map of the soul, the most wonderful summary of the theory is so useful. I highly recommend. But, John, I think in midlife would be a really fun read. Because yeah, Hermes shows up as a guide in the strangest of ways. And he’s a trickster. And you don’t know it’s him till afterwards a lot of times. And he escorts us through liminal space. Yeah. And I was driving today and I don’t know how to describe it. There’s a knock on the door of my consciousness. And Hermes was basically saying, look, I don’t want to ever be in trouble. I don’t want to ever be intrusive because that’s going to trigger your fundamentalist stuff. So what do we do here? And I said, I don’t know. What do we do? And he says, how about I sort of give you this invitation and you can say yes or no and no hard feelings. And I said, OK, let’s do that. And he said, how about now? And I said, yeah. And then he said and basically what he said is, you know, we were having a lot of useful discussions, but there’s I want to. I also want to be the psychopomp of your psyche. I want to help take you between different levels of your psyche. And like, right. And that and then and then it was also. Yeah. And and you’re you’ve always been sort of hesitant of the trickster figure. And he said, well, what about your sense of humor? And I’m alive in that. Could you could you could you could could that work for you? And I said, yeah, that really lands. I really like that. And so like and I ended up doing a kind of practice you do where you’re trying to sort of go to deeper levels of the self. It’s sort of based on some stuff like from the Enlightenment intensive. And but but mixed with IAEA EFT. And he sort of was guiding it. And it was really weird because I don’t usually have like sort of I don’t want it. This isn’t quite the right word, like hallucinatory. It’s not that’s not the right word. But I felt like Hermes was holding my hand as I’m doing these practices. And it was like, and it was like, oh, oh, oh, I get it. And and right. And it was like I like like I had a guide or with me as I’m doing this. Yeah. Sort of EFT. And then and then the other one was there wasn’t a lot of thing. It was just like it was just sort of like a penny dropping about. Oh, yeah. My sense of humor. It has this it has a spirit to it. And it’s very similar to the insight in the. So I let Hermes take up residence in sort of insight and inspiration and intuition, right, and interpretation. He’s Hermes, right. But this he said, yeah, but this is another thing. And it’s almost you sort of know this as a cognitive scientist, that the insight machinery and the humor machinery play with each other. And I went, that’s really good. And like I said, these aren’t just conceptual convictions. They’re landing. They’re landing in the very taste and texture and tempo of my mind and my body. And your yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Getting a little bit over enthusiastic here. Right. But this is great. No, it’s great. And I thank you so much for being willing to to make it personal. I already I already split my guts a couple of times. So it’s like, you know, in for a penny in for a pound. Right. Yeah. All right. But that’s lovely. I mean, and I think that, you know, I mean, Schwartz locates it as a specific kind of part. And I don’t know if you through Jungian lens, if you’d say I’m encountering the archetype of Hermes here. I don’t have any problem with you. Again. Yeah, I don’t have the function of like bringing stuff from one level to another. And that what can I talk about that even so? Hermes was very much about don’t just make this an inner presence. I want you to like you said, it would be helpful if you had like like like there’s thought for the intuition and there’s Michael for the inspiration. And there’s Hermes, the Greek Hermes for the interpretation. And there’s the Hanuman for the leaping of insight and and, you know, and and have it also from the outside in as well as from the inside out and have those resonating with each other. And that has been just as a practice. That’s been really, really powerful and helpful. Amazing, amazing. I mean, I don’t know what to say, because it’s just wonderful. And it also your your image of sort of up, down, in, out that as a cognitive scientist, I mean, you’re you’re you’re embodying data processing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And being open, as I think you’ve been you’ve been moving in your in your work, you’ve been moving towards this. This is just a layman’s perspective. But like, what does it look like to be in practice to be creating me? Yeah. Yeah. And how does one do that and grow in that and do it efficiently and safely? And you sound like somebody who’s now trusting the apparatus. The data processing is. It’s going three dimensionally in a way that feels like Hermes may have held your hand and allowed to try. And this is the attachment. Yeah. He’s created safety in your system. There’s a trust now that you’re not alone as you venture into places where the data might have been too scary to trust. They couldn’t be held right here. They had to be held in other places where you weren’t as confident. It’s even like so I had the embodiment aspects. And of course, more exploration is needed. But I typically have held like that sort of black burning of like towards depression here. But what happened? Right. Hearts. Yeah, but here. But more left. Right. Like this. And then Hermes basically was. But there’s a sadness here. And let it burn there and feel that. And I was, oh, and that was a very spontaneous. And it was like I had been like I had just sort of. This is too strong, but that hadn’t occurred to me as a possibility. You know what I mean? And of course, right. And it came out and it was like, oh, right. That gives me access to all kinds of sort of memories and unprocessed material that I didn’t have access before. So first off, what that brings up for me is that and we did this, I think, in the I.F.S. training that we did, we did with your foundation that I always I often begin by when we identify a part you ask the question or you can ask the question, where do you feel it in the box? I always do that. Yeah. Right. But from an attachment perspective, from an I.F.T. perspective, I like to personally add and please put your hand there. Oh, yeah. As a symbol, as a symbol of your attention. It says essentially, and I often will ask people, if you don’t mind, just say the phrase, I’m here in your inner voice. Right. Right. Right. Right. I’m here. And then just notice what happens. Maybe nothing. But I would say, you know, 75 percent of the time, whatever was located here just in feeling the hand and we invoke, I suggest it’s a symbol of your presence and attention. Sometimes I’ll even go further on the attachment frame and say, and it also says, I’m not going anywhere. That’s it. I’ve been spontaneously doing this. And that’s right. And the part the part settles, right? It the the the agitation, the pain, it lessens. And then a dialogue is much more free flowing when there isn’t all that pressure and energy. But it moves. It’s stuff locates. Well, I talked about that later in Socrates. This right. And we also did it in the elusive eye. There’s this there’s the imaginal movement of the locus of the seat of the self, which was also problematic for me for the Schwartz seems to have it as a sort of a stable location. It’s like that’s not that’s not that’s not the phenomenology for me. Where I’m I’m going to use the letter I as a verb, where I’m eyeing from is often not very here or here. It could be here. It could be a gut. Right. Or sometimes it’s in my right arm. Right. Yes. Yes. I have a client who. Really does this work beautifully and has his own way of doing it. And he he has the ability now to he’ll lie down, eyes closed, and we’ll just walk in slowly into the space. And I sit quietly a lot as his psyche now just kind of takes him. But a lot of it centers in the jaw. And so we’ll we’ll we’ll put hands on the jaw and I’m just present. I’m here and it’ll loosen. And and then memories will come and scenes will come. And it’s it’s fascinating. It’s really wonderful stuff. And it is it is very deeply embodied. Oh, very much a lot of the and it the idea of wisdom and that wisdom is embodied. Yeah. I just I think in the West, we haven’t. We haven’t had real vehicles for that. We’re slow to it. We’re maybe thousands of years behind in some ways. But like, I feel like your work is really. Aimed at catching us. That’s what I’m trying to do. And this conversation. Yeah, this this conversation is wonderful and that it can be facing the Academy, but also open to the world. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, it’s good to. Yeah, it’s helpful for me to also articulate in both senses of the word. This phenomenon. So next time, because we I think we should stop here for length wise, because we could just talk forever. Yes. Right. I’d like to start sort of where we’re leaving off. And, you know, I want to I want to and I don’t want to. I’m not going to try and push you into roles that you don’t feel appropriate to. Like now I want you, Seth, to be a scientist. I’m not going to do that, but I want to keep. I want to keep moving between the phenomenology and the functionality of trying to get to the ontology of this, because, as you know, and after Socrates, I was I was basically proposing a dialogical model of the self, which, you know, moves out of the monolithic, monological, monophasic sense of the self, which I think is a significant cultural cognitive project that needs to be addressed. And what what what does what role does parts work? And maybe we can also talk a little bit about Raft’s ally work. And what what does that have to go ahead? Go ahead. No, I want to learn more about that. That’s what I’m going to be talking. I’m not. I’m going to be talking. I’m going to be recording a video with all I can. I can’t remember Cody’s last name, but he’s somebody who’s been doing ally work for like three decades and and and also like because I you don’t know. And but I met with him. We had an extended conversation. No, this person centered, grounded, they’re reflective. They’re open to dial. Like all the good marks were passed. Right. Right. Right. Well, the check marks. Yeah. And so we’re going to have that. And maybe I’ll be able to get that at least a nonpublic version of it to you fairly soon so you could see that conversation. John, yeah. And then that would be fantastic. I’ll make I’ll ask Ben to do that when I record that video. And yeah, because I and I you see what I just want to make sure. I want to do the phenomenology, the functionality, the ontology. What does it do about this sort of what I call the Socratic shift where we’re trying like because I think this is really central to the meeting crisis at the cognitive cultural level. And again, what’s the relationship between parts work and ally work and young? Because Young has all of he has sort of parts work and ally work in his stuff, as far as I can tell. Right. And so that’s what I’d like to do next. Yeah. How’s that sound? I would I would be delighted. I want to make a note. And I imagine it’ll come up in the conversation. But we did not talk about a very important category of parts that really does present a challenge as we try to move into wisdom or kind of a stronger container. And we didn’t talk much about eggs. Yes. Yes. And there there in my experience, there are kind of two kinds of I.F.S. There’s like the manager level, which is dealing with protective parts, parts that have roles that are serving us. And we can get good. We can we can get better relationships with our managers fairly quickly. Yeah. But what is actually requires a lot of skill and can be dangerous. So one has to be careful is working with parts that are holding trauma. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Holding experiences that have not been processed. I think it would be important. Yeah. And when I was doing that, when I was doing the self therapy, I.F.S. with with Chris, we would take turns. One would be a person in the process. But I only I only. I just I don’t know if this is the right language, but I only got to an exile once. It was powerful. And that was also a concern for me because it was like, are the other sessions failures? Right. And it didn’t strike me that they were right. Right. So that’s OK. So pin with a red flag and a neon bulb, and it’s all there. And we’ll we’ll we’ll address that one in our next. So, Seth, again, you’re coming back, but this has been truly wonderful. I mean, it really caught fire. You know, that that sort of marker of the logos, I think was we were both sort of sparking insights and right. Right. And I want to thank you. And I always give my guests an opportunity for the last word. You had it last time. And it can be whatever kind of word you want, summative, provocative, you know, whatever. But the last word. Well, I have to I feel like I need to invoke Dick Schwartz’s sort of all mark phrase here, which is all parts welcome. And I think what I would just also like to say about that is that the pursuit of wisdom and virtue from an attachment perspective could be framed as the pursuit of trust, the learning of trust. And it is a dangerous thing to trust. And and yet like Hermes is kind of encouraging you like we can’t really get to the next level without some risk. And so I like to think that. The connections we make externally and internally, you know, really are kind of the key forward, you know, the the door to walk through. So I think I’ll leave it at that. And just thank you so much. It’s really impacted me getting to have these conversations. And and thank you again to everybody who interacts with this, too. So I’m just I’m going to break my rule and say something about your last word. Go for it. Yeah. And if we could maybe come back to it. I’ve been going through the work with a very good friend of mine, Dan Schiappi, which the work of Brandom and Pinkard on Hegel and Hegel’s model of rationality and Brandom’s most recent book is Spirit of Trust, because he argues that what Hegel is trying to get us to realize is that trust and rationality are deeply bound up together in a profound way. That gets right to the heart of your work. Exactly. Exactly. And that’s why Hegel is becoming also a very important figure for me. Thank you, Seth. Thank you. I’m glad you said that. Thank you, John.