Analogue eye


This one has been on my mind… could  not find it in my digital mess.  IMG_0992.JPG

I see my hand in it and a lot of helping hand from the tools.   But it is not the tools!  It my analogue eye.  Old music.

Photos in the snow with an analogue eye:



Psychodramatic Couple Therapy Training

Just created version another version of the Outline for the course.  Here is the link to the whole document and then some excerpts:

PCT Training – current version


About Psychodramatic Couple Therapy Training 

Psychodrama is a philosophy and a method for working with people to foster spontaneity and creativity. When the psychodrama ethos is present in couple therapy it transforms the work. The couple make meaning of their life and develop new ways of being through encounter. The therapist works with the warm up of the partners, respectfully in the here and now, as a psychodrama director.  For an introduction to psychodrama see

J.L. Moreno, the founder of sociometric methods such as psychodrama and sociodrama wrote about interpersonal relationship therapy:

“… an active form of psychotherapy in which the personal and interpersonal problems … are treated at the same time.”

Moreno, 1977:233.

“Forms of treatment are necessary which are able to reach the interpersonal syndromes as deeply, if not more so, than it would a single person. Interpersonal therapy represents a special category; it might well be classified apart from individual and group psychotherapy”

Moreno & Moreno, 1975:45.

Much of Moreno’s Psychodrama Volume 1 is devoted to marriage therapy.  Psychodrama has a theory of child development that is related to adult functioning. Central to psychodrama theory are the concepts of spontaneity and tele (the relationship between people including love). Begegnung – translated as encounter is the heart of psychodramatic couple therapy.

Moreno was one of the first marriage therapists, with a session recorded in 1937. In the last 30 years specialist modes of couple therapy training have been developed. Many of them draw on psychodramatic roots. This course provides the required training for this specialist field. Psychodrama is recognised as a form of psychotherapy training by PBANZ. Couple therapy is one of the items covered by the psychotherapist scope of practice.

Walter Logeman

Walter Logeman, in collaboration with group of NZ trainers, will be the main trainer for this course. He is a Trainer, Educator and Practitioner (TEP) in the Christchurch Institute for Training in Psychodrama (CITP) who are offering this course. He has conducted Working with Couples professional development workshops since 2009. Walter describes his motivation for presenting this course:

“In 2009 I wrote an article in the AANZPA Journal called The Imago Affair. I concluded with the intention: “… to explore how we can develop relationship therapy beyond what we know today. I think we can use the psychodrama process to expand and to enrich the method, to explore possibilities and to consciously learn and evolve.” Since then, I have been teaching and practising couple therapy using psychodrama. It is a comprehensive and holistic way to teach couple therapy. It is time to offer this course.

“Couple therapy is a form of group work. This training is a form of group work. In this course we apply the same values and methods as we do in the work with couples. We produce encounter.  The relationship is a drama. Each partner is, in turn, the protagonist and the auxiliary ego.  We understand the process through role theory. We think in terms of warm up, action, sharing and spontaneity. The therapist is the director. The therapy room becomes the stage. Approaching a couple with the theory and practice of psychodrama as a guide is a delight. I’m enthusiastic to offer a course which trains psychodrama by focussing one application of the method. I am sure the course will be of value to new and experienced therapists and psychodramatists.

“We live in a time of urgent warnings about the planet. I am reminded of J.L. Moreno’s book, Who shall Survive? (1978) as I write this.  He was dismayed that survival was approached by biological and technological means and not by social means. He developed new relational tools and they remain important for the survival of humankind. This vision motivates me to bring this course in couple therapy to your attention. My hope is you will be inspired and take up the call.”

EFT, RLT and another perspective – Encounter

I’ve just listened to this episode of The Couples Therapists Couch

 In this episode, Emotionally Focused Therapist, Figs O’Sullivan, conceptualizes a case from the standpoint of working from the EFT perspective. Relational Life Therapist, Shane Birkel, talks about how an RLT therapist would work with the same couple. Figs and Shane talk through some of the similarities and differences in the two approaches and how they view couples cases that come in for therapy.

I’m immediately drawn to the conversation, and want to participate.  I appreciate the value systems in both models.

EFT: empathy, people are not bad, healing is not an individual thing, it is relational, between the couple.

RLT: accountability, the distinction between latent and blatant, shame and grandiosity, influence of patriarchy.

They both see the relationship with the therapist as important.

What they have in common is the way the therapists work, listening, reframing, validating and valuing.  All the way through both say “I will empathise, I will tell, I will validate… the therapists are active with one partner while the other one listens.

As I think of how this happens in psychodramatic couple therapy there is a difference.

The therapist will do similar work to form a relationship with each partner, enough to establish their credibility as a facilitator.  Facilitating encounter is not about content.  The couples’ world that is produced in a new way.  Facilitation is about the process. The therapist produces the drama so the couple have a new connecting experience.

The couple take turns. One is the talker, the other the listener. (protagonist, auxiliary) The therapist assists the couple to:

Listen so the other will talk
Talk so the other will listen

The therapist is both a producer of the drama and an auxiliary to each of the participants (modelling mirroring , role reversal and doubling). The drama unfolds step by step in such a way that the couple experience their “truth” without the fight and flight.

Mary is the “protagonist” she is talking.

Mary: You are so angry, you wont listen to me. you ignore my needs and walk off and slam the door.

With doubling and coaching she learns to say:

Mary: When I hear the door slam, I think you are out of control. I think the child in you has taken over.  I feel powerless, scared, sad.

Bob has warmed up to being in her world, to listen, to be there, to put aside his side of the story (for now).  He is able, to be a good auxiliary:

Bob: When I slam the door, you think I’m out of control and you feel scared and powerless. (good enough mirror)

When I put myself in your shoes and see your world through your eyes what makes sense is : (he does not need to say this each time but he learns that is what he is doing.)

You are helpless when I walk away.

You are scared when I slam doors.

You have been telling me this for a long time and I have not really heard it.

(good enough role reversal, she nods)

I imagine you are fed up and desperate.

(good enough doubling, i.e. articulating thoughts and feelings she has not said but might have.)

A moment like this can happen in the first session. All the relational  work is done by the partners, the therapist’s job is to produce that encounter.  Facilitation is a big work, and it requires a good relationship between the therapist and the client.  It is different from being the auxiliary, or the protagonist.  It is to be the director, to use psychodrama language.


How did Bob become such an effective auxiliary?

Lets explore another scenario (an alternate take in this session).  Lets focus Bob’s ability to maintain his commitment to be with his partner.

Mary: You are so angry, you wont listen to me. you ignore my needs and walk off and slam the door.

Bob may not offer the mirroring (see above) he may say:

Bob: I can’t listen to more of this stuff. I’m always the one who is in the wrong.

The therapist then works with Bob (mirroring, role reversal, doubling) to assist him  to stick his job of being with her.

For example the therapist might be along side Bob, and double him to make an “aside”:

Therapist as Bob: I find it so painful to be blamed as the one who is the problem. It hurts.  She may be right I do slam doors but I’m desperate.  I don’t want to do that.  I don’t know what else to do when I’m attacked.

I said I’d stay with her.  I can see she is in pain.  I can see her her pain is coming out as blame.  Maybe I could stick to being the listener.  See through to her pain.

The therapist checks with Bob that the doubling is accurate.  He also checks that the doubling is assisting Mary to see Bob.

The therapist could take another approach and produce an enactment. Bob steps aside and sees himself (briefly enacted by the therapist) and expresses to himself:

Bob:  You can tell her about your pain later.  I can see you are being triggered, she is not your father.

Bob contains his pain and does the harder job of seeing through her attack to the pain:

Bob: When I slam the door, you think I’m out of control and you feel scared and powerless. (good enough mirror)


Mary has now had the experience of Bob listening, she might notice how her talking has an impact on how he listens. Bob has learnt how to listen and stay with her.  The core difficulty has been attended to in the here and now production of a new version of their drama.

And then Bob has a turn at being the protagonist. He may well get in touch with the 10 year old boy.

The therapist has been a producer, and an auxiliary.

Listened to the artist – Julia Holderness


Listened to a talk tonight by Julia Holderness

There was no mention of “the theatre workshops at the Bauhaus” that were in the blurb & what attracted me.

Wonderful exploration of metaxy, medial aspect, “truth”.

Exhibitions | University of Canterbury
— Read on

Working with a range of archival materials from the Macmillan Brown Library & Heritage Collections, Julia Holderness explores her own textile making alongside that of artist and teacher Florence Akins (1906-2012). Akins’ documents relate to her teaching of textiles at the Canterbury College School of Art, and include lecture notes and other instructional resources such as colour diagrams. Holderness reworks them and presents their possible entanglement with the international Bauhaus movement. Connections are also made with Florence Weir (1899-1979), currently the only known New Zealander to have studied at the Bauhaus. In 1936 Weir designed the costumes and sets for a local Christchurch production, and these were said to have been inspired by her time at the Bauhaus. The production was never staged publicly, and in the absence of any surviving documentation, Holderness imagines these designs in an appliqué series. This exhibition is part of a Visual Arts PhD in practice-led research at Auckland University of Technology, in which Holderness develops practices of fabrication, approximation and invention to interrogate archives and their construction of art-historical narratives.

“…construction of art-history.” ?

I am consistent!

I just looked up something and I read a page or so and I thought – wow – this is good. It was my own thesis from 1996.

Its got a lot in it…

What I was looking for was

“what sort of science can examine the validity of a metaphor”

Somehow through the interconnections in cyberspace I answered my own question back in 96.

Well… in so far as there is an answer.

5 Reasons the communist revolution hasn’t happen yet.

First 2 reasons why it should have.

1. There is an algorithm in capitalism that means that in time one person owns everything. We are almost there and you’d think we’d have reached breaking point by now

2. History is a history of class dominance and classes get toppled when they become inefficient. Feudalism slavery. Capitalism. Capitalism is destroying the planet. It’s Due date has long passed.

So what is the problem? Why are we not living in abundance and harmony in a sustainable world. It is possible. Hint; it’s not greed or human nature

1. Fake socialism

Early last century the time was ripe for revolution. Like a buds flowering socialism was about to usurp capitalism. By a quirk of history feudalism was overturned in the name of socialism. It sort of worked but behind a false red flag a capitalist industrial revolution happened. In Russia and later China.


2. Fake socialism 2.0

15 January 1918 at the height of the revolution in Germany two leaders were killed and dumped in the river. Rosa & Karl. This was part of a split in the socialist movement. Democratic Socialists prevailed over revolutionary socialists. Around the world Labour parties were born.

They are moral and liberal but they sap revolution. The get done in from within and without. Germany 1918 Chile 1973, Australia 1973, New Zealand 1984.

3. Capitalism is resilient

War reboots the algorithm.

And just as it’s impossible to extract more from labour they use debt to extract it from future labour.

And they have guns.

And they print money.

4. Ownership of the means of information

The algorithm and the history described in this post are easy to find and validate. That is if you can wade through a mass of dross and infinite argument all of it backed by capitalist owned institutions and publishing and media. The technical term is obfuscation. It’s hard to see what is obvious.

5. Lost science

Of all the obfuscation I’ll conclude with the most pernicious. Revolutionary socialism is also known as scientific socialism. This is because it values investigating what is going on. System analysis. Revolutionary socialists contrast their science with Idealism. With an Orwellian twist revolutionary socialists are now widely accused of idealism.

Obfuscation of social sciences is the worst as it means the investigate > design > test cycle is disrupted where it most counts, in our life.

We need more sociometry.

5 Ways to end a fight with your partner

Ok you are in a bad space. Either it’s all fight or all flight or a mix of fight and flight. Maybe it’s cold shoulder time. Maybe it’s all your fault time. Any way it’s no good. Stop this pain now!

1. Take a turn at listening

Decide if you are going to talk or listen. Choose listen. That is the best option most of the time.

Listen so the other will talk. Or they respond well in some other way.

This takes courage. You may have to listen to outrageous crap. You may hear a whole pile of accusations. Or instructions on how to be a better person. Or hear lists of defects. Maybe examples from the past of irreparable blunders. Maybe ultimatums and threats.

Decide to listen. The decision goes something like this. I will be a saint for about an hour. I’ll drop all my defence tactics. I won’t move away. I will assume goodwill. I will postpone all judgment. I will leave behind sarcasm. I will soften my eyes and not roll them.

2. Ok that’s about impossible till you do step two. See through all blame to the pain.

You never…. do the dishwasher… you never initiate sex etc.

Of course this is not true. Also it is an attack. An invite to defend. Don’t defend. There is no need. You partner is in pain.

Take the leap to see the pain. Imagine this is your partners best way of saying I love you and I am in pain. The pain might be scared alone sad hopeless despair. Why do they have these feelings. Always because you are important to them. They want deep connection. They would rather drive you away than not have you really there with them.

See right through to the base line. Anger is just a flag. So is frustration see beyond those layers to the desire for being loved and valued unconditionally forever. It’s not to much to ask. We all want that. At some level. You partner just has not got in touch with that … it’s all about the dishwasher.

3. Be a scientist

So far all you have done is a bit of inner housekeeping. You have made a mental shift. Maybe it has already helped. At least you have shut up. Maybe your body has softened. Maybe your partner can see it. BTW if you have not got to step two. Go and do the housekeeping. Read this all again. Write in your journal. Go for a self talk walk. Now for step 3. The action step.

Actually there is more imagination before the action Re assess. Fine tune. than action. Imagine crossing the gap. Imagine you are there in that messy world of pain with your partner. See the hurt as best you can. See the unmet need. See the hole that is at the source of the pain. Be a courageous experimenter. A scientist. Make a hypothesis, speak up as a observer with a hypothesis

I imagine when you see that dishwasher you sink into despair and think you will never get the love you want.

Observe. Were you right? No.

Mirror back

You don’t feel despair- you just get Angry.

Back to step 2. Anger is a flag. What is the unmet need?

You get angry when you think it’s unfair and and how can you feel close when there is so much unresolved injustice.

Keep going back to 1, then 2 don’t quit, stay courageous. Keep going to step 3 till there is a strong ★ yes ★

4. The experiment is done. Now sum the outcome as a logical truth.

You want us to be close but while your need for justice is not met your anger gets in the way.

You make sense.

Your partner always makes sense. You might not agree with their premise. But you grasp the logic.

When I walk to the dog before I give you a hug you think I don’t love you and you get scared I’ll leave.

5. Don’t try to fix it. Instead be with their feelings.

I did not now how scared you get. That might be terrifying.

Not terrified? More troubled and worried.

The fight is over when you land on the exact feeling. Then mirror the Feeling firmly

Alone. Alone

Sad. Sad

Scared. scared.

Now you might feel relieved?

Hopeful. Hopeful

Now what? You want to be listened to? You want your say?

Take a few more turns at listening. Make that 10 turns. Be a Buddha

Next post. How to talk so you get heard.

Please leave comments on how you got on with this radical outrageous over the top courageous listening.


When I was 17 I had a Morris 8 just like this. It was really my mother’s but I had full use as long as I filled it up.

I can still smell the leather seats.

I recall a day I had about 6 people in it going to the beach in Sydney’s Royal National Park. They had to get out and push it up the hills.

My father and I towed it to a wrecking yard, I recall pushing it in.

The next car was a Mini.