*******************
Note: The following is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
********************
______________________________
~adapted from a journal entry, 12/18/10~
Thoughts. To dos. Want tos. Round tuits.
What to write.
GreaseSpot is supposedly closing. I'll believe it when I see it. I wonder if Rhodie will join in with John Knapp's non-profit center?
Inside I want the center to fail. I hate that I again feel vindictiveness toward someone. At one time I felt it toward Rhodie. Not sure what eventually helped that aspect. I felt it some toward Jeff, but not as much. And now toward Knapp.
Thing is, I don't think Knapp gives a hoot. I will probably end up calling the NY Office of Professions next week. I was going to wait until after Christmas. But I want to know what's going on. And it will be over a month next week since I spoke with the investigator. I must look up the county before I call.
I want to let her know about the non-profit, about Denise on Facebook, and about the email Knapp sent Louise and how Knapp twisted what happened.
I'm also biting to post my retraction. But if I do...part of my thinking is that it will appear that I am the one that is screwed up because it is me against them. I'm just one person. And to others, my grievance seems trivial. Yet it isn't trivial to me.
What Knapp did was harmful. For me it was VERY harmful. And he swept it aside in the email to Louise. And he swept it aside by never calling me back.
I had to drop from the Monday night support group. I had to drop from the project. I felt handled. Fine, if Knapp had been a friend and not an authority figure...especially not my therapist...well, it wouldn't have bothered me as much. It still would have hurt...yes. It would have hurt deeply. But the fact that he was my therapist, my therapist...he knew my vulnerabilities probably better than anyone. Like Mia stated...professional boundaries were crossed and then trampled.
I just talked with Chris over the phone...it was extremely helpful. I think I'll see if Chris will be another Joe for me. Someone to help me cut straight through the bullshit.
***************************
Note: In July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
April 26, 2011
April 25, 2011
Inventories & Reflections
I've thought for a few days about exposing some slightly inaccurate information that John Knapp posts around the web in some of his bios.
I go back and forth...Do I? Don't I? Why would I? Doesn't Knapp have enough small fires going on in his personal life without me making another? Hardly anyone reads my stuff anyway. But once I make it public, it will be on the web. People are welcome to comment if they'd like. How will I do emotionally after I make it public? Why should I silence myself? Who am I trying to protect by doing so?
Then I thought, Am I taking inventory or is this a type of expose'?
Probably a bit of both.
Some may get the perception that I'm hounding Knapp a bit too much in some of my posts. In my opinion I've been generous by publicly revealing only tidbits of an iceberg.
One can read John's bios around the web on the Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse, CHSCA (archived link)), Linked-in, Blogger, and quite a few other places.
The following is from my knowledge of getting to know Knapp over a couple years as his client (during which the latter part of that time our relationship was one of therapist-client-'colleague'-friend) and from online research which I thoroughly investigated after Knapp harmfully and abruptly cut off communication with me in August, 2010. The following information is current as of today's date; ie: as time goes on, Knapp may edit the information linked below.
"Worked with" or "counseled" over 2000 former members?
"Founder" or co-founder?
"Non-profit" or for profit?
Worked at the CHSCA for "one year" as of April, 2011?
The Margaret Singer Foundation
"Gratitude" for the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)?
This final bit of information I will not put in bold or bullet form as I do have some compassion toward the man: as of February 25, 2011, Knapp's marital status changed...so I imagine he will get around to updating any bios to reflect that change.
As I've stated elsewhere, we all are part of this imperfect species of humanity. I'm sure I state stuff inaccurately too. I have performed in the role of the hypocrite and perhaps still do sometimes...though I do endeavor to catch those times and to own up or at least consider it when someone points it out to me. It's not the sins or errors or mistakes or quirks or whatever one wants to call them that bother me; it's the hypocrisy of appearing differently from what one is and/or promotes.
John Knapp, LMSW, is a licensed mental health professional and has a responsibility to abide by a code of ethics promoting integrity; people look to him for trust. He is also a vocal activist in supposedly exposing hypocrisy, fraud, inhumane and harmful treatment of others, and organizations and people that (at least) appear unethical and deceptive and non-transparent.
Mirrors reflecting back to back are an interesting view - the images appear to trail into infinity.
*******************************
______________________________
To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________________
I go back and forth...Do I? Don't I? Why would I? Doesn't Knapp have enough small fires going on in his personal life without me making another? Hardly anyone reads my stuff anyway. But once I make it public, it will be on the web. People are welcome to comment if they'd like. How will I do emotionally after I make it public? Why should I silence myself? Who am I trying to protect by doing so?
Then I thought, Am I taking inventory or is this a type of expose'?
Probably a bit of both.
Some may get the perception that I'm hounding Knapp a bit too much in some of my posts. In my opinion I've been generous by publicly revealing only tidbits of an iceberg.
One can read John's bios around the web on the Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse, CHSCA (archived link)), Linked-in, Blogger, and quite a few other places.
The following is from my knowledge of getting to know Knapp over a couple years as his client (during which the latter part of that time our relationship was one of therapist-client-'colleague'-friend) and from online research which I thoroughly investigated after Knapp harmfully and abruptly cut off communication with me in August, 2010. The following information is current as of today's date; ie: as time goes on, Knapp may edit the information linked below.
"Worked with" or "counseled" over 2000 former members?
- John Knapp, LMSW, states in various bios that he has "worked with" or "counseled" over 2000 former cult members in the last 16 years. That is probably true, but he did not do so as a licensed mental health counselor. He did not receive his New York state LMSW license (which from my understanding must practice by law under the supervision of an LCSW) until December, 2005. So, for 11(?) of those 16 years, his counseling was that of a lay person and an ex-cult devotee.
"Founder" or co-founder?
- On various bios, John states he founded TMFree blog and the newly formed Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse (archived link). According to one history I read regarding TMFree, it appears that John is actually more of a co-founder. And according to a private conversation I recently had with Doug Mesner who is one the CHSCA staff, John is a "co-founder" of the CHSCA. Perhaps I'm being too picky. After all, it's only semantics.
"Non-profit" or for profit?
- Knapp Family Counseling was the name of Knapp's therapy business when I hired his services from July, 2008, through June, 2010. As of March, 2011, Knapp states that he "closed" his Knapp Family Counseling (KFC) business. Yet his Knapp Family Counseling FB page states that KFC is "now the CHSCS" and that KFC is "non-profit." To my knowledge, that practice was never a non-profit. Again, just semantics?
Worked at the CHSCA for "one year" as of April, 2011?
- Huh? In a private email and conversation with me in May, 2010, John brought up the idea of a non-profit. At that time he told me that he had not shared the idea with anyone else. In August, 2010, he stated he was going to start over in putting together an organization. In December, he posted that he (with others) was working at incorporating a non-profit - at that time calling it the Center for Spiritual and Cultic Abuse. The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse went live online (opened?) in March, 2011. But as of April, 2011, John states on his LinkedIn profile that he has worked as executive director for the CHSCA for one year? Interesting math. Perhaps it's just semantics? Or perhaps it is a typo and John meant one month?
The Margaret Singer Foundation
- John founded the Margaret Singer Foundation in 1996. Due to conflicts, the organization folded some three months later. I'm not ridiculing its non-success; simply stating a fact. There was apparently some behind-the-scenes controversy surrounding the Foundation. I could not find that information in my online searches but learned about (at least part) of the behind-the-scenes controversy from someone personally present at the time. It was after John cut contact with me in August, 2010, that I began to learn details about the Singer Foundation; thus I've never heard John's full side of the story. John stated in June, 2008, that he regrets never making amends with Dr. Singer before her death in 2003.
(10/03/11: Click here to read a second-hand report from 1996 about Knapp and The Singer Foundation.)
"Gratitude" for the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)?
- At various places around the web, John states his gratitude for and endorsement of the ICSA. Yet, in private, he has spoken disparagingly of the ICSA. I've read or heard him use adjectives like "abysmal failure," "in-fighting" (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), "has all sorts of problems," and that people of the ICSA ilk "have a paranoid mindset." Perhaps John was simply venting some of the times he stated things like I just listed. Again, just semantics?
- In some of our personal discussions, I had gotten the impression from John that the ICSA was not necessarily what it appears/promotes; ie: a relatively non-biased (as much as an org can be) helpful resource regarding how undue influence works. Since my and John's split, I have learned (thus far) that the ICSA is upfront and is what it appears to be - a resource (relatively unbiased) regarding undue influence.
This final bit of information I will not put in bold or bullet form as I do have some compassion toward the man: as of February 25, 2011, Knapp's marital status changed...so I imagine he will get around to updating any bios to reflect that change.
As I've stated elsewhere, we all are part of this imperfect species of humanity. I'm sure I state stuff inaccurately too. I have performed in the role of the hypocrite and perhaps still do sometimes...though I do endeavor to catch those times and to own up or at least consider it when someone points it out to me. It's not the sins or errors or mistakes or quirks or whatever one wants to call them that bother me; it's the hypocrisy of appearing differently from what one is and/or promotes.
John Knapp, LMSW, is a licensed mental health professional and has a responsibility to abide by a code of ethics promoting integrity; people look to him for trust. He is also a vocal activist in supposedly exposing hypocrisy, fraud, inhumane and harmful treatment of others, and organizations and people that (at least) appear unethical and deceptive and non-transparent.
Mirrors reflecting back to back are an interesting view - the images appear to trail into infinity.
*******************************
______________________________
To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________________
April 19, 2011
Puppets and the Canadian Bear
I'm not sure what to write or if to write tonight.
Yet here I sit at my keyboard, laptop on the top of my lap, my legs stretched out as they rest on the recliner, Criminal Minds on a mute screen.
"Do I write a poem? Do I write about my week this past week? Do I write about dogs?"
Dogs. I smile.
In less than two weeks I will fully acquire a pet-sitting service. I've been diligently training the last few weeks, meeting the clients and their critter companions. Learning the various quirks of the different pets.
Quirks. Pets. People.
Quirkisms often bring me a chuckle. Life wouldn't be nearly as fascinating if we all liked the same food, dressed the same way, had the same sense of humor....and on and on.
When I was out backpaking part of the Appalachian Trail last year, two of the thru-hikers I met had a saying. "Mile quota down; smile quota up," as they both smiled and 'clinked' their plastic soda bottles. I doubt I'll ever forget that saying...or the scene.
I was sitting on an orange bear box at the time. I'd been on the trail I don't know how many miles, 30 maybe? Inside the bear box was a cooler filled with ice, cold drinks, and candy bars. Next to the cooler was a tool chest that was packed with baked goods and Little Debbie's oatmeal cream cookies. "Trail angels" kept the bear box stocked...for the backpackers. It's called a bear box because it's designed so bears can't get into the stash, but humans can.
The quote came from two young men, probably in their early 20s. They had quit trying to clip away 20 miles a day and instead had decided to enjoy the ride...or rather, the hike. They were still getting lots of miles in, but had become more focused on the process than how many miles they could backpack per day. The AT is some 2137 miles for thru hikers, so one does need to keep a decent pace to get to Maine before fall sets in.
Quirks. Pets. People. Critters. Hikers. Folks.
I think of Sesame Street and Pooh's 100-Acre Wood with their array of characters and quirkisms. Not too different from life in the "real" world.
Winnie-the-Pooh hails from Canada. And of course, Sesame Street is a world of famous puppets.
*********************
Yet here I sit at my keyboard, laptop on the top of my lap, my legs stretched out as they rest on the recliner, Criminal Minds on a mute screen.
"Do I write a poem? Do I write about my week this past week? Do I write about dogs?"
Dogs. I smile.
In less than two weeks I will fully acquire a pet-sitting service. I've been diligently training the last few weeks, meeting the clients and their critter companions. Learning the various quirks of the different pets.
Quirks. Pets. People.
Quirkisms often bring me a chuckle. Life wouldn't be nearly as fascinating if we all liked the same food, dressed the same way, had the same sense of humor....and on and on.
When I was out backpaking part of the Appalachian Trail last year, two of the thru-hikers I met had a saying. "Mile quota down; smile quota up," as they both smiled and 'clinked' their plastic soda bottles. I doubt I'll ever forget that saying...or the scene.
I was sitting on an orange bear box at the time. I'd been on the trail I don't know how many miles, 30 maybe? Inside the bear box was a cooler filled with ice, cold drinks, and candy bars. Next to the cooler was a tool chest that was packed with baked goods and Little Debbie's oatmeal cream cookies. "Trail angels" kept the bear box stocked...for the backpackers. It's called a bear box because it's designed so bears can't get into the stash, but humans can.
The quote came from two young men, probably in their early 20s. They had quit trying to clip away 20 miles a day and instead had decided to enjoy the ride...or rather, the hike. They were still getting lots of miles in, but had become more focused on the process than how many miles they could backpack per day. The AT is some 2137 miles for thru hikers, so one does need to keep a decent pace to get to Maine before fall sets in.
Quirks. Pets. People. Critters. Hikers. Folks.
I think of Sesame Street and Pooh's 100-Acre Wood with their array of characters and quirkisms. Not too different from life in the "real" world.
Winnie-the-Pooh hails from Canada. And of course, Sesame Street is a world of famous puppets.
*********************
April 17, 2011
The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse (theCHSCA.org)
I have previously posted a couple entries on this blog naming the newly formed non-profit, The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse.
My previous entries which mention the Center directly are:
The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse - One year in the making
John M. Knapp, LMSW: Endorsements Retraction
A few days ago I learned that John Knapp, LMSW, is not "the founder" of the CHSCA; he is a co-founder. Another co-founder is Doug Mesner. I do not recall if John ever stated that he was "the" founder of the CHSCA.
I conversed with Doug via Skype close to 1(?) year ago which was prior to any discussion of a non-profit. (According to Knapp, Knapp didn't bring the subject of a new non-profit up until May, 2010.)
I talked with Doug again last week revealing part of my experience with Knapp. That's when I learned that Doug is a co-founder and is the person currently putting together The CHSCA's advisory board.
What I know of Doug, I like; and I respect his opinions as an investigative journalist helping to expose fraud. Doug's website is THE PROCESS IS...
That said, I still cannot endorse the CHSCA while Knapp is the executive director and the acting mental health counselor - unless there are some changes in the CHSCA staff positions/functions or in Knapp.
I am updating a thread here in regard to my situation with Knapp and as I learn/observe more about the CHSCA.
******************
______________________________
To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________________
My previous entries which mention the Center directly are:
The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse - One year in the making
John M. Knapp, LMSW: Endorsements Retraction
A few days ago I learned that John Knapp, LMSW, is not "the founder" of the CHSCA; he is a co-founder. Another co-founder is Doug Mesner. I do not recall if John ever stated that he was "the" founder of the CHSCA.
I conversed with Doug via Skype close to 1(?) year ago which was prior to any discussion of a non-profit. (According to Knapp, Knapp didn't bring the subject of a new non-profit up until May, 2010.)
I talked with Doug again last week revealing part of my experience with Knapp. That's when I learned that Doug is a co-founder and is the person currently putting together The CHSCA's advisory board.
What I know of Doug, I like; and I respect his opinions as an investigative journalist helping to expose fraud. Doug's website is THE PROCESS IS...
That said, I still cannot endorse the CHSCA while Knapp is the executive director and the acting mental health counselor - unless there are some changes in the CHSCA staff positions/functions or in Knapp.
I am updating a thread here in regard to my situation with Knapp and as I learn/observe more about the CHSCA.
******************
______________________________
To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________________
April 14, 2011
Guidelines and Procedures
I didn't invite anyone right away to Knapp's private online cult-recovery activist discussion forum; it took a few months for me to get somewhat comfortable with it. My discomfort had stemmed from the one 'no-talk' guideline and because the procedure for joining seemed complicated.
"Secret" had been the initial word Knapp proposed to describe the "private" forum. Lema and I both disagreed with the word "secret." Knapp agreed with us and changed the wording from "secret" to "private."
Still, it felt secretive to me. I got the feeling we weren't to reveal that the activist forum existed. I felt that if I invited someone and they ended up untrustworthy and talked to someone outside the forum about the forum that I'd be at fault.
I didn't mention my feelings to anyone. Knapp or Lema or Ruth didn't seem to have a problem with the way the guidelines were set up. I figured it was my problem, that I was projecting into the situation from my past experiences with GreaseSpot Cafe and The Safety Net. I didn't speak up probably due to my own insecurities.
The guidelines.
Most were simple and straight forward and typical private online forum rules. One guideline that I was uncomfortable with, but didn't speak up about, was a rule stating that if a conflict happened on the private forum, the members were asked to not discuss it outside the forum...supposedly to avoid "flame wars." If it was discovered that a member did bring it up outside the forum, the member might be banned.
That feels like a "hush rule." But, I understand not wanting flame wars and keeping the forum a safe place. Besides I know Knapp and he isn't into silencing. And it is just a "guideline" and a request; it isn't set in stone. No one else objects to it. It's not that big of deal. I'll work on adjusting my perspective and discomfort.
The procedure to join.
Initially it was set so that in order to join, a current member would let Knapp know about a prospective member whom Knapp would then contact. The prospect then had to fill out an application which included their phone number and real name. This application was to be sent only to Knapp. He would then check out the name and number to make sure the person was who they said they were, or something like that. This was set up because some of the activist members had been pursued legally or threatened in some way by the groups they spoke up against. This part of the procedure was a safety measure.
As members we could invite someone who was an activist and who we felt might be interested. And, as the member inviting someone, we would vouch for the invitee.
That means whoever I invite will need to be able to abide by the guidelines. What about that one guideline that says we aren't supposed to discuss any private forum conflicts outside the forum? Did I know anyone who was that, so called, trustworthy? Was I that trustworthy?
Lema objected to the real name aspect on the application process. Due to some legal stuff in his country he had to remain anonymous and he thought others might feel the same need for other reasons. I was never quite clear how Lema and Knapp resolved that aspect.
Eventually, after some weeks, the application procedure was tweaked enough to where it became simplified and less paranoiac. At least that was my viewpoint, though I never stated that.
With both the initial and the adjusted procedures, Knapp and Lema and I were to vote on a nominee for membership. Did we feel comfortable with the new person? Were they who they said they were? What current member could vouch for them? Stuff like that. Again, it was for safety measures. I could live with that. This wasn't like The Safety Net; it was different. Knapp was a mental health professional and my therapist; I could trust him.
Not too long after Lema and I had become moderators, Lema also became an administrator alongside Knapp. Lema got real busy adding all sorts of technical abilities to the discussion board. He also added various subforums. Before most of these changes were made, he would post his ideas in the moderator forum (viewable only to us three moderators, like other discussion boards have) for Knapp and I to give our opinion or vote.
Knapp was quite absent from the board during most of this time due to other responsiblities and some health challenges. I guess his absence started some time in March, it seems. He would do his best to pop in and give his vote for any changes. He started communicating more, via email or in the moderator forum, some time in May. I think it was in May.
In July, I was added as an administrator to coincide with my role as "creative director" for the discussion board and for the still-formulating non-profit.
Knapp pretty much wanted Lema and I to run the board. Lema had the password and access to change abilities. I had access to all sorts of stuff, tech stuff that I was ignorant about. I didn't have the password. Anyway, I didn't know enough tech stuff to know what to do nor was I interested in learning that aspect.
Still the board wasn't getting much activity and the members were not inviting new people. I invited two. Neither joined.
*******************
In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
*******************
_______________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
"Secret" had been the initial word Knapp proposed to describe the "private" forum. Lema and I both disagreed with the word "secret." Knapp agreed with us and changed the wording from "secret" to "private."
Still, it felt secretive to me. I got the feeling we weren't to reveal that the activist forum existed. I felt that if I invited someone and they ended up untrustworthy and talked to someone outside the forum about the forum that I'd be at fault.
I didn't mention my feelings to anyone. Knapp or Lema or Ruth didn't seem to have a problem with the way the guidelines were set up. I figured it was my problem, that I was projecting into the situation from my past experiences with GreaseSpot Cafe and The Safety Net. I didn't speak up probably due to my own insecurities.
The guidelines.
Most were simple and straight forward and typical private online forum rules. One guideline that I was uncomfortable with, but didn't speak up about, was a rule stating that if a conflict happened on the private forum, the members were asked to not discuss it outside the forum...supposedly to avoid "flame wars." If it was discovered that a member did bring it up outside the forum, the member might be banned.
That feels like a "hush rule." But, I understand not wanting flame wars and keeping the forum a safe place. Besides I know Knapp and he isn't into silencing. And it is just a "guideline" and a request; it isn't set in stone. No one else objects to it. It's not that big of deal. I'll work on adjusting my perspective and discomfort.
The procedure to join.
Initially it was set so that in order to join, a current member would let Knapp know about a prospective member whom Knapp would then contact. The prospect then had to fill out an application which included their phone number and real name. This application was to be sent only to Knapp. He would then check out the name and number to make sure the person was who they said they were, or something like that. This was set up because some of the activist members had been pursued legally or threatened in some way by the groups they spoke up against. This part of the procedure was a safety measure.
As members we could invite someone who was an activist and who we felt might be interested. And, as the member inviting someone, we would vouch for the invitee.
That means whoever I invite will need to be able to abide by the guidelines. What about that one guideline that says we aren't supposed to discuss any private forum conflicts outside the forum? Did I know anyone who was that, so called, trustworthy? Was I that trustworthy?
Lema objected to the real name aspect on the application process. Due to some legal stuff in his country he had to remain anonymous and he thought others might feel the same need for other reasons. I was never quite clear how Lema and Knapp resolved that aspect.
Eventually, after some weeks, the application procedure was tweaked enough to where it became simplified and less paranoiac. At least that was my viewpoint, though I never stated that.
With both the initial and the adjusted procedures, Knapp and Lema and I were to vote on a nominee for membership. Did we feel comfortable with the new person? Were they who they said they were? What current member could vouch for them? Stuff like that. Again, it was for safety measures. I could live with that. This wasn't like The Safety Net; it was different. Knapp was a mental health professional and my therapist; I could trust him.
Not too long after Lema and I had become moderators, Lema also became an administrator alongside Knapp. Lema got real busy adding all sorts of technical abilities to the discussion board. He also added various subforums. Before most of these changes were made, he would post his ideas in the moderator forum (viewable only to us three moderators, like other discussion boards have) for Knapp and I to give our opinion or vote.
Knapp was quite absent from the board during most of this time due to other responsiblities and some health challenges. I guess his absence started some time in March, it seems. He would do his best to pop in and give his vote for any changes. He started communicating more, via email or in the moderator forum, some time in May. I think it was in May.
In July, I was added as an administrator to coincide with my role as "creative director" for the discussion board and for the still-formulating non-profit.
Knapp pretty much wanted Lema and I to run the board. Lema had the password and access to change abilities. I had access to all sorts of stuff, tech stuff that I was ignorant about. I didn't have the password. Anyway, I didn't know enough tech stuff to know what to do nor was I interested in learning that aspect.
Still the board wasn't getting much activity and the members were not inviting new people. I invited two. Neither joined.
*******************
In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
*******************
_______________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
April 11, 2011
Over Ninety-nine Percent Identical
~from the archives~
*august 11, 2009*
***
I have a lot running through my head. I'm not sure where to start. I've learned through years of journaling that it really doesn't matter where one starts. The point is to put the pen to paper, fingers to keys. In the doing, a transformation on the page begins. Seldom is it ever complete. What fun would that be anyway?
So what's on my mind? Life. Art. Abuse. Healing. Cross-fertilization. Birth. Rebirth. Loss. Grief. Bridges.
I've come to see that abuse is not unique, anymore than childbirth. How unique is childbirth? For the one born, for the mother of that one, for the father of that one, for the family of that one, for the friends of the that one? It is so unique that no two humans (nor their births) are ever the same; yet, the DNA of all us humans is over 99%(?) identical. Somewhat of a paradox. (Oooo...reminds my of a poem!)
The event of childbirth and birthing is unique for each individual, but not for humanity. Childbirth has been around a long time. Likewise with abuse. As long as there are humans (at least on this earth in this age), there will be births. There will be deaths. There will be joys. There will be tradegy. There will be abuses. There will be healing.
One to two years ago, I read this introduction by Jim Moyers which includes the following quote:
"It has been repeatedly, sometimes tragically demonstrated that isolation from the cross-fertilizing and moderating effects of the larger society tends to result in derangement of some degree in groups as well as individuals."
What does that have to do with my prior paragraphs? Groups that isolate themselves (physically or ideologically) are not unique to society nor human interactions. Does that mean abuse will automatically occur? No. However, it does mean the group will have less checks and balances, possibly more prejudices and us-them thinking, which is oftemtimes a path that results in abuses. It happens in all sorts of settings, from therapy and new-age "cults" to Bible-based "cults" and even in "recovery groups."
As far as recovery-type groups, if someone continues to spin their wheels among the same people about the same thing, does it not become insular itself? I imagine it might be similar to what happens for some people going to AA meetings; eventually some people realize that the meetings are keeping them stuck in a mindset they are ready to move beyond.
Recovery from cultic thinking may be more efficient (or at least aided) if ex-members "cross- fertilize." I think it is important for folks to learn about others who were abused in the group in which they were involved, but then a next step (if needed) may be to learn about/converse with/listen to ex-members of other groups, to get a bigger picture. And, depending on one's interests and needs, to investigate societies and cultures as a whole.
That doesn't negate an individual's experience, pain, suffering. That must be acknowledged, honored, and owned. A broader perspective may then help build a bridge to more wholeness and balance.
***
note: I've found the book, Bounded Choice by Janja Lalich, one of the most understandable books for explaining and dissecting cultic group dynamics and influence techniques, all on a continuum of course.
***
*august 11, 2009*
***
I have a lot running through my head. I'm not sure where to start. I've learned through years of journaling that it really doesn't matter where one starts. The point is to put the pen to paper, fingers to keys. In the doing, a transformation on the page begins. Seldom is it ever complete. What fun would that be anyway?
So what's on my mind? Life. Art. Abuse. Healing. Cross-fertilization. Birth. Rebirth. Loss. Grief. Bridges.
I've come to see that abuse is not unique, anymore than childbirth. How unique is childbirth? For the one born, for the mother of that one, for the father of that one, for the family of that one, for the friends of the that one? It is so unique that no two humans (nor their births) are ever the same; yet, the DNA of all us humans is over 99%(?) identical. Somewhat of a paradox. (Oooo...reminds my of a poem!)
The event of childbirth and birthing is unique for each individual, but not for humanity. Childbirth has been around a long time. Likewise with abuse. As long as there are humans (at least on this earth in this age), there will be births. There will be deaths. There will be joys. There will be tradegy. There will be abuses. There will be healing.
One to two years ago, I read this introduction by Jim Moyers which includes the following quote:
"It has been repeatedly, sometimes tragically demonstrated that isolation from the cross-fertilizing and moderating effects of the larger society tends to result in derangement of some degree in groups as well as individuals."
What does that have to do with my prior paragraphs? Groups that isolate themselves (physically or ideologically) are not unique to society nor human interactions. Does that mean abuse will automatically occur? No. However, it does mean the group will have less checks and balances, possibly more prejudices and us-them thinking, which is oftemtimes a path that results in abuses. It happens in all sorts of settings, from therapy and new-age "cults" to Bible-based "cults" and even in "recovery groups."
As far as recovery-type groups, if someone continues to spin their wheels among the same people about the same thing, does it not become insular itself? I imagine it might be similar to what happens for some people going to AA meetings; eventually some people realize that the meetings are keeping them stuck in a mindset they are ready to move beyond.
Recovery from cultic thinking may be more efficient (or at least aided) if ex-members "cross- fertilize." I think it is important for folks to learn about others who were abused in the group in which they were involved, but then a next step (if needed) may be to learn about/converse with/listen to ex-members of other groups, to get a bigger picture. And, depending on one's interests and needs, to investigate societies and cultures as a whole.
That doesn't negate an individual's experience, pain, suffering. That must be acknowledged, honored, and owned. A broader perspective may then help build a bridge to more wholeness and balance.
***
note: I've found the book, Bounded Choice by Janja Lalich, one of the most understandable books for explaining and dissecting cultic group dynamics and influence techniques, all on a continuum of course.
***
April 10, 2011
Lion. Scarecrow. Tinman.
aww - november 17, 2010
********************
So me, what to write now.
I still feel like writing.
What else. What have some other thoughts been the last few weeks.
Well, I think now about what Joe stated...maybe to put the focus on myself to help assure me and to help clarify my feelings. I don't know how much I can do that. I won't be too concerned about it, because I don't want to stifle anything that may come off the keyboard.
Many of my thoughts the past weeks have been on tiny red flags I felt along the way with Knapp - that I ignored. And times (in hindsight) I wasn't true to myself, that I didn't speak up or ask questions.
I too often think others are right, and I am wrong. And I stay quiet. Hm. Sometimes that is the thing to do. Sometimes it's not. You're human Carol; it's o.k.
On the other hand, I did speak up to Knapp regarding my discomfort about my positions on the board and the (developing) non-profit. But, there were things during the conflict he had with Lema that I didn't speak up about. That doesn't mean I blame myself for Knapp's actions. Yet I want to learn from it all. I want to recognize and be aware when I feel *caught*. To remember to connect with my heart. To speak clearly. I want to be comfortable in my own skin.
The times I didn't speak up with Knapp, why didn't I? What did I feel at those times? Hm. Those times were mainly during the conflict Knapp was having with Lema. And when I took on the role of "creative director" for the board & the developing Knapp Center.
So Carol, why didn't you say more? What were you thinking/feeling then, at those points where you didn't speak up?
Fear of rejection? I had written Knapp just before the conflict started between he and Lema. I wrote to Knapp that I was having a difficult time approaching him. Even when I wrote him that, my actual verbatim thought was that "I'm getting mixed messages from Knapp," but I was afraid to state it that way - I thought that it was just me, that I was mind reading or something. Knapp was so busy and stressed; I felt I was bothering him. But, thing is, I brought it up and we did discuss it. So.....hmm....light bulb...duh. That's one of the exact things I brought up with him - that I feared abandonment and also that I wasn't smart enough for the project.
Desire/need for approval? I was trying to fill shoes I wasn't comfortable in. And I wrote Knapp about that too. Hm. So I did speak up, damnit. At least on some parts. The few things I didn't speak up about - I didn't want to offend Knapp or Lema. I felt put in the middle. I wanted them to work out their differences. I wanted acceptance on all sides. I don't like conflict. :-/
I think too I looked to Knapp as a parent figure. *gulp* I wrote that to Knapp too, in the same email where I wrote to him I was having a hard time approaching him. I stated that I think I want to be parented. (I shake my head again. How, on God's earth, could he lash out at me stating the things he did to me within a week of that email and our discussion about it? Calm down Carol. You've answered that same question before.)
I felt I was getting caught in a triangulation, but I didn't tell Knapp that. I should have. OTOH, I dismissed that feeling; I brushed it aside. It was a foggy, inarticulate feeling. Had the situation not ended with Knapp cutting me off and with his toxic accusations, he and I may have been able to discuss that later. I would have seen it more clearly because we had passed through the forest.
Again, I was trying to fill shoes. I wasn't being genuine at those times. I wasn't being true to myself. I was having anxiety. I was trying to be more "grown-up," like I knew what I was doing in this role. I was faking it until I make it.
During the Knapp-Lema conflict, maybe I was simply waiting, pondering. A lot was going on. I was working long hours. Lisa was on her death bed. And the regular stuff of life. I couldn't keep up with every email between Knapp and Lema. Nor did I feel it was my responsibility to do so. And it wasn't.
I should never have been there, in that position. But then, if I hadn't been there, I may not have seen(again) this aspect of me nor this aspect of Knapp. Maybe I was there because it took something this extreme to teach me, to get to another layer. *shrug* That said, from an ethical standpoint, Knapp should never have solicited me.
Still, none of that gave Knapp any reason to lash out at me.
As Dr. McColloch stated when he read the emails, "The man had a tantrum. He expected you to protect him."
And when I mentioned to Dr. McColloch about me thinking I might have scared Knapp away, Dr. McColloch responded, "I don't think you scared him. I think you pissed him off and he acted out."
************************
Other thoughts to maybe pick up later. Knapp's revolving Tweets. My enmeshment(?) with the activist role. Getting back to me at the beginning of November - not letting go of the belief that people are basically good; I have to trust.
If I don't trust, my self dies.
I never want to allow my "self" to die again.
Without that trust my muse goes silent.
Without that trust, I am not connected to me or to the doors that open for me.
To walk through those doors, I must trust...
...even if I feel fear.
What an odd combination, trust and fear.
Hm. I guess kind of like love and hate.
***********************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
**********************
_______________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
********************
So me, what to write now.
I still feel like writing.
What else. What have some other thoughts been the last few weeks.
Well, I think now about what Joe stated...maybe to put the focus on myself to help assure me and to help clarify my feelings. I don't know how much I can do that. I won't be too concerned about it, because I don't want to stifle anything that may come off the keyboard.
Many of my thoughts the past weeks have been on tiny red flags I felt along the way with Knapp - that I ignored. And times (in hindsight) I wasn't true to myself, that I didn't speak up or ask questions.
I too often think others are right, and I am wrong. And I stay quiet. Hm. Sometimes that is the thing to do. Sometimes it's not. You're human Carol; it's o.k.
On the other hand, I did speak up to Knapp regarding my discomfort about my positions on the board and the (developing) non-profit. But, there were things during the conflict he had with Lema that I didn't speak up about. That doesn't mean I blame myself for Knapp's actions. Yet I want to learn from it all. I want to recognize and be aware when I feel *caught*. To remember to connect with my heart. To speak clearly. I want to be comfortable in my own skin.
The times I didn't speak up with Knapp, why didn't I? What did I feel at those times? Hm. Those times were mainly during the conflict Knapp was having with Lema. And when I took on the role of "creative director" for the board & the developing Knapp Center.
So Carol, why didn't you say more? What were you thinking/feeling then, at those points where you didn't speak up?
Fear of rejection? I had written Knapp just before the conflict started between he and Lema. I wrote to Knapp that I was having a difficult time approaching him. Even when I wrote him that, my actual verbatim thought was that "I'm getting mixed messages from Knapp," but I was afraid to state it that way - I thought that it was just me, that I was mind reading or something. Knapp was so busy and stressed; I felt I was bothering him. But, thing is, I brought it up and we did discuss it. So.....hmm....light bulb...duh. That's one of the exact things I brought up with him - that I feared abandonment and also that I wasn't smart enough for the project.
Desire/need for approval? I was trying to fill shoes I wasn't comfortable in. And I wrote Knapp about that too. Hm. So I did speak up, damnit. At least on some parts. The few things I didn't speak up about - I didn't want to offend Knapp or Lema. I felt put in the middle. I wanted them to work out their differences. I wanted acceptance on all sides. I don't like conflict. :-/
I think too I looked to Knapp as a parent figure. *gulp* I wrote that to Knapp too, in the same email where I wrote to him I was having a hard time approaching him. I stated that I think I want to be parented. (I shake my head again. How, on God's earth, could he lash out at me stating the things he did to me within a week of that email and our discussion about it? Calm down Carol. You've answered that same question before.)
I felt I was getting caught in a triangulation, but I didn't tell Knapp that. I should have. OTOH, I dismissed that feeling; I brushed it aside. It was a foggy, inarticulate feeling. Had the situation not ended with Knapp cutting me off and with his toxic accusations, he and I may have been able to discuss that later. I would have seen it more clearly because we had passed through the forest.
Again, I was trying to fill shoes. I wasn't being genuine at those times. I wasn't being true to myself. I was having anxiety. I was trying to be more "grown-up," like I knew what I was doing in this role. I was faking it until I make it.
During the Knapp-Lema conflict, maybe I was simply waiting, pondering. A lot was going on. I was working long hours. Lisa was on her death bed. And the regular stuff of life. I couldn't keep up with every email between Knapp and Lema. Nor did I feel it was my responsibility to do so. And it wasn't.
I should never have been there, in that position. But then, if I hadn't been there, I may not have seen(again) this aspect of me nor this aspect of Knapp. Maybe I was there because it took something this extreme to teach me, to get to another layer. *shrug* That said, from an ethical standpoint, Knapp should never have solicited me.
Still, none of that gave Knapp any reason to lash out at me.
As Dr. McColloch stated when he read the emails, "The man had a tantrum. He expected you to protect him."
And when I mentioned to Dr. McColloch about me thinking I might have scared Knapp away, Dr. McColloch responded, "I don't think you scared him. I think you pissed him off and he acted out."
************************
Other thoughts to maybe pick up later. Knapp's revolving Tweets. My enmeshment(?) with the activist role. Getting back to me at the beginning of November - not letting go of the belief that people are basically good; I have to trust.
If I don't trust, my self dies.
I never want to allow my "self" to die again.
Without that trust my muse goes silent.
Without that trust, I am not connected to me or to the doors that open for me.
To walk through those doors, I must trust...
...even if I feel fear.
What an odd combination, trust and fear.
Hm. I guess kind of like love and hate.
***********************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
**********************
_______________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
April 6, 2011
Anti-cult Leaks
(Written 9/20/2010)
John called me the Friday after the conflict had begun. A disagreement over whether to use the word "spiritual" or the word "psyhological" in describing cultic trauma had turned into a slew of emails back and forth between John and Lema. Their disagreement had started on Tuesday.
Most all the emails were going between all three of us, myself and Lema and John as we were a team for John's online discussion board. John owned the board; we were, all three, co-administrators.
But I was trying to stay out of the conflict between Lema and John, giving only my opinion and vote on which word to use. It was pretty much a non-issue for me, which word to use. But they were each passionate about their opinion. I was the tie-breaker. I voted in accordance with John's proposal; that was to use the word "spiritual."
On Thursday, Lema started questioning my motives; insinuating and accusing me. At least I wasn't alone since he had been doing similar with John.
On the phone call that Friday, John told me Colleen, a therapist in California, had called him. He felt like she was fishing for information. She asked him something about dual relationships with clients and if John had an organization of some sort called "The Knapp Center." Knapp was John's last name.
He felt her question about dual relationships probably had something to do with his relationship with me, and it probably did.
John and I did have dual relationships of client-therapist-colleague-friend. Though we had referred to me as a "previous client" for months, I'd continue to pay John for his counseling and coaching services through the end of June, 2010. I pay other friends for there professional services, so why not John? But now it was July and John had insisted that I not pay anymore; so I wasn't.
John then brought up Colleen's usage of the words "The Knapp Center." He told me that he had only told a few people the precise name - "The Knapp Center." So Colleen could only have gotten that information from a few sources. Lema was one of those sources.
I got the impression that John might be inferring that Lema had been discussing with Colleen about the conflict he and Lema were having and about my relationships with John. I wondered what difference it made that Colleen would have heard about The Knapp Center, which was the tentative name for an organization John was in the formative stages of pulling together.
Couldn't John just ask Colleen and Lema?
John had shared with me that he felt the professional anti-cult or cult-recovery field (or whatever one calls it) was failing, a laughing stock to academic fields; that there was too much in-fighting, and that if something didn't change the next generation wouldn't understand cultic trauma and how cults work. I had felt my red flags go up when John had shared his passion about "the next generation." That was pushed a lot in The Way, to carry on the message to the next generation.
John seemed passionate about his role in trying to change this "abysmal failure," as he later referred to the professional cult-recovery field. Thus, his desire to form a non-profit center.
John never stated to not mention anything about The Knapp Center. Are we supposed to keep that quiet?
I didn't say anything about my questioning thoughts. I should be smart enough to know all this stuff without asking.
John told me that now, in the slew of emails, Lema had referred to John as, or at least compared him to, a cult leader. I hadn't had time yet to read the latest emails; plus it was getting hard for me to follow all of them.
I asked John, "Why is Lema doing this? Where has all this suspicion come from?"
John answered that it came from anyone who had the International Cultic Studies Association mindset. A mindset of paranoia, always on the look-out for ulterior motives. He said he'd been under this type of attack for 15 years, from his own colleagues. He said that this is the way it is; that one has to have a backbone of steel to do work in this field.
John told me about a tactic he had used in the past in order to track down when someone was talking. "I'm going to tell you something I've used in the past" he began. "It's a Sopranos-type thing. I didn't lie really, but I would change my wording about something just a little. I'd change it as I would talk to different people. That way, if word got back to me about something and certain words were used, I'd know who had been talking."
Isn't that being paranoid? Thinking you gotta discover the leak? Why not just be upfront about stuff? God I hate that shit.
I immediately rationalized my thoughts: This is John, not some paranoid anti-cultist. Plus, he's mentioned on more than one occasion how he and his family had been stalked and threatened by people with the Transcendental Meditation Organization. He's also been verbally attacked by people in the anti-cult field. Of course he needed to protect himself.
Cults. Anti-cults. Same shit, different label.
Dismissing and rationalizing my immediate feelings of John's Sopranos-tactic as being paranoid and his suspicion of Colleen fishing, which I felt she probably was but I really didn't see what a big deal that was and why John just couldn't be up front with her, I responded, "I understand why you had to do the Sopranos thing. It doesn't really bother me. You had to protect yourself and your family."
John shared that he couldn't continue with Lema's verbal attacks, that it had to stop within the next 24 hours.
John sounded tired. It was draining him. I stated that I wasn't sure that a democratic process could work on an online discussion board, that maybe John simply needed to have the final say. He disagreed, stating that he believed it could work.
I didn't feel qualified or familiar enough with all this professional anti-cult stuff or its history to know what to do or say. That must have been obvious to John. I wasn't being much help.
John said he needed to talk to someone about all this, wondering who he could call, who he could trust. Wednesday when he had talked to me on Skype, he had stated the same thing. At that time he mentioned that maybe he could call Karen Spade, someone who was prominent in the cult-recovery field.
"Maybe Lema just needs to get laid," John stated at the end of our phone conversation. I chuckled and said, "I thought that same thing about you when you were sharing your anxiety this past Wednesday."
I immediately felt I had said the wrong thing.
"Huh?" he responded.
"Well, when you were in so much anxiety about your work, feeling you were buried too deep, and your personal challenges - I thought later that maybe you needed a good lay. I mean not from me; I'm not offering or anything like that. I just know it helps my husband when he is so stressed out about his work. A good lay helps him. You know."
God I felt awkward.
We stated our goodbyes.
I never imagined that that would be my last cordial communication with John.
***********************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
***********************
________________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
John called me the Friday after the conflict had begun. A disagreement over whether to use the word "spiritual" or the word "psyhological" in describing cultic trauma had turned into a slew of emails back and forth between John and Lema. Their disagreement had started on Tuesday.
Most all the emails were going between all three of us, myself and Lema and John as we were a team for John's online discussion board. John owned the board; we were, all three, co-administrators.
But I was trying to stay out of the conflict between Lema and John, giving only my opinion and vote on which word to use. It was pretty much a non-issue for me, which word to use. But they were each passionate about their opinion. I was the tie-breaker. I voted in accordance with John's proposal; that was to use the word "spiritual."
On Thursday, Lema started questioning my motives; insinuating and accusing me. At least I wasn't alone since he had been doing similar with John.
On the phone call that Friday, John told me Colleen, a therapist in California, had called him. He felt like she was fishing for information. She asked him something about dual relationships with clients and if John had an organization of some sort called "The Knapp Center." Knapp was John's last name.
He felt her question about dual relationships probably had something to do with his relationship with me, and it probably did.
John and I did have dual relationships of client-therapist-colleague-friend. Though we had referred to me as a "previous client" for months, I'd continue to pay John for his counseling and coaching services through the end of June, 2010. I pay other friends for there professional services, so why not John? But now it was July and John had insisted that I not pay anymore; so I wasn't.
John then brought up Colleen's usage of the words "The Knapp Center." He told me that he had only told a few people the precise name - "The Knapp Center." So Colleen could only have gotten that information from a few sources. Lema was one of those sources.
I got the impression that John might be inferring that Lema had been discussing with Colleen about the conflict he and Lema were having and about my relationships with John. I wondered what difference it made that Colleen would have heard about The Knapp Center, which was the tentative name for an organization John was in the formative stages of pulling together.
Couldn't John just ask Colleen and Lema?
John had shared with me that he felt the professional anti-cult or cult-recovery field (or whatever one calls it) was failing, a laughing stock to academic fields; that there was too much in-fighting, and that if something didn't change the next generation wouldn't understand cultic trauma and how cults work. I had felt my red flags go up when John had shared his passion about "the next generation." That was pushed a lot in The Way, to carry on the message to the next generation.
John seemed passionate about his role in trying to change this "abysmal failure," as he later referred to the professional cult-recovery field. Thus, his desire to form a non-profit center.
John never stated to not mention anything about The Knapp Center. Are we supposed to keep that quiet?
I didn't say anything about my questioning thoughts. I should be smart enough to know all this stuff without asking.
John told me that now, in the slew of emails, Lema had referred to John as, or at least compared him to, a cult leader. I hadn't had time yet to read the latest emails; plus it was getting hard for me to follow all of them.
I asked John, "Why is Lema doing this? Where has all this suspicion come from?"
John answered that it came from anyone who had the International Cultic Studies Association mindset. A mindset of paranoia, always on the look-out for ulterior motives. He said he'd been under this type of attack for 15 years, from his own colleagues. He said that this is the way it is; that one has to have a backbone of steel to do work in this field.
John told me about a tactic he had used in the past in order to track down when someone was talking. "I'm going to tell you something I've used in the past" he began. "It's a Sopranos-type thing. I didn't lie really, but I would change my wording about something just a little. I'd change it as I would talk to different people. That way, if word got back to me about something and certain words were used, I'd know who had been talking."
Isn't that being paranoid? Thinking you gotta discover the leak? Why not just be upfront about stuff? God I hate that shit.
I immediately rationalized my thoughts: This is John, not some paranoid anti-cultist. Plus, he's mentioned on more than one occasion how he and his family had been stalked and threatened by people with the Transcendental Meditation Organization. He's also been verbally attacked by people in the anti-cult field. Of course he needed to protect himself.
Cults. Anti-cults. Same shit, different label.
Dismissing and rationalizing my immediate feelings of John's Sopranos-tactic as being paranoid and his suspicion of Colleen fishing, which I felt she probably was but I really didn't see what a big deal that was and why John just couldn't be up front with her, I responded, "I understand why you had to do the Sopranos thing. It doesn't really bother me. You had to protect yourself and your family."
John shared that he couldn't continue with Lema's verbal attacks, that it had to stop within the next 24 hours.
John sounded tired. It was draining him. I stated that I wasn't sure that a democratic process could work on an online discussion board, that maybe John simply needed to have the final say. He disagreed, stating that he believed it could work.
I didn't feel qualified or familiar enough with all this professional anti-cult stuff or its history to know what to do or say. That must have been obvious to John. I wasn't being much help.
John said he needed to talk to someone about all this, wondering who he could call, who he could trust. Wednesday when he had talked to me on Skype, he had stated the same thing. At that time he mentioned that maybe he could call Karen Spade, someone who was prominent in the cult-recovery field.
"Maybe Lema just needs to get laid," John stated at the end of our phone conversation. I chuckled and said, "I thought that same thing about you when you were sharing your anxiety this past Wednesday."
I immediately felt I had said the wrong thing.
"Huh?" he responded.
"Well, when you were in so much anxiety about your work, feeling you were buried too deep, and your personal challenges - I thought later that maybe you needed a good lay. I mean not from me; I'm not offering or anything like that. I just know it helps my husband when he is so stressed out about his work. A good lay helps him. You know."
God I felt awkward.
We stated our goodbyes.
I never imagined that that would be my last cordial communication with John.
***********************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
***********************
________________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
April 4, 2011
of bucket lists & bubbles
"Say"
by John Mayer
Take all of your wasted honor
Every little past frustration
Take all of your so-called problems,
Better put 'em in quotations
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Walking like a one man army
Fighting with the shadows in your head
Living out the same old moment
Knowing you'd be better off instead,
If you could only . . .
Say what you need to say [x8]
Have no fear for giving in
Have no fear for giving over
You'd better know that in the end
Its better to say too much
Than never to say what you need to say again
Even if your hands are shaking
And your faith is broken
Even as the eyes are closing
Do it with a heart wide open
Say what you need to say [x24]
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
of
bucket lists
and
bubbles
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
April 3, 2011
Knapp's New Playground
adapted journal entry, november, 2010
Friday, 12:45 AM. Holiday Inn Express in Dillsboro. Had a great hike today.
I tried to sleep but all I felt was anger. I wish evil upon John Knapp, and I don't like that. I calmed myself connecting with my heart telling myself I am not responsible for Knapp.
BUT, I feel a responsibility to speak up in light of something I read tonight that Knapp is doing.
So then I lay in bed composing in my head a possible blog to maybe post in December stating I retract any recommendations I have stated regarding Knapp's services and then stating why I do so and include part of my complaint.
This (whether or not to speak up and then how to do so) is similar to part of what ate me up in latter August and September. I will not allow it (I hope not anyway) to eat me up again. Knapp is not worth that. Yet it's not Knapp I get eat up about....it's me...and my responsibility of whether or not to speak up, of not allowing myself to be silenced. How can I stand by and not say something?!? Uugh...
What I read today that has triggered this reaction in me, a reaction of (I confess) vindictiveness and to expose Knapp...I will not post a blog though while in that state. That said, my head screams names and adjectives at him. That brings to mind a poem I wrote when I was having rage regarding something else after leaving The Way. Hmm...perhaps I should take time the next couple days and write a poem about bastard Knapp.
How can he be so damn cruel, not own up to what he did (at least) to me. It was cruel and manipulative. I felt handled afterwards. I felt like he beat me up verbally and then kicked me in a gutter and then left me to bleed out. And he had been my therapist, for God's sake! No, he didn't do that in a therapeutic setting...and in one sense maybe that's worse. Because he could use that as a justification and 'defense.' Grrrrr.... (calm down Carol)
*deep breath*
Now regarding Knapp's new playground; he has retired from his old online playground, the TMFree blog.
Today I ran across a couple posts (authored by Knapp) on another site, Knapp's new playground...at least for now - the Beyond the Art of Living blog. A site that exposes alleged manipulations and dishonesty of a different group (the Art of Living) from Knapp's past group and his involvement with the TMO.
In one of the posts Knapp states that he does not count himself a member of the “anti-cult movement," that his focus is on healing from the devastating trauma former members of toxic groups experience, and that he wants to focus his energies to those who seek help putting their lives back together. Because of that he is forming a new non-profit that will offer direct care regardless of the injured party's ability to pay; he says that he won't be posting any more "nasty Twitter comments to toxic group leaders."
I'm 99% sure this is a restart/continuation of what he was trying to do (the non-profit) when he previously solicited me as a type of editor-in-chief.
The whole thing makes my stomach turn. I wanna barf.
I regulate my responses thinking that maybe his org will help some people. Fine and good. So does the TMO. So does The Way. So do other groups. But what about people who have been used in the process (of any org) and about non-accountability (of that org) that Knapp so loudly harks about? Knapp is no fucking different...god damn him. I doubt very seriously he has been transparent with the people involved in the Center he is forming now. And I'm left with the struggle within myself about what, when, and if to blog...and how to do so without 'victimizing' myself (or others), how to present it concisely and factually (without breaking confidences), and without humiliating (as much as I want to right now) Knapp.
And I tell myself,"Carol, where do you want to put your energy?" And, "Carol, where do you draw the line regarding when to speak up and when not? Ask your heart and wait. Talk about this with Dr. McColoch and maybe Lema and maybe a couple others who have had run-ins with Knapp. But mostly, listen to your own heart. Focus there. Heart soak. Allow the dirt to dissolve. Patient. If your heart leads to post about it on a blog, do so. If not, then don't. You have spoken up by filing a complaint."
Thus ends this installment. I'll now turn on Enya and take another Xanax.
************************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
************************
________________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
Friday, 12:45 AM. Holiday Inn Express in Dillsboro. Had a great hike today.
I tried to sleep but all I felt was anger. I wish evil upon John Knapp, and I don't like that. I calmed myself connecting with my heart telling myself I am not responsible for Knapp.
BUT, I feel a responsibility to speak up in light of something I read tonight that Knapp is doing.
So then I lay in bed composing in my head a possible blog to maybe post in December stating I retract any recommendations I have stated regarding Knapp's services and then stating why I do so and include part of my complaint.
This (whether or not to speak up and then how to do so) is similar to part of what ate me up in latter August and September. I will not allow it (I hope not anyway) to eat me up again. Knapp is not worth that. Yet it's not Knapp I get eat up about....it's me...and my responsibility of whether or not to speak up, of not allowing myself to be silenced. How can I stand by and not say something?!? Uugh...
What I read today that has triggered this reaction in me, a reaction of (I confess) vindictiveness and to expose Knapp...I will not post a blog though while in that state. That said, my head screams names and adjectives at him. That brings to mind a poem I wrote when I was having rage regarding something else after leaving The Way. Hmm...perhaps I should take time the next couple days and write a poem about bastard Knapp.
How can he be so damn cruel, not own up to what he did (at least) to me. It was cruel and manipulative. I felt handled afterwards. I felt like he beat me up verbally and then kicked me in a gutter and then left me to bleed out. And he had been my therapist, for God's sake! No, he didn't do that in a therapeutic setting...and in one sense maybe that's worse. Because he could use that as a justification and 'defense.' Grrrrr.... (calm down Carol)
*deep breath*
Now regarding Knapp's new playground; he has retired from his old online playground, the TMFree blog.
Today I ran across a couple posts (authored by Knapp) on another site, Knapp's new playground...at least for now - the Beyond the Art of Living blog. A site that exposes alleged manipulations and dishonesty of a different group (the Art of Living) from Knapp's past group and his involvement with the TMO.
In one of the posts Knapp states that he does not count himself a member of the “anti-cult movement," that his focus is on healing from the devastating trauma former members of toxic groups experience, and that he wants to focus his energies to those who seek help putting their lives back together. Because of that he is forming a new non-profit that will offer direct care regardless of the injured party's ability to pay; he says that he won't be posting any more "nasty Twitter comments to toxic group leaders."
I'm 99% sure this is a restart/continuation of what he was trying to do (the non-profit) when he previously solicited me as a type of editor-in-chief.
The whole thing makes my stomach turn. I wanna barf.
I regulate my responses thinking that maybe his org will help some people. Fine and good. So does the TMO. So does The Way. So do other groups. But what about people who have been used in the process (of any org) and about non-accountability (of that org) that Knapp so loudly harks about? Knapp is no fucking different...god damn him. I doubt very seriously he has been transparent with the people involved in the Center he is forming now. And I'm left with the struggle within myself about what, when, and if to blog...and how to do so without 'victimizing' myself (or others), how to present it concisely and factually (without breaking confidences), and without humiliating (as much as I want to right now) Knapp.
And I tell myself,"Carol, where do you want to put your energy?" And, "Carol, where do you draw the line regarding when to speak up and when not? Ask your heart and wait. Talk about this with Dr. McColoch and maybe Lema and maybe a couple others who have had run-ins with Knapp. But mostly, listen to your own heart. Focus there. Heart soak. Allow the dirt to dissolve. Patient. If your heart leads to post about it on a blog, do so. If not, then don't. You have spoken up by filing a complaint."
Thus ends this installment. I'll now turn on Enya and take another Xanax.
************************
Note: In June/July, 2011, I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
************************
________________________
Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________
April 1, 2011
~ant farms & consciousness~
I sometimes imagine the universe having a consciousness and it looks upon the earth and watches. All the cars, the people, the movement of life. The busy-ness.
Joy. Laughter. Grief. Death. Birth.
Cycles.
Yesterday as I was walking Buddy (a dog of a Chow-mix breed) for the first time, I had to be keenly attune to our surroundings. Buddy is sensitive to bicycle wheels, loud noises, people - especially those wearing hoodies, and other dogs. Poor Bud has a criminal record; he killed a dog once. Apparently, due to the circumstances surrounding the death, Bud was given another chance. He's kind and wonderful, as long as he knows you. I imagine Bud is a great watch dog to have around.
Bud came to his current owner via a rescue in Florida. I don't know what his life was like before he was rescued.
I guess some people believe that the universe has an awareness, a consciousness. Perhaps it does, in a sense. When you combine all the living creatures milling about or sleeping and dreaming, that's a lot of consciousnesses. It's never quiet or completely still. And that only includes the earth, not the universe.
I think of an ant farm. They are fascinating to watch as they build their tunnels and make various rooms at the end of certain tunnels. If I recall correctly, ants even have a type of burial room.
I don't think the ants are aware when one of us big people is watching them carry out their labor of life.
It helps my perspective to think large - like the universe observing us two-legged creatures.
I recall when I was hiking sometime last summer as I looked out over the vista and into the valley where cows grazed, I felt a deep satisfaction with life - that if I were to die at that moment, I'd die happy. I still feel that way for the most part.
In an instant, unforeseen circumstances can change life dramatically.
My son reminds me from time to time that it's a dangerous business going out your front door.
********************
Joy. Laughter. Grief. Death. Birth.
Cycles.
Yesterday as I was walking Buddy (a dog of a Chow-mix breed) for the first time, I had to be keenly attune to our surroundings. Buddy is sensitive to bicycle wheels, loud noises, people - especially those wearing hoodies, and other dogs. Poor Bud has a criminal record; he killed a dog once. Apparently, due to the circumstances surrounding the death, Bud was given another chance. He's kind and wonderful, as long as he knows you. I imagine Bud is a great watch dog to have around.
Bud came to his current owner via a rescue in Florida. I don't know what his life was like before he was rescued.
I guess some people believe that the universe has an awareness, a consciousness. Perhaps it does, in a sense. When you combine all the living creatures milling about or sleeping and dreaming, that's a lot of consciousnesses. It's never quiet or completely still. And that only includes the earth, not the universe.
I think of an ant farm. They are fascinating to watch as they build their tunnels and make various rooms at the end of certain tunnels. If I recall correctly, ants even have a type of burial room.
I don't think the ants are aware when one of us big people is watching them carry out their labor of life.
It helps my perspective to think large - like the universe observing us two-legged creatures.
I recall when I was hiking sometime last summer as I looked out over the vista and into the valley where cows grazed, I felt a deep satisfaction with life - that if I were to die at that moment, I'd die happy. I still feel that way for the most part.
In an instant, unforeseen circumstances can change life dramatically.
My son reminds me from time to time that it's a dangerous business going out your front door.
********************