Words, meanings & Rose-Tinted Glasses
After all these posts I am still wondering how to interpret sentences like, "Dissociation has its origin in the incest taboo" and statements such as, "The desire for incest is natural and is the key to paradise. Its prohibition provokes the body-spirit split and the conflict leads to searching an imaginary paradise in a world of neurotic fantasy. In this way the prohibition of incest locks all the doors to the real paradise. To transgress the incest taboo means to return to paradise and to liberate oneself of the oppression that civilization exercises over humankind."
If incest here refers to the lost sense of oneness (e.g. of the foetus floating in the amniotic fluid inside the mother's uterus, or of the baby in the mother's arms before recognising itself as a separate being - and if paradise refers to the supposedly blissful felt-sense of non-separateness) then it feels like a poor choice of word considering its concrete meaning and the likelihood of misinterpretation.
If, as I initially considered as a possibility, RT was using the term incest not in a literal way but to refer to some other Jungian or psychoanalytical concept, then why does he go on to pay tribute to men who faced charges for raping children - and in such a way that it sounds as if he is thanking them for having shown the world how to groom a child?
Some of the facilitators to whom I have asked this question refused to accept that the text had been written by RT. However, the text is included in the collection of writings put together by ALAB (1991) and its very first paragraph explains that, "There was no “reductionism” of either the theory or the text." I take that to mean that nothing was removed from the text, i.e. that nothing was censored. I understand the reaction, because I am aware that when the news are too overwhelming people can enter into a state of denial. It is a common coping mechanism. But only when the denial and shock starts to fade does the start of the healing process begin.
I am convinced that most facilitators are not aware of this text, as it is not part of the syllabus. The line of sexuality, however, is covered in the training, and again, different facilitators will interpret the texts differently, and their interpretations will impact their facilitation styles. For example, some may interpret the orgy-passages symbolically, others literally. Depending on which passages they resonate with, some facilitators may interpret "sexual development" as a quest to accumulate as many and as varied sexual experiences with as many people as possible, whereas others may interpret it as the attainment of sexual-affective integration within a deep, meaningful and committed relationship.
The truth is that the texts are not clear, many read as incomplete notes taken during lectures, and the translations were made by amateur volunteers, which increases the chance of error and further misunderstandings. For example, I remember looking at RT's model for human movement in both the Portuguese and English versions of the training manual: at the top of the vertical axis one read, "organic movement"; the other, "orgasmic movement". You can see how a typo or error in translation could easily lead to totally different conclusions, and turn danza into a movement full of multifarious meanings... !
To add to the confusion, there are also passages that seem contradictory. Or perhaps show how RT's thinking and attitudes changed over time. Difficult to say as the majority of the texts are not dated. I can imagine RT echoing Walt Whitman, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
All I can say at this stage is that my cognitive dissonance remains. I still find myself wavering between giving the benefit of the doubt and "throwing the baby with the bath water". Some have asked me, what do you intend to achieve with this. Clarity was my hope. But why share your thoughts online? That's something to do with valuing expression, transparency, access to information, and exchange of ideas - and putting these values above the desire to protect one's reputation, revenue stream, and also above the wish to avoid the backlash of the communities one belongs to. If I am still caring for the baby is because it was born from a process of collective co-creation - and is not the child of the One and Only Creator as some would have you believe. More on that here. Of the 5 stages of grief I'd say I'm now on the 4th, feeling the sadness that accompanies the loss of one's rose-tinted glasses. The 5th and final stage is accepting the loss, letting go, and moving forward with life.