For example, in order to identify these schemas or clarify faulty relational expectations, therapists working from an object relations, attachment, or cognitive behavioral framework often ask themselves (and their clients) questions like these: 1. What does the client tend to want from me or others? (For example, clients who repeatedly were ignored, dismissed, or even rejected might wish to be responded to emotionally, reached out to when they have a problem, or to be taken seriously when they express a concern.) 2. What does the client usually expect from others? (Different clients might expect others to diminish or compete with them, to take advantage and try to exploit them, or to admire and idealize them as special.) 3. What is the client’s experience of self in relationship to others? (For example, they might think of themselves as being unimportant or unwanted, burdensome to others, or responsible for handling everything.) 4. What are the emotional reactions that keep recurring? (In relationships, the client may repeatedly find himself feeling insecure or worried, self-conscious or ashamed, or—for those who have enjoyed better developmental experiences—perhaps confident and appreciated.) 5. As a result of these core beliefs, what are the client’s interpersonal strategies for coping with his relational problems? (Common strategies include seeking approval or trying to please others, complying and going along with what others want them to do, emotionally disengaging or physically withdrawing from others, or trying to dominate others through intimidation or control others via criticism and disapproval.) 6. Finally, what kind of reactions do these interpersonal styles tend to elicit from the therapist and others? (For example, when interacting together, others often may feel boredom, disinterest, or irritation; a press to rescue or take care of them in some way; or a helpless feeling that no matter how hard we try, whatever we do to help disappoints them and fails to meet their need.)

Having DID is, for many people, a very lonely thing. If this book reaches some people whose experiences resonate with mine and gives them a sense that they aren't alone, that there is hope, then I will have achieved one of my goals. A sad fact is that people with DID spend an average of almost seven years in the mental health system before being properly diagnosed and receiving the specific help they need. During that repeatedly misdiagnosed and incorrectly treated, simply because clinicians fail to recognize the symptoms. If this book provides practicing and future clinicians certain insight into DID, then I will have accomplished another goal. Clinicians, and all others whose lives are touched by DID, need to grasp the fundamentally illusive nature of memory, because memory, or the lack of it, is an integral component of this condition. Our minds are stock pots which are continuously fed ingredients from many cooks: parents, siblings, relatives, neighbors, teachers, schoolmates, strangers, acquaintances, radio, television, movies, and books. These are the fixings of learning and memory, which are stirred with a spoon that changes form over time as it is shaped by our experiences. In this incredibly amorphous neurological stew, it is impossible for all memories to be exact.But even as we accept the complex of impressionistic nature of memory, it is equally essential to recognize that people who experience persistent and intrusive memories that disrupt their sense of well-being and ability to function, have some real basis distress, regardless of the degree of clarity or feasibility of their recollections. We must understand that those who experience abuse as children, and particularly those who experience incest, almost invariably suffer from a profound sense of guilt and shame that is not meliorated merely by unearthing memories or focusing on the content of traumatic material. It is not enough to just remember. Nor is achieving a sense of wholeness and peace necessarily accomplished by either placing blame on others or by forgiving those we perceive as having wronged us. It is achieved through understanding, acceptance, and reinvention of the self.

Já však používám určitý filosofický, religionistický a historický materiál výlučně ke znázornění duševních souvislostí. Když například používám pojem Bůh nebo stejně metafyzický pojem energie, pak se tomu nemohu vyhnout, neboť jsou to obrazy, které jsou v lidské duši od počátku. Musím vždy znovu zdůraznit, že ani mravní zákon, ani pojem Bůh, ani jakékoli náboženství nenapadly člověka zvnějšku, jaksi z nebe, ale že to vše má člověk in nuce v sobě a že si to tedy také vytvořil sám ze sebe. Je tudíž naprosto liché si myslet, že k zapuzení těchto strašidel stačí pouhé vysvětlení. Ideje mravního zákona a božství patří k nevykořenitelnému vlastnictví lidské duše. Proto se každá poctivá psychologie, kterou nezaslepilo šosácké osvětářské tmářství, s těmito skutečnostmi musí vyrovnávat. Vysvětlováním ani ironií se jich nezbavíte. Ve fyzice se můžeme obejít bez obrazu Boha, v psychologii je to však zcela určitá veličina, s níž se musí počítat stejně jako s „afektem“, „pudem“, „matkou“ atd. Věčné zaměňování objektu a imaga vede přirozeně k tomu, že ve svém myšlení neumíme rozlišit mezi „Bohem“ a „imagem (obrazem) Boha“, takže se domníváme, že mluvíme o Bohu a že podáváme „teologické“ vysvětlení, když hovoříme o „obrazu Boha“.

Whether we are speaking of a flower or an oak tree, of an earthworm or a beautiful bird, of an ape or a person, we will do well, I believe, to recognize that life is an active process, not a passive one. Whether the stimulus arises from within or without, whether the environment is favorable or unfavorable, the behaviors of an organism can be counted on to be in the direction of maintaining, enhancing, and reproducing itself. This is the very nature of the process we call life. This tendency is operative at all times. Indeed, only the presence or absence of this total directional process enables us to tell whether a given organism is alive or dead. The actualizing tendency can, of course, be thwarted or warped, but it cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism. I remember that in my boyhood, the bin in which we stored our winter's supply of potatoes was in the basement, several feet below a small window. The conditions were unfavorable, but the potatoes would begin to sprout—pale white sprouts, so unlike the healthy green shoots they sent up when planted in the soil in the spring. But these sad, spindly sprouts would grow 2 or 3 feet in length as they reached toward the distant light of the window. The sprouts were, in their bizarre, futile growth, a sort of desperate expression of the directional tendency I have been describing. They would never become plants, never mature, never fulfill their real potential. But under the most adverse circumstances, they were striving to become. Life would not give up, even if it could not flourish. In dealing with clients whose lives have been terribly warped, in working with men and women on the back wards of state hospitals, I often think of those potato sprouts. So unfavorable have been the conditions in which these people have developed that their lives often seem abnormal, twisted, scarcely human. Yet, the directional tendency in them can be trusted. The clue to understanding their behavior is that they are striving, in the only ways that they perceive as available to them, to move toward growth, toward becoming. To healthy persons, the results may seem bizarre and futile, but they are life's desperate attempt to become itself. This potent constructive tendency is an underlying basis of the person-centered approach.

Nikdy si nejsme jisti, že se nějaká nová idea nezmocní buď nás samých, anebo našeho souseda. Víme právě tak z nové historie jako ze staré, že takové ideje bývají často tak zvláštní, ba tak podivné, že nad tím zůstává rozum stát. Fascinace, která je téměř vždy s takovou ideou spojena, vytváří fanatickou posedlost, která způsobuje, že všichni disidenti, to jest lidé, kteří smýšlejí jinak – zcela lhostejné, jak dobrý úmysl mají nebo jak jsou rozumní – jsou upalováni zaživa, stínáni nebo masově sprovozeni ze světa modernějším kulometem. Nemůžeme se ani utěšovat myšlenkou, že něco takového patří dávné minulosti. Bohužel se zdá, že k přítomnosti nejen náleží, ale že je lze v obzvláštní míře očekávat ještě od budoucnosti. “Homo homini lupus” (Člověk člověku vlkem) – to je smutný, ale věčně platný výrok. Člověk má opravdu dostatečný důvod pro to, aby se bál neosobních sil, které sídlí v nevědomí. Tkvíme v blažené nevědomosti o těchto silách, protože se nikdy nebo alespoň skoro nikdy neprojevují v našem osobním jednání a za obvyklých okolností. Když se však na druhé straně lidé shluknou a vytvoří dav, uvolní se dynamismy kolektivního člověka – bestií nebo démonů, kteří v každém jednotlivci dřímají, dokud se nestane součástí masy. Člověk uprostřed masy klesá nevědomě na nižší mravní i intelektuální úroveň; na úroveň, která je stále pod prahem nevědomí připravena prorazit, jakmile je podpořena a vylákána vytvořením masy.

The Earth and the Underworld seen as a descent but also as a process of transformation not only corresponds to the experience of many individuals in the process of individuation, but it can also be demonstrated to be a collective event in modern culture as a whole. The analysis of this state of affairs falls outside the scope of our present consideration and has already been partially accomplished elsewhere. The task that remains for us is to investigate whether and how a change is arrived at in the meaning of the Earth archetype in the individual's experience of depth, and what the implications of this are.Submission to and acceptance of the darkness, the shadow, the negative aspects of the anima and animus, the affective and instinctual side of human nature, and assimilation of the unconscious in the sense of an integration of the personality: these, as you know, are some of the most significant phrases that characterize the decisive beginning of the psychic development of modern man. But even these days the alchemical sentence still stands as a motto over this process of transformation: "visitetis interiara terrae," "visit the inner parts of the earth." We are all still "descenders" if we venture into the unconscious, which for that very reason is also topographically designated "under"-conscious; we set out from the head, from the outer layer of consciousness, and descend into the "deeper" layers of our psyche and of our symbolic body, and in so doing the symbol of depth, still valid today, is derived from the archetype of Earth, gorge and "depths of the abyss."As in religious history, the archetypal inhabitant of these female depths is the snake. Just as in Crete and in Greece and with Nathan of Gaza, so even today we are still met there by the snake of the abyss, the Devil, who is at the same time the snake of Mercurius, the spiritual principle that animates the depths, the "Earth Spirit." Seeing this masculine snake-companion of the Great Mother in a phallic sense as a symbol of sexuality corresponds to one of the infinite possibilities and realities of interpretation. On the highest level we are often obliged to interpret it in this way, but never only as such. Even Hermes, the guide of the soul, who is the same god as the alchemists' Mercurius, has a phallic, snake aspect. But whoever mistakes the snake for the penis and the gorge for the female genitals-and without question it is an issue of the earth's womb-offends against the lower as well as against the higher gods by restricting their field of effectiveness and transformation.

A wealth of research confirms the importance of face-to-face contact. One experiment performed by two researchers at the University of Michigan challenged groups of six students to play a game in which everyone could earn money by cooperating. One set of groups met for ten minutes face-to-face to discuss strategy before playing. Another set of groups had thirty minutes for electronic interaction. The groups that met in person cooperated well and earned more money. The groups that had only connected electronically fell apart, as members put their personal gains ahead of the group’s needs. This finding resonates well with many other experiments, which have shown that face-to-face contact leads to more trust, generosity, and cooperation than any other sort of interaction.The very first experiment in social psychology was conducted by a University of Indiana psychologist who was also an avid bicyclist. He noted that “racing men” believe that “the value of a pace,” or competitor, shaves twenty to thirty seconds off the time of a mile. To rigorously test the value of human proximity, he got forty children to compete at spinning fishing reels to pull a cable. In all cases, the kids were supposed to go as fast as they could, but most of them, especially the slower ones, were much quicker when they were paired with another child. Modern statistical evidence finds that young professionals today work longer hours if they live in a metropolitan area with plenty of competitors in their own occupational niche.Supermarket checkouts provide a particularly striking example of the power of proximity. As anyone who has been to a grocery store knows, checkout clerks differ wildly in their speed and competence. In one major chain, clerks with differing abilities are more or less randomly shuffled across shifts, which enabled two economists to look at the impact of productive peers. It turns out that the productivity of average clerks rises substantially when there is a star clerk working on their shift, and those same average clerks get worse when their shift is filled with below-average clerks.Statistical evidence also suggests that electronic interactions and face-to-face interactions support one another; in the language of economics, they’re complements rather than substitutes. Telephone calls are disproportionately made among people who are geographically close, presumably because face-to-face relationships increase the demand for talking over the phone. And when countries become more urban, they engage in more electronic communications.

As a special branch of general philosophy, pathogenesis had never been explored. In my opinion it had never been approached in a strictly scientific fashion--that is to say, objectively, amorally, intellectually.All those who have written on the subject are filled with prejudice. Before searching out and examining the mechanism of causes of disease, they treat of 'disease as such', condemn it as an exceptional and harmful condition, and start out by detailing the thousand and one ways of combating it, disturbing it, destroying it; they define health, for this purpose, as a 'normal' condition that is absolute and immutable.Diseases ARE. We do not make or unmake them at will. We are not their masters. They make us, they form us. They may even have created us. They belong to this state of activity which we call life. They may be its main activity. They are one of the many manifestations of universal matter. They may be the principal manifestation of that matter which we will never be able to study except through the phenomena of relationships and analogies. Diseases are a transitory, intermediary, future state of health. It may be that they are health itself.Coming to a diagnosis is, in a way, casting a physiological horoscope.What convention calls health is, after all, no more than this or that passing aspect of a morbid condition, frozen into an abstraction, a special case already experienced, recognized, defined, finite, extracted and generalized for everybody's use. Just as a word only finds its way into the Dictionary Of The French Academy when it is well worn stripped of the freshness of its popular origin or of the elegance of its poetic value, often more than fifty years after its creation (the last edition of the learned Dictionary is dated 1878), just as the definition given preserves a word, embalms it in its decrepitude, but in a pose which is noble, hypocritical and arbitrary--a pose it never assumed in the days of its vogue, while it was still topical, living and meaningful--so it is that health, recognized as a public Good, is only the sad mimic of some illness which has grown unfashionable, ridiculous and static, a solemnly doddering phenomenon which manages somehow to stand on its feet between the helping hands of its admirers, smiling at them with its false teeth. A commonplace, a physiological cliche, it is a dead thing. And it may be that health is death itself.Epidemics, and even more diseases of the will or collective neuroses, mark off the different epochs of human evolution, just as tellurian cataclysms mark the history of our planet.

ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐﻳﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦﺑﺎﺗﺰﺍﻥ :ﻓﻼ ﻳﻤﻴﻞ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺗﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺞ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺇﺣﺪﻱﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻪﺇﻳﻘﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻔﺲ ،ﻭﻻ ﻳﻤﻴﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺇﻳﺬﺍﺀ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻨﻒﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻲ.ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻀﺐﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﻴﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮﻩ ﻭ ﻳﻔﺤﺺﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺻﺪﻕ .ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺛﻘﺔﺑﺎﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮﺑﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﺰﻧﺔ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﻣﺪﺭﺑﺔ.

Самый обычный парень, вроде нас с вами, если не считать выражения лица. У некоторых ребят из технического отдела такое - особенно у шишек. Довольно часто я замечал его у профессоров из колледжа - далеко не шишек, по правде говоря. А ещё у большинства химиков и огромного количества проповедников. Знаете, это что-то вроде: не желаю я с вами соревноваться, у меня полно дел поважнее. Вы мне не конкурент. Средний парень, получающий зарплату, даже не знает, как на себя такой вид напустить.("Помехи")

A Etimologia tentou separar duas raízes: de um lado a raiz-lua que, com men (lua) e mensis (mes) pertence a raíz ma do sacrifício mas; e de outro, a raiz sânscrita manas, com menos (grego), mens (latim) etc., que representa o espirito por excelência.Da raiz-espírito brota uma ampla ramificação de sentidos espirituais significativos: menos, espirito, coração, alma, coragem, ardor; menoinan, considerar, meditar, desejar; memona, ter em mente, pretender; mainomai pensar e também perder-se em pensamentos e delirar, a qual pertence mania, loucura, possessão e também manteia, profecia. Outros ramos da mesma raiz-espírito são menis, menos, raiva, menuo, indicar, revelar; meno, permanecer, demorar-se, manthano, aprender; menini, lembrar; e mentiri, mentir. Todas essas raízes-espírito originam-se de uma raiz original sânscrita Mati-h, que significa pensamento, intenção.Em nenhum lugar, seja ele qual for, essa raiz foi colocada em oposição a raiz-lua, men, lua; mensis, mes; mas, que e ligado a ma, medir. Dessa raiz origina-se não só matra-m, medida, mas também metis, inteligência, sabedoria; matiesthai, meditar, ter em mente, sonhar; e, mais ainda, para nossa surpresa, verificamos que essa raiz-lua, pretensamente oposta a raiz-espírito, e da mesma maneira derivada da raiz sânscrita mati-h, significando medida, conhecimento.Em conseqüência, a única raiz arquetípica subjacente a esses significados e espírito-lua, que se expressa em todas as suas ramificações diversificadas, revelando-nos assim sua natureza e seu significado primordial. O que emana do espírito-lua e um movimento emocional relacionado de perto com as atividades do inconsciente. Na erupção ativa e um espirito igneo: coragem, cólera, possessão e ira; sua auto-revelação conduz a profecia, cogitação e mentira, mas também a poesia. Junto com essa produtividade ignea, no entanto, coloca-se outra atitude mais “ medida “ que medita, sonha, espera e deseja, hesita e se retarda, que se relaciona com a memória e o aprendizado, e cujo efeito e a moderação, a sabedoria e o significado.Discutindo o assunto em outro lugar, mencionei, como uma atividade primaria do inconsciente, o Einfall, isto e, o pressentimento ou o pensamento que “ estala “ na cabeça. O aparecimento de conteúdos espirituais que penetram na consciência com suficiente forca persuasiva para fascina-la e controla-la, representa provavelmente a primeira forma de emergência do espirito no homem. Enquanto numa consciência ampliada e num ego mais forte esse fator emergente e introjetado e concebido como uma manifestação psíquica interna, no começo parece atingir a psique “ de fora “, como uma revelação sagrada e uma mensagem numinosa dos “ poderes “ ou deuses. O ego, ao experimentar esses conteúdos como vindos de fora, mesmo quando os chama de intuitos ou inspirações, recebe o fenômeno espiritual espontâneo com a atitude característica do ego da consciência matriacal. Porque ainda e verdade, como sempre foi, que as revelações do espírito-lua são recebidas mais facilmente quando a noite anima o inconsciente e provoca a introversão do que a luz brilhante do dia.

Devaluation of the Earth, hostility towards the Earth, fear of the Earth: these are all from the psychological point of view the expression of a weak patriarchal consciousness that knows no other way to help itself than to withdraw violently from the fascinating and overwhelming domain of the Earthly. For we know that the archetypal projection of the Masculine experiences, not without justice, the Earth as the unconscious-making, instinct-entangling, and therefore dangerous Feminine. At the same time the projection of the masculine anima is mingled with the living image of the Earth archetype in the unconscious of man; and the more one-sidedly masculine man's conscious mind is the more primitive, unreliable, and therefore dangerous his anima will be. However, the Earth archetype, in compensation to the divinity of the archetype of Heaven and the Father, that determined the consciousness of medieval man, is fused together with the archaic image of the Mother Goddess.Yet in its struggle against this Mother Goddess, the conscious mind, in its historical development, has had great difficulty in asserting itself so as to reach its – patriarchal - independence. The insecurity of this conscious mind-and we have profound experience of how insecure the position of the conscious mind still is in modern man-is always bound up with fear of the unconscious, and no well-meaning theory "against fear" will be able to rid the world of this deeply rooted anxiety, which at different times has been projected on different objects. Whether this anxiety expresses itself in a religious form as the medieval fear of demons or witches, or politically as the modern fear of war with the State beyond the Iron Curtain, in every case we are dealing with a projection, though at the same time the anxiety is justified. In reality, our small ego-consciousness is justifiably afraid of the superior power of the collective forces, both without and within.In the history of the development of the conscious mind, for reasons which we cannot pursue here, the archetype of the Masculine Heaven is connected positively with the conscious mind, and the collective powers that threaten and devour the conscious mind both from without and within, are regarded as Feminine. A negative evaluation of the Earth archetype is therefore necessary and inevitable for a masculine, patriarchal conscious mind that is still weak. But this validity only applies in relation to a specific type of conscious mind; it alters as the integration of the human personality advances, and the conscious mind is strengthened and extended. A one-sided conscious mind, such as prevailed in the medieval patriarchal order, is certainly radical, even fanatical, but in a psychological sense it is by no means strong. As a result of the one-sidedness of the conscious mind, the human personality becomes involved in an equally one-sided opposition to its own unconscious, so that actually a split occurs. Even if, for example, the Masculine principle identifies itself with the world of Heaven, and projects the evil world of Earth outwards on the alien Feminine principle, both worlds are still parts of the personality, and the repressing masculine spiritual world of Heaven and of the values of the conscious mind is continually undermined and threatened by the repressed but constantly attacking opposite side. That is why the religious fanaticism of the representatives of the patriarchal World of Heaven reached its climax in the Inquisition and the witch trials, at the very moment when the influence of the archetype of Heaven, which had ruled the Middle Ages and the previous period, began to wane, and the opposite image of the Feminine Earth archetype began to emerge.

I resolved to come right to the point. "Hello," I said as coldly as possible, "we've got to talk.""Yes, Bob," he said quietly, "what's on your mind?" I shut my eyes for a moment, letting the raging frustration well up inside, then stared angrily at the psychiatrist."Look, I've been religious about this recovery business. I go to AA meetings daily and to your sessions twice a week. I know it's good that I've stopped drinking. But every other aspect of my life feels the same as it did before. No, it's worse. I hate my life. I hate myself."Suddenly I felt a slight warmth in my face, blinked my eyes a bit, and then stared at him."Bob, I'm afraid our time's up," Smith said in a matter-of-fact style."Time's up?" I exclaimed. "I just got here.""No." He shook his head, glancing at his clock. "It's been fifty minutes. You don't remember anything?""I remember everything. I was just telling you that these sessions don't seem to be working for me."Smith paused to choose his words very carefully. "Do you know a very angry boy named 'Tommy'?""No," I said in bewilderment, "except for my cousin Tommy whom I haven't seen in twenty years...""No." He stopped me short. "This Tommy's not your cousin. I spent this last fifty minutes talking with another Tommy. He's full of anger. And he's inside of you.""You're kidding?""No, I'm not. Look. I want to take a little time to think over what happened today. And don't worry about this. I'll set up an emergency session with you tomorrow. We'll deal with it then."RobertThis is Robert speaking. Today I'm the only personality who is strongly visible inside and outside. My own term for such an MPD role is dominant personality. Fifteen years ago, I rarely appeared on the outside, though I had considerable influence on the inside; back then, I was what one might call a "recessive personality." My passage from "recessive" to "dominant" is a key part of our story; be patient, you'll learn lots more about me later on. Indeed, since you will meet all eleven personalities who once roamed about, it gets a bit complex in the first half of this book; but don't worry, you don't have to remember them all, and it gets sorted out in the last half of the book. You may be wondering -- if not "Robert," who, then, was the dominant MPD personality back in the 1980s and earlier? His name was "Bob," and his dominance amounted to a long reign, from the early 1960s to the early 1990s. Since "Robert B. Oxnam" was born in 1942, you can see that "Bob" was in command from early to middle adulthood.Although he was the dominant MPD personality for thirty years, Bob did not have a clue that he was afflicted by multiple personality disorder until 1990, the very last year of his dominance. That was the fateful moment when Bob first heard that he had an "angry boy named Tommy" inside of him. How, you might ask, can someone have MPD for half a lifetime without knowing it? And even if he didn't know it, didn't others around him spot it?To outsiders, this is one of the most perplexing aspects of MPD. Multiple personality is an extreme disorder, and yet it can go undetected for decades, by the patient, by family and close friends, even by trained therapists. Part of the explanation is the very nature of the disorder itself: MPD thrives on secrecy because the dissociative individual is repressing a terrible inner secret. The MPD individual becomes so skilled in hiding from himself that he becomes a specialist, often unknowingly, in hiding from others. Part of the explanation is rooted in outside observers: MPD often manifests itself in other behaviors, frequently addiction and emotional outbursts, which are wrongly seen as the "real problem."The fact of the matter is that Bob did not see himself as the dominant personality inside Robert B. Oxnam. Instead, he saw himself as a whole person. In his mind, Bob was merely a nickname for Bob Oxnam, Robert Oxnam, Dr. Robert B. Oxnam, PhD.

Когда я поверяю себя своей конечной целью, то получается, что стремлюсь я, в сущности, не к тому, чтобы стать хорошим человеком и таковым предстать перед высшим судом, - а, напротив, совсем напротив, стремлюсь окинуть взором всё сообщество живых тварей, людей и зверей, познать основные их пристрастия, желания, нравственные идеалы, свести их для себя к простым закономерностям и как можно скорее настолько в этом деле преуспеть, чтобы угодить им всем, всем без исключения, причём (в том-то вся и штука) угодить настолько, чтобы я мог, не утратив всеобщую их любовь и приязнь, в конце концов - единственным грешником, которого не зажарят заживо, - открыто, на глазах у всех являть миру все живущие во мне подлости. Одним словом, меня волнует только суд человеческий, который я к тому же хочу обмануть, причём без обмана.