The DSM 5 is the psychiatric manual which looks at what is pathological in the way of mental health. Pathological mental health is typically when someone is in a cycle of behaviour which is destructive to themselves and/or others. Narcissistic personality disorder which is a particular interest of mine for example obviously hurts and demeans other people. Within this cycle to the perpetrator has a dark shadow which they are lost in and are not able to see the light and integrate their issue.

There is typically not enough in my view wrote about what constitutes healthy mental health. I feel in many respects we are still locked in the lack of sickness model rather than the real moving into the thriving space. I feel there is a huge issue with this being seen as pretentious and too much etc etc but I feel it is of fundamental importance to always be working through into these levels.

Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Carl Jung were people who spoke of the fully functioning person, an individuated person and the self- actualiser. There can often be a mistake in seeing such as being narcissistic but this really is a huge mistake. Whereas it certainly involves a toughening up of boundaries and likely rejection of certain things that took place before a person on this path will be someone who’s behaviour is of a helpful and forward moving nature. Someone dedicated to a purpose, feelings of beauty, integrity, connectedness. A narcissistic individual is inflated and seeks to harm whereas someone on the other end of the scale uses themselves to be of service.

Amanda Ferguson in ‘Life works’ speaks of normal mental health as being seemingly more mundane. Someone who is in tune with the beauty while also the suffering in life. Not the same level of emotional fluctuation but a level of balance and constant management. I would agree with this also although would not use the word ‘normal’ since I feel in definition normal can more refer to the mainstream and it is unknown as to if there are more people on the pathological scale or the non-pathological scale.

Ken Wilbers’ integral life practice speaks of the whole being good while doing good idea. His books are wonderful for developing consciousness and also highlighting the huge issue of Boomeritis and this lost spiritual world of postmodern flatland. A real disease to look out for, to manage and to overcome. It’s really important to keep working to get our grip and to keep working to the more conscious and aware scale.

I have been interested in this topic for a long time now. I read a great post about it here (https://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/09/why-the-world-needs-narcissists/) a good while ago now which I often refer clients to. When people initially come to see me from abuse they have endured from people who are narcissistic this is not a topic to raise too quickly as it could seem dismissive of feelings. However I feel with clients and have felt this to be true personally.

I have engaged with at least 2 people in a close environment socially and romantically who have had high narcissistic traits and I can genuinely see the incredible learning that has come from this. It is as if the depths we go to allow us to go deeper than we would ever have done before and emerge a far greater and more authentic force than we could have done previously.

My Counselling mentor used the term ‘dark soul mate’ which I find to be relevant here. I guess using this type of thinking whereas a light soul mate connects with you in a beautiful empowering kind of way and brings out all your good points for your betterment the dark soul mate rather crushes you. People express being like empty shelves of themselves and feeling destroyed from the experience. It really does take people to a rock bottom feeling. A complete and utter being trampled on, used and abused.

I always point out to clients and have had it pointed out to me that although it feels destroying you have not been destroyed. You are very much still here. A weaker person may not be. You have been crushed but the strength and willingness to grow is very much well and alive. It’s all just very difficult ‘right now’.

Often clients are able to look back and recognise red flags and general warning signs that were there from early on which they didn’t pay attention to or just ignored for some reason. Perhaps a blindness similar to what they were forced to put on in their childhood. It is here in the recovery we can look to restructure and see why these intuitive senses were not paid attention to. We look to redevelop this and figure out how to trust this more in future by building up the trusting relationship between therapist and client.

I’ve wrote about intuition before and feel there is so much in this we are yet to find out more of. Wayne Dyer says out intuition is like our connection to God.

People often feel saddened by what a mess they are in and think about how the abuser seems to have got away with everything scott free. I usually here draw a diagram of a spectrum of mental health. I draw a line with pathological mental health on one side and healthy mental health on the other. Pathological mental health is typically behaviour which is destructive to self and others. Narcissists would be on this side and going further down the scale a megalomaniac psychopath. Here the shadow component of the individual is really big. On the other side of the scale would be more enlightened beings eg Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela to name a few. Here the shadow would be reducing and reducing. This would be in line with what Maslow referred to as the self actualising characters.

I usually see people in therapy as being a little off the centre to the left whereas there is a level of distress and shadow work which needs to be done to be brought into

I wrote recently about the pre trans fallacy and there is another good link in with this which is highlighted within the integral framework. Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are highly reputable distinguished therapists. They both split from one another with the key dispute being that Freud felt that life was all about the expression of sexual impulses which were restricted by society and became controlled. Carl Jung on the other hand was very much interested in the mystical and a working towards spirit and a true self.

As they are both put into their rightful perspective it became important to clarify that both of these viewpoints have a level of credibility. There is some kind of behaviour which is in fact sexual/aggressive impulses being acted out, and that is okay. There is also fairly seen to be the dimension of being which is a yearning to be more ourselves, a journey on the path of individuation.

It is highlighted that therefore the issue here is just deciding which is which. In retrospect Jung is seen as seeing lots of dreams etc as being a yearning to the true self. Whereas this could well be the case a lot of the time the truth could be that perhaps some of this is in fact a lower level impulse which is playing out which is more in line with Freud’s thinking. In doing this we make a pre trans fallacy. We look at something which is in fact pre personal and more regressive in its’ nature and with lower levels of human nature and mistake it for a higher form.

In the opposite way Freud saw all things as being aggressive and sexual impulses being acted out therefore a greater yearning for spirit can be interpreted through this lens as just being a primitive acting out but the truth is that it is actually a transpersonal experience. Here again we have committed a pre trans error.

Dreams are interesting to work with in clients and the trick is to explore meaning to the client and keep an awareness of the pre trans fallacy and what is actually playing out. Here the more humanistic style rather than the more expert doctor stance of Jung or Freud is useful to explore meaning with the client rather than a just telling them.

I came across the concept of the pre trans fallacy when I first read Ken Wilber. It is a really interesting concept and it is based on the idea of distinguishing between an act and the level of moral development associated with it. This is really common in what Wilber discusses in regards to green pathology and extreme postmodernism. This very self righteous and narcissistic view on things where things are deemed to be acceptable or not which may or may not be true but the moral development associated with this is actually at a low red level, a mentality more of a ‘f*** you’ , no one tells me what to do kind of thinking.

Ken Wilber discusses these examples as he speaks about controversial topics such as the Vietnam war and the more recent war in Iraq. With particular focus on the Vietnam war Ken Wilber discusses a study carried out where the moral development of people protesting the war was tested. Whereas there would have been good moral developments to have been against this was and perhaps some good morally developed reasons for Ken Wilber said how a high percentage of the people who were protesting were actually from a lower level of moral development which did not actually comprehend the issue. The level of morality was more associated with this ‘red’ Wilber speaks of.

Clare Graves in someone who discusses this moral development in more detail. This is obviously a very important thing to be aware of and highlights the need to look deeper into where someone is coming from. Ken Wilber discusses the more recent war in Iraq and says how there can be good morally developed reasons for and against and the important thing in terms of consciousness development isn’t necessarily the actual viewpoint of the person but rather the level of morality behind it.

This issue came up for me more recently as I was discussing with someone the controversy of the TPPA and a friend of mine told me how people interviewed on TV about this and why they were protesting did not actually know real morally developed reasons behind their stance. Thereby indicating to me that perhaps whereas the standpoint itself may or may not be correct the actual morality behind it was likely of a lower level and in fact not in a position to really integrally make such a stance.

This came up for me again too as I was chatting with someone about the election of Donald Trump in the US. This was something I definitely did not like and I would hope my moral development is at a level to say that but I guess it’s hard to be sure without it being tested. Whereas I felt convinced that there was much drive from more racist fringes on this issue this person had quite intelligent reasons about why although it was a close call for him he felt Trump was preferable to the very popular left-leaning Bernie Sanders (someone I liked a lot). I felt too that BREXIT in the UK held a similar kind of thing.

I guess the key here is just being dedicated to your own growth and own integral practice. When you actually vote or take stances to do all you can to be sure it is from this solid heart centred place and not reactionary. One of Wilbers’ quotes I love most was one where he spoke of integral practice then the outer world of politics etc etc. It went something like this ‘where the outer world and who gets in and who doesn’t is obviously important, ultimately all we can do is dedicate ourselves to our own integral practice, then we can leave the world more whole than how we found it.’