On Monday, the 13^th of January I prepared the grounds for the Monday group for my difficult, powerful poetic writings of mine by presenting, displaying and briefly discussing an article published the same day in Haaretz, by Gideon Levy, titled ‘Perhaps salvation will come from the Hague; Suddenly they found in Jerusalem the injustices of the wall/fence. Who is going to save Israel from itself’.

I wrote Jack

I need to explain why I found it useful to discuss the article 'who will save Israel from itself' yesterday. It also raises the question why an article that stormed me emotionally could not be conveyed to the group. I was tired and physically weak yesterday. I could not communicate it properly. And I doubt I would be able to for it is emotional. How can you convey and communicate such despair in words? I ask.

If I won't find this article in English, I may need to consider proposing my own translation of it. It may be useful.

The reason that I have chosen to start my engagement of some ideas that I have been toying with for a long time in regard to dynamism, change, movement and progress within the self (as totality) as a means of constructing and becoming a self as totality/ identity if you wish I have problems with this word 'identity' - I do not think there is such thing.

I hold the thesis that only the totality can change and move itself. Only the 'I' can be altered by itself and cause itself to modify/change/alter and permit itself to be influenced by others' influence. The others are merely heuristic within the process of/within the I. We are 'I/self' constructed not socially/external others constructed. Whilst in existential threat, merely the totality can change itself and create itself.

In the paper 'self' and several other writings I described the destruction of my self triggered by a very significant event for me that raised even more significant events that were covered by this event. It was a matter of the 'I' as personal, unique, independent, autonomous totality in the world comprises of billions of totalities interrelating with each other and becoming available to the 'I' to make sense of and internalise in the 'self' 'I'. Whilst, I was offered support and help by all those external institutes and individuals who were very close to my grandfather and myself, I said that I can merely change myself, take the initiative and better myself by taking responsibility and construct an active plan that is the most useful for me and my need and follow it. Merely by being active rather than passive, taking responsibility and creating a process of devising a plan, follow it and taking the initiative for change and improvement. It is/was the despair that fuels the need to change and better and create a plan. There is a little voice and fire within the self that in time of despair yells at the self to start pulling itself together for no one else will do so for it, to kill the self-pity and to start emerging (I said in 'human existence'), very slowly at first, to start constructing the foundations and to gradually follow a plan and activate it, taking responsibility over one self. I talk about the fight within the self and of the self with the self in order to create an active, very dynamic process that constantly nourishes, feeds and fuels itself. It is this very active process that makes the self gush and boil and take initiative and action over itself that allows the self to be and become, to emerge, to progress and to exist. How it is done is irrelevant. There is no difference between collecting stamps or saving the world from hunger. It is the importance and meaning and significance for the individual 'I' that matters. And passion and zealous.

Yesterday's article talked about a tremendous despair and saddened self-pity. It talked about the self giving up to the/a self that is stronger than itself. It talks about a self that acknowledges that itself is stronger than itself. It talks about a self that loses the battle to itself. So the self goes to the external 'you' (in this case the Israeli left goes to the world and cries for help in desperation, with all the pain and sorrow this request causes it, with all the dilemmas it gives it, it hates itself for having to do so). This is also action, I now think, but 'certainly living contradiction' for it stands against everything the left believes in. The self is exhausted. It is beaten up by itself. It can no longer help itself. It loses the commitment 'engagement' process. So it goes to the 'you' for help and assistance. And Gideon Levy says in this article "The hope that the international institutes will be the ones that will save Israel from its own injustices and ill-deeds is very problematic. But in a situation where the law and justice of the state have failed, there is no other choice but to turn to the last resort, the international... it would have been better if we would have finally understood that our occupation regime is based upon a terrible injustice, that should have been terminated a very long time ago".

So you can sense the pain and terrible despair in the self of the 'I' going to the 'you'. Now the 'you' and the external/international cannot properly understand the 'I', a weakness and a bit of a strength, for it is not it 'the I', but an external 'you/he/she/it/they'. The 'you' will dictate and ask questions and make demands. The international institute will force a withdrawal and the end of the settlements as well as some economic, social and military demands and and a 'decent' behaviour. As part of its Holocaust's mentality Israel was always suspicious of others and demands its complete independence. Ben Gurion refused military-defence treaties offers from De Gaul and the French. Rabin rejected similar offers from Clinton.

You go to the 'you' as last resort in order not to let the self completely destroy it self and thus itself for by the self winning against it self and losing itself, it is losing itself. You tried everything to help you (your I/self) and failed. You kill yourself. You lose. You despair. So you go the the 'you' for help, to save you.

The last Intifida led to the only success so far to solve this nonsense mess. The US government did not know about the Oslo negociation. It started as an academic game, one of so many that always existed between Palestinians and Israelies throughout the entire history of Zionism. After it made progress and reached the no return point between those academics, Peres and Arafat were notified and permitted the Israelies and Palestinian academic to go on officially, then Rabin who permitted to make it official, then in the end Clinton and the general public. During the Shamir's administration, the left was convinced that it will manage to win a non-confidence vote and the pursuing election and to cause a major change. Oslo came and a major progress thanks to this belief. Rabin was assassinated and the change stopped. Now, this intifida-war and occupation went off hand completely and the left is in despair and goes to the external 'you', against everything and itself included. It is very despairing to see those activists who talk about taking personal responsibility, commitment and fight and strength and action in order to prevail and change loses hope, despair, loses faith and calls for external help.

Gideon Levy is an activist journalist in Ha'aretz who tries to raise awareness and fight indifference in order to provoke change. He goes to the Palestinian authority and reports his impressions and findings to the public/readers. He has always done so with so much passion and commitment and sincere desire to change and influence, to educate if you want. Now, for the first time, he says 'I can do no more, I despair, I cannot handle it anymore, perhaps the external 'you', who is more powerful yet alien and outsider can help the 'I' help itself, for the 'I' can no longer help itself.'. So I was moved by that. As I have been reading him for the past decade.

I will work on that for next week where I will read parts of the paper and explain in a more coherent way.

Alon

In 1996/7 I have written an article at the Hebrew University about inducing oneself and becoming it.

I discussed it with some members of the Monday group yesterday in regard to compassion.

I critiqued the critique of my critique as not being compassionate but the opposite, especially whilst subscribing in October to Jean Mcniff's submission about being more than AR, praising it. I said that constantly talking about compassion cheapen it and takes away its novelty and strength. This critique is relevant to all aspects of life.

In this article I put forward to the group yesterday and on many occasions before I described in details a case study of a middle aged lady whose children left her home and her partner/spouse was traveling a lot as part of his job. This lady felt lonely, bored and unfulfilled and a bit sad. And very rightly so. She was alone, had few friends and her family was away and distant. In a social gathering, she was asked how she is and described her feelings. The other side/converser mentioned depression simply as part of the social need to make conversation and interact/engage with her. This lady, out of boredom and the need to do something, started immersing her self in this new word she has just head, depression. She read the literature, attended lectures, consulted professionals. She studied the symptoms. Then, applied them to/in her life. Not being hungry, she interpreted it as a clinical symptom. Sleeping nine hours one night instead of the 'normal' eight became a clinical symptom of depression. Same goes and does the same with her libido, feelings of sadness and emptiness and little worth, etc etc. This lady was not depressed. But she soon turned herself and became clinically, pathologically depressed.

This can be applied to anything. We are self-constructed and constructing. We can become what ever is suitable for us at the moment and space of our existence/ing. Our values can imprison us too. If we do not watch out. So do the living contradictions. If we lose the proportion and perspectives then mercy on us. Ditto if we immerse too much we become it.

We are compassionate and loving, but also angry and hurt and hate. We immerse in our selves. But need to take a break and go apart. If one needs and is pressured by the need to complete a self-study thesis then he is completely immersed in it.

To constantly call for compassion and healing lose the meaning of it and cheapen it. I am dreading that the call for humanity, individuality, self 'I', holism cheapen it. Still, I am condemned to me and to be my self.

I critiqued the reductionist, mechanical nature of psychological heuristic models since they preoccupy themselves with one aspect of the human subject and human existence. I call for a gestaltian, integrative approach. I can only do so through the self and me and the 'I'. But then I become immersed and preoccupied with my self and my values/objectives, something that I live and have lived all my life. I am reduced to it and become it in the now and then. I call for others to immerse in themselves and account for them as part of my thesis/solution. But it is risky and painful at times as I read many accounts (Moira and Winter) who also admit that.

This leads me to my own questions of

whether I propose psychology or insanity

healing and joy or pain

Energy or despair

I will have to discuss those aspects in my thesis for it authenticity.

On the 14^th of January, 2004

I asked Jack about the manner/fashion in which to present my ideas about the self and the war within the self to the Monday group. I have problems with it.

I also wanted to ask what the Monday group would like me to present to them. I have writings and explanations. I should like to know what to prepare.

There is always a problem to fit it in. When we are doing the round and every one talks about his/her life and successes and the conversation is extremely casual, social like, almost as part of making conversation at a social get together/event/party, my bizarre/painful ideas in regard to despair, the fight of the self with/in the self and very personal/autobiographical, painful explanation/narrative seems to be so much out of place and context and make me feel very much not at ease to discuss - forcing me to be more detached, less personal, more impersonal and less sense-making. It also makes me wonder about the boundaries between academic thesis' work/writing and therapeutic/poetic/very personal writing. And I simply feel out of place and not comfortable. How shall I approach this? How to do it as an academic attempt? Intuitingly academia for me is very cold and detached and impersonal (this point was hammered and conditioned on me for a decade) and rigorous and this writing is the opposite. It is very powerful, emotional and poetic and therapeutic and very personal.

Alon

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Alan Serper wrote:

> And I simply feel out of place and not comfortable. How shall I

> approach this? How to do it as an academic attempt? Intuitingly academia

> for me is very cold and detached and impersonal (this point was hammered

> and conditioned on me for a decade) and rigorous and this writing is the

> opposite. It is very powerful, emotional and poetic and therapeutic and

> very personal.

I think your approach is closely related to your research, so that it is an important matter in your enquiry. My own feeling is that you have the opportunity on Monday to present and explore your ideas within a community, or network of relationships that includes high levels of scholarly intelligence and I include within this high standards of emotional, spiritual, aesthetic, logical and intuitive judgement. This scholarly community doesn't tend to hammer or condition its members in any way. I think it holds open a creative space from which many doctoral theses have emerged!

Love Jack.

After Je Kan’s seminar, I wrote

I replied, bringing some questions/issues that bother me in regard with the clinical aspects of my research inquiry of what it is like being me, a human subject in the world. Lately, I produced some autobiographical writings, what I make of it theoretically in regard to my own learning process about life (mine), human existence and my own conception of human existence in the world based upon my own experiences of living and being in the world both as me and as a human being.

My friend Karl and my critical ‘I’ asked me how do I relate this very personal learning process to others and make it public and ethics.

I ask myself the following questions. Without them I have no thesis and nothing?

1. How do I make my ethics an ethos?

2. How do I make my personal, subjective life and experiences and what I learned from them public and universal and examined externally?

3. How do I make them an objective, academic thesis?

4. How do I make them helpful for others clinically, healingly and therapeutically and contributive practically to therapy and to the areas of LAR and therapy and the academic study human existence?

5. How do I evaluate my own self-evaluation?

6. How can I enable others to do so?

7. How do I show and relate what it is for me to have the best meaningful existence/self/being for me at that time?

8. How do I demonstrate and assess my learning and improving and being?

9. How do I turn my very powerful poetic accounts into an objective, universal thesis?

10. How do I relate it to others?

11. I am not sure I can show healing and therapeutic endeavours. If I do, then how do I make them public and thesis?

12. How do I share this very personal learning with the academia, within the academics in order to have the best of the two worlds, therapeutic, supportive and academic and finally showing what it is to be human and structuring human existence within the academia, whilst keeping the academia as academia and the personal therapeutic, support milieu as such. In other words, how do I prevent spoiling and soiling the two milieux.

13. Do we need to create two or more separate support milieu for this project; one clinical, medical, practical and one academic and one theoretical, philosophical, reading and discussion group?

With this questions in mind I can show parts of my papers ‘self’ about the experience and learning from the final days of my grandfather and ‘human existence’, ‘me, me and me’ and the autobiographical account with CI.

Prior to Je Kan’s seminar and writing those lines;

I wrote Jack

I am in a rush to go to the seminar. I wrote a draft of something that I raise to myself. I am sending it as a very raw conversation as I want to go to the seminar and will refine it later. Sometimes the raw is the more powerful. Refining the raw ruins it and the self of the here and now who engages and needs to engage with issues that bother it. Attempting to make it coherent and communicative ruins the raw and authenticity and the authenticity of the power, the despair and the pain as well as the questioning and critiquing 'I' and subordinate it to politics and social acceptances and norms. And the English can be very bad too. The 'I' asks itself if it will regret sending it and sharing it with others and how much it was of a mistake, then he takes the risk, pushes 'send' and hopes not to ruin opportunities, severe relationships and affect future. On the other hand he displays trust.

I am currently asking myself difficult questions about self-study and the model that I'd like to devote my entire life for its creation as a rigorous one. And thus if I'd like my life to be meaningful and contributing so does this ambition/project (Sartre) of mine.

I am asking difficult questions. Without them I have no healing and improving, change, learning and understanding.

1. Isn't this complete immersion within the self as part of a rigorous doctorate thesis that is done as the sole thing in one's (self's) and is time pressured and resources pressured, with no escape whatsoever from the self/life aggravate and intense everyday, normal issues? When you study your practice you can isolate your practice from your life, but when you study you, your life/existence/self, there is no escape (no exit/huis clos) other than either stop living or stop enquiring (I need both). So you constantly analyse and study and turn flies to elephants and every small hill to mount Everest. Is it inauthentic?

2. In this self-analysing-therapy-healing, doesn't the self 'I' also needs an external, 'objective' professional monitor who knows about the human issues such as relationship, sexuality, sexual attraction, love, mourning, unconditional and conditional acceptance and can apply his/her objective knowledge and clinical and life experience to this specific case-study? Don't I need to incorporate it for my own learning? Only I can do the learning/healing/improving? But can I do it alone in complete isolation and immersing myself with myself with no one to go over some serious [clinical (and my interest was/is clinical because my grandfather prepared me to be MD and I worked with psychotic and was intrigued by relevant issues within combination of philosophical-theoretical-medical models] concerns that the self-therapy/analysis requires an external objective and professional opinion?

3. Do I propose a psychology or my own 'insanity' as a very special human being with very unique and special life circumstances?

4. Was actually raised in the 15 of September meeting. In self-study Doesn't one need to combine the academic environment with the secure therapeutic/clinical environment and sympathetic/friendly environment, as well as life outside this painful/risky project? In an email to Paulus in the beginning of September I wrote him that the students should realise that this is an academic seminar (with grades, assessment and academic structure and for academic qualification (MBA in this case) that is not a therapeutic support group. When I wrote this, my life was in its best ever and finally made sense and was very secured and I thought I have found the solutions and answers to some difficult questions about the 'I' and human existence that I now entertain.

5. Can a research group that is structured as a research group for the purpose of academic inquiry be a clinical support group? And vice versa can a clinical support group (and I guided and led two for five years, monitored by the city of Jerusalem welfare department) be an academic support group? The rules are so different. The structure is so different. The selection of members is very different. The very strict legal contract that I forced all members of my support group to sign is different. There are issues of confidentiality, ethics, socialisation, jargon and methods that are so different.

6. Perhaps we need to form separate groups and call upon sympathetic psychiatrists/philosophers (such as Nati Laor), social workers, clinical psychologists, existential poets/writers, health workers to monitor them as support groups, independently structured and in line with the academic group. In Windows, we experimented and created clinical support groups to members in addition to the normal group. The environment for this kind of Israeli liberal/left/pro-Palestinian/committed individuals amidst some of the horrific periods where everything and everyone literally blew up in our faces required the founding of support groups, social groups, clinical groups, for those who asked it, education groups and activist groups, independent and co-existing, in addition to the normal membership and board.

If we wish to carry out the crucial process of creating an integrative model where individuals will tell us and maker public (the one definition of research inquiry that is introduced by all the LAR writings that I have read so far is of a study made public) what is it for them to be/become a human being in a serious/rigorous manner then I feel those questions that I raise here should be accommodated or at least considered.

I am going to Je Kan's presentation so I need to stop for now. I will work on it more. I can write about it forever.

Alon

I went to Jack’s office on 14:30 to say goodbye to Je Kan and took those raw reflective notes with me. I showed Jack the notes and he asked me to send them. I contemplated refining them and working on them. But now think, the authenticity and power of the human condition is in its raw and crudeness of the consciousness. If I want to show first hand what it is to be me, a human being, an holistic dynamic and emerging/becoming individum, then I may need to show the spontaneity and rawness and directness and trust the others to accept it as it is, to accept what is coming up directly from my consciousness without refining and working, ‘educating’ and disciplining it.