Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
FROM:
[email protected] SENT: Friday, March 14, 2008, 2:02 PM
TO:
[email protected] SUBJECT: Y____ / Friday (2)
No progress with Y____. Initial conversation was pleasant (he mentioned how listening to songs by the ex-Beatle George Harrison had put him in “an effervescent mood”), but real dialogue collapsed soon after. Once again, I tried to direct our conversation toward his motive for seeking therapy. This quickly became a thirty-minute “intellectual cul de sac” (his words). He said he wanted to “see what other people see” but would not elaborate on what this meant. In response to my conventional follow-up (“What do you suspect other people see?”), he laughed and called my elocutionary technique “amateurish,” claiming I should “try harder.” At this point I informed him that he could seek help elsewhere if that was what he wanted. He then apologized, although not sincerely—he said he was sorry his words had insulted me but refused to apologize for what he actually said. Sensing this interaction was only exasperating our relationship, I returned to the topic of the Harrison album he had mentioned at the start of the session, mostly to get him talking in a nonconfrontational manner. He expressed preoccupation with one song, a track he identified as “Be Here Now.” When asked what he liked about the song, Y____ suggested that the song’s lyrics illustrated Harrison’s guilt about becoming wealthy and the singer’s “self-conscious hypocrisy” for choosing to advocate principles of Eastern spirituality while living as a conventional celebrity. He was smug about this analysis. “If he really believed what he sang,” said Y____, “he would not have needed to write and record the song at all. It’s totally fake. He wrote the song as a means of admitting he can’t be the person he pretends.” This alleged contradiction amused him. Being unfamiliar with the song, I did not comment. Session ended soon after, closing with another friendly (and most likely meaningless) exchange of pleasantries.
NOTES:
I have purchased “Be Here Now” via the computer application iTunes, initially confusing it with another track of the same name. Though I’ve listened to the song only twice, the textual interpretation by Y____ strikes me as unusually cynical. He seems to misread the song on purpose. At risk of placing too much emphasis on one tangential aspect of our second encounter, I now have fewer fears about addiction and more concerns about clinical depression and/or a specific break from reality—it seems very possible that Y____ is a highly functioning depressive. Have decided to take a more aggressive stance with Y____ next week.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
FROM:
[email protected] SENT: Friday, March 21, 2008, 10:44 AM
TO:
[email protected] SUBJECT: Y____ / Friday (3)
Terrible session this morning. My fault entirely. Opened dialogue by giving Y____ a false ultimatum: I claimed that if he was unwilling to discuss why he was seeking therapy, I was unwilling to continue working with him. My intention was to challenge him, with the expectation that he would respect this challenge and respond. At first, the exchange felt natural. He chuckled. He asked what kinds of problems I normally dealt with, and I told him the most universal problems among my other patients were anxiety issues. He discounted this: “Anxiety is not a real problem. It’s only a modern problem.” I tried to get him to explain why he would believe that, and he started to explain his reasoning. But then he stopped mid-sentence and asked, “What do you look like?” I asked why that made a difference, particularly since he had wanted to keep our interaction over the phone. Y____: “It makes a difference to me.” I accused him of trying to change the subject. He said, “No, this is the subject [emphasis his]. Whatever I want to talk about is always the subject.” I told him my physical appearance was irrelevant. He disagreed. I asked how it was relevant. He said, “If you can’t understand immediately, you will never understand eventually. Why should I tell you something you’ll never understand? Why won’t you answer my question? At least I have the potential to understand the answer.” His tone was flat. I asked if this question was related to his previous reference to the Bracco character (from The Sopranos). He said, “Of course not. Get over it.” I told him I looked like a normal person. I mentioned I had red hair. Y____: “See, that first part is relevant. It is. If you look like a normal person, that’s interesting. But I don’t care what color your hair is. That’s irrelevant. Your hair color is irrelevant. You don’t understand what’s important and what isn’t.” I asked if he thought he looked like a normal person. He said, “No, not at all. Not at all.” I asked what he believed a normal person looked like. At this point, he ended the call without comment. Total time of conversation: less than ten minutes.
NOTES:
Very strong suspicion that Y____ is housebound due to obesity. Physical deformity also seems possible—is he a burn victim? Tremendous failure on my behalf. Completely overlooked this (fairly obvious) scenario, particularly when viewed in orchestra with his joke about the boy and the clown from session #1. I am a terrible therapist today. Really down about this. Today I am a failure. Need to be smarter next week. WILL be smarter next week. Will be smarter.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
ADDENDUM1
[The evening following this episode, I received two voice mails from Y____that were stored on the hard drive on my office computer (via the telephone service Vonage). I have transcribed the content of those messages here. It is my belief that Y ____was reading from a script. Midway through the second call, he appears to deviate from the script—however, I now suspect he consciously included this deviation to create the illusion of spontaneity. His delivery of these messages was intermittently measured and animated. Soft sitar music is audible in the background. Total length of first message: 48 seconds. Total length of second message: 222 seconds.]
CALL 1
“Good evening, Vicky. This is Y____ speaking. I want … I want to apologize for my juvenile behavior on the telephone today. I understand what your intentions were and I don’t know why I reacted the way I … reacted. I don’t want to jeopardize our relationship. I’ve enjoyed our sessions thus far. I think they’re going extremely well. I’ve tried working with at least four other therapists and none have gotten as far as we have. I like your approach. Honestly. I like your approach. You aren’t a control freak, or even in any control at all. You don’t mind taking a … less-than-dominant, semidominant role. I like that. It’s what I like about you most. That’s what I (inaudible). So I’m hoping we can just put this whole episode behind us. I will call again next Friday, and we’ll just go on from there. Okay? If you’re uninterested in continuing our work, we can discuss at that juncture. I assume (inaudible phrase). Thanks again. This was Y____.”
CALL 2
“Vicky. Y____ again. So … I realize you had mentioned—again, this was this morning, on the telephone—that you needed me to explain why I was seeking therapy, and that you can’t help me unless I explain my reasons. I don’t agree with that. I don’t think it’s essential in any way. But because you believe this, I’m willing to make a concession. If you can’t continue under any other circumstances, I will make this compromise. As I said, I appreciate your approach. But I need you to accept that you’ll never truly understand my reasoning regardless of what I tell you about myself. You will never completely understand what’s happened. Which might be difficult for you, as a professional. It might toy with your confidence. It’s just that … I spent my mid-twenties on the most radical edge of science. I know that sounds (inaudible), but it’s the only means through which I can explain my condition. In simplest terms, I worked with biological (inaudible) light refraction, although that doesn’t really matter to anyone and certainly should not matter to you. In fact, I would recommend that you don’t even think about the technical aspects of my condition. What should matter—to you—is that my aptitude at science allowed me to do some negative, problematic things …
actually, no. Let me rephrase that. I need to rephrase that. My aptitude at biological science allowed me to do things that could be perceived as problematic. The things I did, when viewed intellectually, are not problematic. I don’t see them as bad. I don’t think any intelligent person would. I view my actions as positive. But I know that “society,” or whatever term we want to use, might disagree. I realize that the average person would consider my actions criminal, and maybe even that’s optimistic. Now, that’s their problem, as far as I’m concerned. Their wrongness is unrelated to who I am. But because we were all raised in the same society, and because I’ve unwillingly adopted a lot of the weaknesses inherent to other people, I can’t help but feel the sensation of guilt that comes with my actions. Not guilt itself, because I know the things I did were good. But the sensation of guilt. That’s what I felt. And that can be just as detrimental. And that is what I need to talk to you about. I want to find a way to manage this sensation. I also need someone to objectively view my actions and validate what I already know, which is that I’ve done nothing wrong. Like I said—I already understand all of this intellectually. I just need to know it emotionally. So that is where we will pick up. Good night, Victoria. Again, this was Y____.”
FROM:
[email protected] SENT: Friday, March 28, 2008, 2:00 PM
TO:
[email protected] SUBJECT: Y____ / Friday (4)
Corner turned? Significant strides with Y____ this a.m.!
Opened session by thanking Y____ for his late-night phone messages from the previous Friday, noting that these calls—regardless of their content—suggest progress. Y____ expressed sheepish appreciation. I asked Y____ about the timing of his calls, as they were received very late in the evening; I asked if he had been having trouble sleeping. Y____ said he sometimes slept during the afternoon, but that this was a preference (and not a problem). “My work requires that I’m alert in the evening and early morning hours,” he said, and then playfully compared himself to a variety of nocturnal animals. His metaphors were apt, but I also noticed a degree of showmanship—he seemed to be referencing exotic animals in a self-aggrandizing style, simply to show me that he knew a lot about zoology. However, I did not press him on this (at risk of reversing our newfound level of mild intimacy).
About ten or fifteen minutes into the session, I addressed the three most compelling details from his second phone message:
[Reader’s note: Of all the exchanges I would eventually have with Y____, this is the one I most wish I’d recorded. Knowing what I know now, this was (almost certainly) the most detail-rich exchange we ever had, at least in terms of the scientific content. But—at the time—it just seemed like we were clearing extraneous details out of our path. During the most critical segment of the exchange, I’m ashamed to admit I barely listened (and instead mentally prepared for my next line of questioning). This being the case, Y____’s quotes in the following section are not verbatim—were I a cub reporter for the American-Statesman, I wouldn’t use them in an A1 article. These were simply my present-tense attempts to paraphrase Y____’s jargon-heavy descriptions of how his situation began, which I have since slightly expanded. Though I suspect my memory is more accurate than not, I missed the minutiae that mattered most. It remains the greatest regret of my career.]
1. “The most radical edge of science”: This phrase struck me as unusual and pretentious. I asked why he chose those specific words. He proceeded to give an incomprehensible, extemporaneous speech on his field of study, something he referred to as “epidermal refraction theory.” Y____ noted that this work was conducted through funding from the military, but that he was a civilian (originally employed by Chaminade University in Hawaii). He prefaced his description by saying, “There is no way you will ever understand this,” and (again) claimed that the specifics of his research were not important. I pushed him to try. As it turns out, he was either correct or trying to confuse me on purpose. I have no idea what his research was trying to solve or create. The bottom line is as follows: Y____ was involved in something he referred to as the “cloaking initiative.” At one point he asked if I had ever watched Star Trek, but I have not. He used the term “negative refractive index” several times. Whenever I asked him to simplify his description, he would say things like, “Imagine looking at the front of a woman’s chest, but seeing only whatever was behind her back.” He made reference to a “sheer suit.” Though it’s impossible to tell if what Y____ was saying was (a) even partially true or (b) some type of fantasy life, I’m now secure in the assumption that Y____ does have (at the very least) a legitimate background in science. Obviously, that background does not dismiss his pseudologia fantastica2 (and may paradoxically serve to enhance it). I found myself generally unable to follow this stretch of dialogue. When I admitted this, he politely asked that I never ask him about this again, as it was a waste of both our time. I conditionally agreed. He needed to hear me say that.
2. “Problematic things”: I mentioned that his phone call referred to some sort of criminal or antisocial behavior, but he immediately retracted his initial take. I asked what kind of specific behavior he was referring to. He said, “Surveillance. Invasion of privacy. Home invasion. Prowling. I did some prowling. Deception. A certain kind of intangible theft. Humanity theft.” I asked what “humanity theft” meant. Y____ said, “I’ve consumed people’s lives without their consent.” I pushed him to explain this further. He said (something along the lines of), “I reached a point in my life where I became exclusively interested in the unseen reality of human behavior, and I did not think it was possible to study such behavior if the person knew they were being studied.” He went on to say that the traditional means for understanding human psychology was by asking subjects questions about themselves, a process he finds futile. “The act of asking someone a question completely destroys the value of the answer,” he said. He asked if I was familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.3 When I told him I was, he said, “Well, then you already understand why psychology has failed.” Though I wanted to pursue these points further, I realized time was expiring on our session and I needed to move to point 3.
3. “The sensation of guilt”: This, I suspect, was the most important phrase Y____ said in his message (and the root of why Y____ is seeking help). I asked how guilt differed from the sensation of guilt, since guilt itself is a feeling (and every feeling is a type of sensation). Y____ vehemently disagreed. “A man is guilty when he subjectively thinks about what he has done and concludes that his actions were objectively wrong. A man feels the sensation of guilt when he objectively thinks about what he has done and concludes that his actions were subjectively wrong. My problem is that I conflate those two perspectives.” I was shocked by both the eloquence and the forethought of these words; it was as if he had been waiting all month to make this statement. When I asked him to repeat those thoughts, he did so immediately (and with identical syntax, furthering my suspicion of rehearsal). I asked why he was so concerned with the notion of feeling sensations of guilt. Y____: “Partially because I do not deserve to feel guilt, but mostly because it gets in the way.”
At this point I noted that we’d extended our allotted time by more than five minutes. Having now conducted four sessions, we discussed payment. Due to its abbreviated length (and because it was my fault, though I did not admit this), I waived the fee from session #3. Y____ expressed appreciation for my fairness. After giving him my mailing address, I told him the bill would be $450. He declined my offer of an e-mail receipt.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
FROM:
[email protected] SENT: Friday, April 4, 2008, 11:04 PM
TO:
[email protected] SUBJECT: Y____ / Friday (NA)
Strange morning. No call from Y____. Considering the progress of our previous session, my hopes had been high for today’s chat. Mystified. But—I am choosing not to overreact. A missed call could be the result of any number of things. Need to stay rea
listic about this type of case. Don’t want to have more situations like [redacted] and [redacted].4 Still: disappointed. Was beginning to really relish my discourse with Y____ and remain curious about the authenticity of his persona.
NOTES:
Did receive payment of $450 on Tuesday, sent standard mail as (oddly) cash: twenty-two twenty-dollar bills (plus two fives). The most cash I ever received through the USPS! Pretty dangerous, IMO.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
ADDENDUM5
[Received another two voice mails from Y____, this time explaining his missed session. Unlike his previous message, he seemed to be speaking off the cuff. Total time of first message: 299 seconds. Total time of second message: 19 seconds.]
CALL 1
“Good evening, Vicky. This is Y____ speaking. First of all, I want to apologize for failing to call you this morning. I did not forget to call, if that’s what you’re thinking. I chose not to call. But this is only because I thought about some of what you’d said in our previous sessions—really, really thought about what you’d said—and I decided that maybe you were more correct than I initially believed. I was watching someone this morning—someone on the TV, one of those variety shows—and it occurred to me that people who don’t talk about themselves are limiting their own potential. They think they’re guarding themselves from some sort of abstract danger, but they’re actually allowing other people to decide who they are and what they’re like. This happened to George Harrison. He was the quiet Beatle. Right? But he was also the Beatle people are most able to turn into whatever inaccurate projection they need, and for whatever purposes they arbitrarily decide. And I’m (inaudible) to make that (inaudible). Not that I’m comparing myself to a Beatle, of course, but I think you (inaudible). I probably am a little like a Beatle, within my own field. So here is my proposal: The next time I call you, there’s not going to be any questions, or at least none from you. I need to talk to you about what has happened to me, and I believe it’s important for you to get a full picture of my life. And, by extension, a portrait of my problems. And if this goes well, and I have every expectation that it will, I believe we could actually meet—face-to-face, as it were—and start talking more directly about these issues. So this is what we will do. Agreed? I will call next week, and you will listen. I will talk and you will not. Now, this doesn’t mean you can’t say ‘hello’ or ask follow-up queries to certain points you won’t understand. I’m not a fascist. However, I’d advise you not to ask any more questions than absolutely necessary, even though I realize that’s your nature. Some of what I tell you will just be impossible to understand, so trying to get your head around my condition will not serve our progress. Second, I don’t want to give you some sort of false confidence that you can latently direct our conversation by asking a bunch of subtle, pointed queries. That’s not what we’re going to do. I know every smart person always believes that he or she can control a conversation without making a single declarative statement, and I know that—”