| Hi All
Wilhemina pointed out at the beginning of the Id versus Ego thread that Transactional analysis was the preferred method when talking about s/D states on these forums.
This got me to thinking.
How do child, parent, adult communications manifest themselves between s & M.?
My first feeling that I have subsequently rejected is that communication between s & D, is primarily child to parent. This is because the issue of emotional control is most effectively maintained in child to parent interactions.
This at one level seemed sound if the issue was just about control.
But it didn't feel right. It didn't feel right on me, and it didn't seem to relate to the people I've shared thoughts with.
After a little juggling in my head, in relation to my own feelings and at least some of the thoughts that have been posted is that the interactions for the most part are either adult / parent or adult / adult.
My reasoning on this is based on the moral and emotional contract between s & M (This can be either a formal or informal agreement.) s places themselves under the control M., but the relationship appears to run in two directions. Overtly s serves M, but I also felt that M felt a strong responsibility to nurture s. Although both have distinctly different roles they operate within a dynamic mutually supporting orbit.
I felt this was a adult interaction on the part of s, firstly because they consciously surrender some or all control to M and secondly that there is an expectation of growth or personal fulfilment as a result of this decision suggesting adult to adult interaction.
Boy that sounded awfully clinical.
Looks like I'm hiding behind my objective persona again. At least today.
What it boils down to I guess is the question:
s when you talk to M, using Harris's definition do you relate primarily as child, adult or parent?
The metaphor that came to mind that may or may not be appealing. Is the relationship between the novice and sensei in a Zen Buddhist monastery. For example the novice when learning to meditate cedes control to the Sensei. The Sensei will judiciously use a bamboo sword (shinai) to strike the novice to ensure they are focused on the task at hand. The novice is not a child in this exchange, the decision to place the sensei in this position comes firmly from the adult mind, with the expectation that this will provide them assistance on there path to personal growth.
Does this bear comparison to s/M as defined by this forum?
(I liked this metaphor but it also brings up a pitfall that I'm looking forward to relating on another occasion.)
Obviously this is not my experience that I'm conveying here. Perhaps a little mental callisthenics after the discomfort of the previous thread. I'm just politely posing a hypothesis that I'm hoping might generate a little discussion to find the strengths or flaws of this viewpoint.
Cheers
coffee.
| 
