July 8th, 2009
by admin

Welcome to my blog. Welcome to my head-space.

There are already at least three of us in here already, and we are having a lot of conversations at the moment; you’re welcome to eavesdrop or to join in by making a comment.

I say there are at least three; sometimes I use initials for them. Let me introduce them to you.

Firstly, there’s Scientific Rationalist Chris (“SR”). He’s the sarky one that you get to see most of, because he’s largely got control of the language centre here. He analyses everything into the ground and then tries to synthesise it right back up there, preferably further. He likes everything in order, understandable, clear, precise and he would say “simple” though the rest of us think he complicates things horribly. He’s not very touchy-feely, though. And he’s not as bright as he thinks he is. At all.

Then there’s Emotional Chris (“EC”). She’s the one who FEELS everything, who wants to be, to do, to experience, to have it all, and to have it all NOW. She has problems with impulse control (says SR), no forethought (says SR) and she exaggerates everything and it’s either wonderful or terrible (says SR). She doesn’t tend to remember bad stuff if she can get out to play and have a good time, but my goodness can she SULK! (says SR).

Lastly, at least for the moment, there’s “GF”. It’s a bit of a mystery to SR. SR very rarely hears from it, and doesn’t know whether it’s male, female or whatever else, but when he does hear, it’s obvious that GF is amazingly more intelligent than SR is; what happens is bursts of an amazing amount of wonderfully logical stuff (SR suspects) which SR has to work very hard to make sense of, but when it’s put into order (see above) SR looks MUCH more intelligent than he really is. Which is good (no, it isn’t, you’re already too big headed – EC and GF). GF however talks a lot more to EC and can talk in emotions, so EC loves GF (SR can’t do emotions, let alone talk about them – typical male – EC).

You can interpret “GF” as “God Factor” or as “God-follower”, or as “Good friend”. SR isn’t certain if any of those is exactly right, but GF is BIG, so this might be the BGF. SR is going to get a slap for this from both EC and GF, but he doesn’t think GF is really very practical – Will E. Coyote, superrr genius [slap] {slap}

SR is pretty certain that this stuff we do improves our collective ability to get GF on side, and everyone agrees that is a GOOD THING. Though SR is nervous where it might take us. But we’re going there anyway.

EC says GF is part of us, and we’re part of him, and everything else is part of him too, and there’s so much MORE, and it’s all WONDERFUL, and don’t you understand? And SR doesn’t really. SR doesn’t see how this makes sense, but maybe at least GF is connected with all of that. Maybe. No real evidence, and SR likes evidence. GF has shown this to EC quite often, but SR didn’t understand their language, and he used to get scared (still does, really, but he’s trying to be a team player).

EC just says “LOVE you, GF”.

So there you have us, and we are one person, “3 in 1”, as you might say. Think penetrating oil rather than trinity, for two reasons – first, SR will get big-headed otherwise, secondly, you will be falling into at least one heresy and possibly several. You can try doing ego, id, superego as well, and that isn’t a good fit either. Neither, probably is my SR-EC-GF set, but it works for us at the moment

SR says “Come and discuss with us, argue, analyse, synthesise”.

EC says “Come and play with us, experience with us”.

GF says “Come and be/do/think/journey/understand/love with us.

Comments (2)

  • Chris says:

    Astute observers may have noticed that my categories here bear some resemblance to the parent-adult-child divisions used in Transactional Analysis, a system of analysis of interpersonal relationships developed by the psychologist Eric Berne. I have in part based this imaginary division of myself on Berne’s idea, but have not used his categories. There is a general similarity of SR to the adult, EC to the child and GF to the adult, but I experience SR as operating in the analytical, rational manner rather than GF, and EC has some significant parent-like qualities. SR and EC get on more as siblings than as parent-child, in which case GF takes an adult role (sometimes) in sorting out squabbles. Though they also adopt parent-child roles, curiously sometimes in either direction.
    I consider transactional analysis to be a very powerful tool in analysing personal relationships; my SR/EC/GF categories would not be so useful for that purpose.
    Incidentally, note what I do here, taking the general outline of a system, stripping out the specifics and re-applying it. I do this also with spiritual exercises from various religions and other sources; this avoids problems of eclecticism, difficulties of synthesis and conflicts of symbology. Using Buddhist, Hindy and Taoist meditation techniques in Christian practice is an example.

  • Chris says:

    It is also correct to say that in some of his later work, Berne subdivides each of the P, A, C divisions into three, so you end up with PP, PA, PC, AP, AA, AC, CP, CA, CC for nine divisions. For me, each of SR and EC have some P, A & C characteristics with radically different weightings; I don’t know about GF because I don’t have access to the inner workings.
    I didn’t think it useful to try to use subdivisions in the general exercise I’m doing on this blog.

  • Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.