What Does The Dying Man "buy"? Marketing Failure And Return To Grateful Boy In Shorts

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Obviously, any author who tackles such a complex topic expresses his personal or views that are close to him. I will speak quite dogmatically, without reservations “in my opinion”, “it seems to me”, “probably” and other reminders that I have no final answers.

Our actions at the bedside of a dying person are dictated by the current situation, needs and opportunities for their implementation. There is no recipe for all circumstances.

The loneliness of dying and the need to be connected with others are most clearly expressed by the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy in the story "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" and one of the greatest filmmakers of auteur cinema, the Swede Ingmar Bergman in the film "Whispers and Screams".

The genius of Tolstoy, with his single story, laid the foundation for research into the process of dying and death. The small story describes in detail the stages of dying, which can be found in the book of the psychologist E. Kubler-Ross "On Death and Dying". This little story also offers an answer to the question: "What does a dying man need?"

A 45-year-old member of the Trial Chamber Ivan Ilyich Golovin fell and hit his side on the frame handle. After that, he has and develops pain in the left side. Gradually, the disease seizes him entirely, the pain "penetrated through everything, and nothing could overshadow it." The relationship with his wife is tense and full of friction. At first, denying the disease, but unable to get rid of it, the hero becomes irritable and causes a lot of trouble to those around him. Over time, those around them themselves do not take into account the illness of the protagonist, they behave as if nothing had happened. Gradually Ivan Ilyich admits that "it is not in the cecum, not in the kidney, but in life and … death."

“Torment from impurity, indecency and smell, from the consciousness that another person should participate in this. But it was in this most unpleasant affair that Ivan Ilyich was comforted. The panther Gerasim always came to take him out for him (…) Once, getting up from the ship and unable to lift his trousers, he fell into a soft chair and looked in horror at his naked, with sharply defined muscles, powerless thighs. (…).

- You, I think, are unpleasant. Excuse me. I cant.

- Have mercy, sir. - And Gerasim flashed his eyes and bared his young white teeth. - Why not bother? Your business is sick.

Since then, Ivan Ilyich sometimes began to call Gerasim and asked him to keep his legs on his shoulders. Gerasim did it easily, willingly, simply and with kindness.

The main torment of Ivan Ilyich was a lie, that lie, for some reason recognized by everyone, that he was only sick and not dying, and that he only needed to be calm and to be treated, and then something very good would come out. He knew that no matter what they did, nothing would come of it, except for even more painful suffering and death. And he was tormented by this lie, tormented by the fact that they did not want to admit that everyone knew and he knew, but they wanted to lie over him because of his terrible situation and wanted and forced him to take part in this lie. This lie, this lie committed on him on the eve of his death, a lie that was supposed to reduce this terrible solemn act of his death to the level of all their visits, curtains, sturgeon for dinner … was terribly painful for Ivan Ilyich. And, strangely, many times when they did their tricks on him, he was on the verge of shouting to them: “Stop lying, and you know, and I know that I'm dying, so stop, at least, lie … But he never had the spirit to do it. The terrible, terrible act of his dying, he saw, was relegated by everyone around him to the level of an accidental nuisance, partly obscene (like treating a person who, entering the living room, spreads a bad smell from himself) (…).

Gerasim alone understood this situation and pitied him. And therefore Ivan Ilyich felt good only with Gerasim. It was good for him when Gerasim, sometimes for whole nights on end, held his legs and did not want to go to bed, saying: "You must not worry, Ivan Ilyich, I will sleep more"; or when he suddenly, switching to "you," added: "If you weren't sick, why not serve?" Gerasim alone did not lie, it was evident from everything that he alone understood what the matter was, and did not consider it necessary to hide it, and simply pitied the exhausted, weak master. He even said directly once when Ivan Ilyich sent him away:

- We will all die. Why not work hard? - he said, expressing by this that he is not burdened by his labor precisely because he carries it for a dying person and hopes that for him someone in his time will carry the same labor."

Tolstoy masterfully describes Ivan Ilyich's regression: “(…) no matter how ashamed he was to admit it, he wanted someone to feel sorry for him, like a sick child. He wanted to be caressed, kissed, cried over him, as one caresses and comforts children. He knew that he was an important member, that he had a graying beard and that therefore it was impossible; but he still wanted it. And in the relationship with Gerasim there was something close to this, and therefore the relationship with Gerasim consoled him."

Illness is something indecent, dying and death is even more indecent, and Ivan Ilyich becomes the bearer of this indecency. He is dying and wants to be pitied. But in a society that worshiped decency, this was absolutely impossible. So, the hero himself was proud that at work he knew how to "exclude everything that is raw, vital, which always violates the correctness of the course of official affairs: it is necessary not to allow any relations with people, other than official ones, and the reason for the relationship should only be official and the relationship itself only service ".

Dying, the hero finds himself in a terrible loneliness, in which the only one who brought him relief was the barman Gerasim, who in the simplicity of his soul did not distort the truth about the position of his master. Within the bounds of decency, the fact that Ivan Ilyich asks Gerasim to hold his legs is something outrageous, but these frames themselves, which have fallen in the mind of the dying, but carefully guarded by everyone, terribly insult him.

The heroine of Bergman's painting, Agnes, dies in terrible agony, she asks someone to ease her suffering with his touch. There are two of her sisters next to the dying woman, but neither one nor the second can bring themselves to touch her. Nor are they capable of establishing intimacy with anyone, even with each other. Only the servant Anna is able to hug and warm the dying Agnes with the warmth of her body. The piercing cries of a dying woman, turning into an exhausted whisper, begging for a drop of warmth and sympathy, meet the deafening silence of the empty souls of the sisters. Shortly after Agnes's death, her ghost returns to earth. In a crying childish voice, she asks her sisters to touch her - only then will she die for real. The sisters try to get closer to her, but in fright they run out of the room. Once again, the hugs of the servant Anna allow Agnes to complete the journey to death. Anna is always next to the dying Agnes, she warms her cooling body with her warmth. She is the only one of all who experiences neither vile fear, nor vile disgust.

Stephen Levin, who has served terminally ill people over the years, in his book Who Dies? describes the following case.

“In the next room was Alonzo, 60, dying of stomach cancer. All his life he tried to do what "is necessary for the family." Twenty years earlier, he had fallen in love with a divorced woman named Marilyn. But some circumstances of his Catholic and Italian environment did not allow him to marry her, although he maintained a relationship with her until her death a year ago. His father, sister and brother never acknowledged the existence of Marilyn and for twenty years called her "this woman."He spent most of his life "protecting his family." And now, when his ninety-year-old father was sitting at the head of the bed and repeating: "My boy is dying, my boy must not die," he tried to play the role of an exemplary son in front of him. He tried to protect his father from death: "Okay, I will not die." But he was dying. His brother and sister, standing by the bed, urged his brother to change his will and not give money to his thirty-year-old daughter Marilyn, whom he cared so much about. He lay there, listening to all this, not saying a word and trying not to die, so as not to upset his loved ones. Seeing the thickness of the karmic web that weaved around him, I sat in the corner and watched this unusual melodrama. People quarreled and denied his death. I noticed that, sitting next to me, I begin to talk to him in my heart. Feeling love for him in my heart, I said to myself:

“You know, Alonzo, there’s nothing wrong with you dying. You are doing the right thing. You are in unusual conditions when you cannot tell your loved ones what you need and what you want. You protect them to the end. But it's natural to die. It's even nice. This is the right action at the right moment. Open up to yourself. Show compassion for this Alonzo, who is confused and terminally ill. Let go of the pain and your inability to protect loved ones. This is your chance. Trust yourself. Trust death. You don't have to defend yourself. Just let go of what is holding you. Open yourself to your being, to the infinity of your deep nature. Let it all go now. Let yourself die. Let yourself die and not be Alonzo. Let yourself die and not be a son anymore. Let yourself die and no longer be the one whose money cannot be divided. Allow yourself to open up to the heart of Jesus. There is nothing to be afraid of. Everything is OK.

Through the forest of people crowding around his bed, Alonzo's angelic blue eyes met mine, blinking to indicate that he had heard my silent monologue. None of this could be said out loud in the room. After all, the screams of his loved ones after that would have been heard even in the hall. However, Alonzo sometimes caught my eye and agreed that everything was okay. It was not words that were passed between us, but the feeling of the heart. Somehow it turned out that many terminally ill patients are sensitive to this kind of communication. Sometimes Alonzo would say to his sister, "You know, when he (pointed at me) sits in the room, I feel something special."

The fact is, S. Levin explains to us, that this was the only time when there was acceptance of what was happening in the room. He later said that he felt an openness before his death, when I "calmly sit in the corner."

S. Levin further points out that it is important not so much to choose words as to show love and care, which would create an acceptance of the present moment, so that a person can allow himself to be who he should be.

What conclusions can be drawn from all that has been said? Contact with a dying person requires removing the framework, parting with the secular decent and becoming not decent, but alive and open.

It is impossible to comfort a dying person, as does the Bergman servant Anna, until we are ready to face our own fear and find common ground with other people. As long as a person avoids the fear of death, pretends that "it's okay", is rooted in reinforced concrete optimism, being with a dying person, he is not able to comfort, what is worse - he makes a person who deserves comfort and care take care of himself (as in the case of Alonzo, when his father forced a dying man to console him).

The consolation of the dying person is connected with the willingness to feel his pain and fear with him. In the fear of death, we are to some extent all on an equal footing, there is no need to deny this. But in spite of this fear, the courage to open up to him and be near the dying person is comforting for the latter and healing for the one who comforts. The loneliness of a dying person does not disappear, but, as one dying woman said, whose commentary was quoted by I. Yalom: “The night is pitch black. I am alone in a boat on the bay. I see the lights of other boats. I know that I cannot reach them, I cannot swim with them. But how it calms me just the sight of all these lights illuminating the bay!"

The most that we can do for a dying person, apparently, is simply to be with him, to be present.

A person who is ready to open his thoughts and feelings to another, thereby facilitates a similar task for him. In a sense, everything is simple: whoever you belong to the dying person - a relative, a friend, or a psychotherapist, the most important thing is contact with him.

Self-disclosure plays a major role in building deep relationships. They are built by alternating mutual self-disclosure: one person takes a risk and decides to step into the unknown and reveals to another very intimate things, then the other takes a step towards and reveals something in response. This is how the relationship deepens. If the risk-taker does not receive reciprocal frankness, this creates a non-meeting situation.

If there is closeness between people, any words, any means of comfort and any ideas take on much more importance.

Many of those who work with dying patients note that even those who were previously very distant, behaved aloof, suddenly become startlingly available to contact. Probably, these people are "awakened" by the approaching death and begin to strive to establish intimacy.

The situation of being next to a dying person calls for establishing contact not at the level of words, but deeper - at the level of experiences. Silence does not exclude presence; on the contrary, words and actions are very convenient ways to avoid presence and experience. S. Levin writes: “But you are dealing with the drama of another person. You didn't come to him to save him. You came to him to be an open space in which he can do whatever he needs, and you should not impose on him the direction of his opening in any way."

What is compassion? S. Levin's answer is short: "Compassion is just space." Compassion means finding a place in your heart for the experiences of another person. When there is room in the heart for any pain of the “other”, that is compassion.

When you are with a dying person, you act out of a sense of propriety, not knowledge. The problem for the majority is the fear of "getting involved", the fear of penetrating into oneself, of taking a direct part in life, one of the sides of which is death.

In a space not tied to "understanding", which does not try to fill itself with information, truth can be born. S. Levin remarks very accurately: “It is in the mind that“does not know”that truth is experienced in its spatial and timeless involvement in being. “I don’t know” is only space; it has room for everything. There is no power in “I don’t know”. One should not make efforts to the mind, because it immediately closes the heart."

The collapse of the illusion about oneself as "infallible" in a situation of being next to someone who is dying occurs rather in those who are accustomed to being "competent." Those who have gained "competence" over the years and determine success through adaptation, overcoming, and an impeccably played role are at risk.

Once I was approached by a 31-year-old young man who can be considered more or less successful in his career, making good money, with a “good” speech and a “vague” articulated request. As such, there was no "request" at all, his arrival was a "test" of me. He left with words about what he would think and choose. I was convinced that I would never see him again, and that his choice would most likely fall on a real guy with his sleeves rolled up, called a "coach."

About seven months have passed since the young man called and asked to make an appointment with him, as he had a "little question"; I didn't immediately identify him; we met four days later.

I learned that the man had already decided on the choice of a psychologist seven months ago and was very pleased with the choice. I also had to find out that I really would not have seen him again if fate had not intervened. Career, relationships with people and work with a psychologist moved in the same direction: a number of abilities, achievements and successes were combined into a single whole and allowed to feel good.

Further, I will significantly reduce the story of what happened, dwelling on the "main points."

A little more than a week before the call to me, the man was forced to go with his mother to another city to visit his dying aunt. Taking advantage of the arrival of relatives, his second cousin, who had been near his dying mother for a long time, went about her business. The man and his mother stayed in the apartment of the suffering aunt. By evening, my daughter returned, and other relatives also arrived.

The next day the man returned to his home; his mother stayed with her sister.

A week later, my aunt died, and my client was told by my mother by phone. The man did not go to the funeral, because together with his mother they decided “that he had nothing to do there”.

The man told (it must be said with great effort and through the fifth stump of the deck at the beginning) that after returning from his aunt, on the train, he suddenly remembered me; after a telephone conversation with his mother, he also remembered me for some unknown reason; after the news of his aunt's death, he did not go to work and was engaged in all sorts of trifles, one of such “trifles” was clearing the phone book of unnecessary contacts. One of those contacts was me. The initial desire to erase my phone turned into "mischievous": "I'll call and tell you that for some reason I remembered you." The story about these events took almost 40 minutes, the last 10 minutes the man was interested in what I think about my work, why I need all this, etc. At the end of the first meeting, the man asked to appoint him the next one.

The next meeting began with numerous questions and remarks addressed to me by the client: "You are too serious," - he told me, - "You probably think what to do with me?" and so on, I interrupted him, suggesting that for all the frivolity of his behavior, he needed something here and that it had something to do with the death of his aunt. I will omit the details of the client's defensive behavior. Further, at my request, he described in detail the trip to the dying relative, however, he stubbornly missed the moment of being next to the dying woman. It turned out that he went because “my mother asked,” he himself was ready for practical assistance - “to do something” for his relatives, “to help somehow”. To his sister, who asked to stay with her mother, he offered practical help (“If you need to do something, go, where to go - I'm ready”), but she refused, explaining that she wanted to “go out”. Towards the end of this meeting, the man expressed his suspicion that I believe that he was not ready for this trip. Then I told him that I do not think that a person can always be ready for anything. This was followed by one of the many depreciating remarks addressed to me, the content of which I do not remember now. Thus ended the second meeting.

At the fifth meeting, my client, who by that time was showing signs of fright, angrily remarked that I probably think that he was afraid of death, and his spontaneous remembering about me, I associate with the fact that “You are such a savior, you must save me, it was you that I remembered as the messiah”. Then he suggested that I make a list of the right ideas for cases when someone goes to visit a dying loved one (moreover, it was said as if I had to do it for myself). I questioned his school thinking, suitable for solving arithmetic problems and writing an essay on the topic "How I spent my summer." This offended him, but he tried not to show it and began to lecture me that my work is also a business, and the business must be organized and orderly, that I am hiding behind a pretense, and he suspected this even when we met that I I pretend that the law of the jungle does not exist, and there is no natural selection: "But it is, and you participate in it." Further, he said that he shouldn't have gotten so wound up, and that this situation with the death of his aunt was "passed", since this is the past and there is no point in going back there. Further, he assured that he accidentally remembered me, and there is no connection between these events, as, in his opinion, I believe. He went on to talk about business and that business thinking is also necessary for a psychologist if he wants his services to be sold. This was followed by a detailed outline of the marketing scheme, which I decided to interrupt with the question: "What are you trying to sell to me?" The man replied that he was not selling me anything. I objected somewhat sharply, saying: “No, you are selling, but I am not buying, and this makes you angry and frightened. And your speculation about what I think about your coming to me, which was preceded by unexpected memories of me, is not correct. However, I assume that the memory of me was not accidental. When you first came to me, you said that you were choosing a psychologist for yourself, but your choice contained an element of selling your image. You are faced with the fact that I do not buy you, just as you were not bought there, in the house of a dying aunt. And when you and your mother decided that "you have nothing to do there," you faced the greatest horror - you are not being bought. " The man lowered his head, there was a long pause; then he said that he needed to comprehend it. From that moment on, the man began to advance in the understanding that his image had crashed against the illusory nature of the objective. “You have nothing to do there” - turned into an understanding that “there is no place for me there, since I actually do not exist”.

If I were really asked the question of how to be and how to prepare for a meeting with a dying relative, I would say that I do not think that it is necessary to prepare for this in any particular way. I suppose I would say, "Be yourself." The moment my client asks me this question could retrospectively be used by me to force his understanding that he is in a trap, into which he has driven himself. But by that time, having already understood something about my client, I didn’t do this, realizing that he would simply rest against “correct thinking” and a compulsive search for an answer: “Who am I?”, “What am I? ? ".

To be yourself means to become free from many unnecessary internal burdens, from all falsehood, artificiality, any maneuvers, postures and ready-made formulas, which makes it possible to achieve greater expressiveness, the ability to more often express one's own feelings and experiences. This allows you to come into as direct contact with another human being as possible.

We all have primary freedom, which, unfortunately, is forced to shyly remain silent and give in to the demand to become someone (as many are proud of when they say: "I am a mother," "I am a professor," "I am an author of books").

By focusing on the primary openness of the heart, we are able to see that nothing needs to be pushed aside, there is nowhere to be, nowhere to go. Some clients talk about losing their sense of self: "I feel empty inside." The reason is that the integrity and continuity of experience, hidden in the depths, is suppressed and tightly locked. Over time, my client also started talking about this emptiness. For a long time, his outlook on his life was too limited. Like many of us, he was trained to be aware of himself through education, profession, role, relationships, a list of successes, and other objective things. And everything went well until he ended up in the house of a dying relative, then there he felt the limitations of objectivity.

Later, the man became able to talk about several hours spent in the house with his mother and a suffering relative. While there, he felt neither fear nor regret. There was only one thing that bothered him: he was stupid.

Very slowly, step by step, he became more capable of experiencing what had happened. Completely devoid of inner experience, a man, in a situation of being next to a dying aunt and his mother and sister, who were grieving over this situation, was completely impotent. Not hearing the voice of his "I", he in vain looked for objective support in something external.

I remember my first suggestion to "play" the game caused the man to be puzzled. Dreams he could only give in to a careful "analysis according to Freud."

Values such as performance, rationality, non-stop progress, extraversion and activity have left no room for opposite values: spirituality, sensuality, irrationality, attentiveness to the inner world and non-pragmatic play activity. I will make a reservation, so as not to be misunderstood, I by no means advocate or practice a beautiful-minded gaze at the inner world and the loss of contact with everyday reality.

Over time, my client, coming to therapy, became able to start work without "introductions", not be puzzled by endless questions "why", "for what purpose", etc. This testified to success. The man remembered his aunt and became able to mourn the loss. He recalled the time he spent with his aunt when he was a child. His dream of shorts that his parents never bought him; his desire to cut his jeans and his parents' threats of "brutal violence" if he dares to do so. The courage of her aunt, who was still persuaded to cut her jeans, and the money she had given to her mother to buy new jeans. If only he could then feel a deeply hidden grateful boy in cropped jeans. If she sat down beside me, reminisced, said words of gratitude … “She would be glad,” said my client. And is it necessary to describe his horror at the understanding that there is no more opportunity to bring joy to his suffering aunt who once delighted him in childhood.

I would like to end with the words of S. Levin:

“There is so much room to discover. There is so little attachment to the old vanity of vanities, to the old illusions of comfort and safety. That we are infinitely indefinable. We strived so hard to be that we never asked ourselves who we are and who we can be. Letting go of our knowledge, we open up to being itself. We experience something that does not die"