Putting it all together: Mapping Connection, Feelings, Defenses, and Behaviors to Biological Threat Responses

This is a LOT of information and out loud thinking. You have been forewarned. :-)

First, some terms:
- *Emotional/Relational Death := annihilation or destruction or dis-integration of self; indifference/end-state of lost love

- **Shame := diminishment of self. Shame takes many forms: not being seen/being invisible, not of interest/worth/value; being "exposed" or judged as fraud, incompetent, ugly/unattractive, failure, stupid, powerless, loser, less than, not doing enough, not being enough, foolish, wrong, weak, waster/squanderer, ungrateful, disloyal, friendless, bum, imperfect, etc

*The danger or threat (i.e., death) from shame may not be real. This may be the primary learning our bodies are alerting us to when we perceive danger in a shame experience. It may have been real at one time but cannot in reality affect our integrity of self today as it once could. This is how our relational rules become maladaptive over time.

**Even a small diminishment of self increases the probability of complete diminishment of self, which is annihilation (dis-integration) or death. In this way shame gets associated with death in our minds so that any threat of shame can become an existential threat almost instantaneously. This link resides in our minds and bodies at an often unconscious, symbolic level that is accessible not through words but through bodily "felt sense" and other subtle sensorimotor actions.

- Universal Connection := state of unity or oneness with external and internal environment, including other people, oneself, and everything else in the universe
(Curtiss Sensei -- 1/14/17 Aikido seminar)

- Social Engagement (Porges: "Connectedness") := ability to co- or mutually regulate (synchronously and reciprocally) physiological and behavioral state
(Porges Ppt slide -- 12/10/16 ICP&P conference)

- *Conditional Love := Overall quality or rules of relationship that forces one to avoid, ignore, or deny his/her feelings and needs (and thus lose emotional life) -- that forces one to do particular things (as defined by whatever wins or loses caregiver's "love") and thus be someone other than who he/she is in order to get love (affection, attention, warmth, caring, interest, connection, etc)

- *Unconditional Love := Overall quality or rules of relationship that accepts one for whoever he/she is -- one has to do no particular thing to get love

Still thinking through this one: [*Note: People can act w/ conditional love while intending and believing their behavior is unconditional love. It's an example of behaviors (i.e., reactions) not aligning w/ intentions, values, or beliefs. This is the iceberg. To say there was an iceberg is to say the caregiver acted w/ conditional love and impaired attunement. Caregiver's intention may be to love but may not know how to do it, perhaps confusing conditional love for love.]

Next, THE question: When 7th sense is impaired, how does unpredictableness of other and/or self threaten the self? What is the threat? What is the attack? And, what is the trigger?

After much thought, angst, and trial-and-error, here's my answer:

I think the threat boils down to death: experiencing physical (i.e., cessation of bodily functioning, including heart and brain -- the loss of our physical selves or any one or thing we care about) or emotional/relational death (i.e., the presumed consequences of shame/disconnection). This threat can be triggered internally (e.g., with a thought) or externally (e.g., our or another's behavior), but the intensity of perceived threat (and subsequent reaction) always depends on our own unconsciously perceived capacity to tolerate or hold the threatening experience, which itself grows out of our state of universal connection in that moment.

In other words, when we are universally disconnected, we are only one body holding experience, but when we are universally connected, we are the entire universe (or ocean, sky, etc) holding experience. Therefore, the probability of responding to danger increases with universal connection and the probability of reacting to danger increases with universal disconnection. And, when we react it may be a sign that we were disconnected before the trigger ever occurred.

The "attack" then is anything that increases the probability we will experience physical or emotional/relational death vis a vis ourselves or anyone or anything we care about. Relational "attacks" may just be our own artificial, fluctuating assessment of self-worth -- they may be self-inflicted. We react not only to attack, but to expectation or ↑ likelihood of attack (e.g., (un)consciously perceived dying/diminishment/devaluing/loss [of love]/iceberg as attack, slippery slope/tipping point).

An attack can be any physical pain or hurt with respect to physical state or any situation or interaction that gets associated with shame from an emotional perspective (which then, in our minds, could lead to death -- dis-integration/apathy/end-state of lost love).

A trigger is any neutral stimulus that gets associated in our brains with early relational trauma, or "Titanic" (i.e., shame) experiences.

Threat, then, is death (e.g., indifference/end-state of lost love, dis-integration) -- the early (past) trauma or death experience, likely (future) trauma or death experience, and spontaneous (present) self-devaluation of worth. 

Reaction is "flipping".

If this is the nature of threat, then why would our automatic reactions directly lead to the very thing we fear (i.e., shame/disconnection)? It makes no logical sense, though it is a fact that our minds sometimes seem to work counter-intuitively. For example, to avoid death we may be "playing dead" by reacting, with increased passivity or "deadness" as we move from fight to flight to freeze to faint. Likewise, we often follow strategies consciously meant to increase connection but that result in disconnection, like being the "star" in sports, singing, family, or whatever. Why would we do this? Surely our brains are smart enough to know this will happen?!

Could it be because any "attack" (i.e., ↑ probability of death) is experienced as an existential threat to some degree (see fight/flight/freeze analysis below) and our reactions are meant to preserve "life", or what we unconsciously think of as "living"? Our defenses were strategies our embodied minds employed when we were infants/children precisely to save life (see "Titanic" post for further clarity). For instance, taking the example of being the "star", the real goal of this "perfection" strategy when we were children was to maintain closeness with our primary caregiver -- we were being the person they wanted us to be (to reduce the probability of their own experience of shame) and hence preserved that connection and our real life. This is how we learned to connect and be in relationship!

It's just that it becomes maladaptive as we grow and apply it to other people/relationships, so now it impedes connection. To engage with the world means to increase opportunities for shame (i.e., ↑ probability of death), even though such experiences also increase opportunities for learning, growth, and connection -- this dichotomy represents our need for threat.

But, even when we experience shame and are disconnected from others or ourselves, we are still connecting to our primary caregiver and preserving that relationship by running this implicit script. So, our minds think "Mission accomplished!" and we have a temporary (false) sense of safety and security that does not reflect reality beyond that moment. Most importantly, because we think "Mission accomplished!" we don't learn from it.

According to Aikido master Curtiss sensei, reactivity is an outgrowth or manifestation of universal disconnection, and love is an outgrowth or manifestation of universal connection. i.e., Our state of universal connection determines how we perceive a trigger and subsequently respond or react -- we can perceive danger and respond to it.

This may be folly, but here is my attempt to integrate all the moving parts of the Reactivity dynamic. See illustration below if this is too much information:

CONNECTION --> Response --> Environment (internal and/or external) = Safety

   ---> Polyvagal: Social Engagement/Mobilize without fear
   ---> Purpose of Response: Maintain "true" equilibrium/safety

   ---> Physical Distancing: Optimal distance from/connection to other
   ---> Emotional Distancing: Optimal distance from/connection to own feelings and other self
   ---> Strategy: Mutual regulation of physical/psychological state
   ---> Typical Attachment Style: Secure
   ---> Primary Feelings: interest-excitement, enjoyment-joy

   ---> Defenses: none
   ---> Behaviors: love, friendship, laughter, flow

DISCONNECTION --> Reaction --> Environment (int and/or ext) = Threat/Danger

   ---> Polyvagal: Fight/Mobilize with fear
   ---> Compass of Shame: Attack other
   ---> Purpose of Reaction: Restore "false" equilibrium/safety by "flipping"
   ---> Physical Distancing: Eliminate distance from other
   ---> Emotional Distancing: Create distance from own feelings/needs AND create distance with other

   ---> Strategy: Mobilize for self-regulation to push other away while distancing from self
   ---> Typical Attachment Style: Dismissive/Avoidant
   ---> Primary Feelings: disgust-dissmell (including contempt), anger-rage

   ---> Primary Defenses: Tactical Defenses (verbal and nonverbal), *Repressive Defenses, Transference Resistance (e.g., idealizing self/devaluing other), Regressive Defenses (e.g., acting out, contempt, sarcasm)
   ---> Behaviors: physical, verbal, or emotional attacks (e.g., hitting, kicking, biting, pinching, spitting, yelling, sneering, ignoring, dismissing, belittling, judging/criticizing, blaming, "shaming")

   ---> Polyvagal: Flight/Mobilize with fear

   ---> Compass of Shame: Avoidance, Attack self
   ---> Purpose of Reaction: Restore "false" equilibrium/safety by "flipping"
   ---> Physical Distancing: Create space from other AND eliminate space with other (push/pull)
   ---> Emotional Distancing: Create distance from own feelings/needs AND create distance with other AND/OR eliminate space with other (push/pull with other)
   ---> Strategy: Mobilize for self- and mutual regulation to ambivalently keep connection w/ other by bringing close and pushing away while distancing from self
   ---> Typical Attachment Style: Disorganized or Anxious/Preoccupied
   ---> Primary Feelings: boredom (existential angst)-existential terror or panic

   ---> Primary Defenses: Tactical Defenses (verbal and nonverbal), *Repressive Defenses, Character Defenses (e.g., ignoring, dismissing, neglecting own needs/feelings -- idealizing other/devaluing self)
   ---> Behaviors: hyperactive/over-doing, addictions, compulsive habits (e.g., nail-biting), lying, running/hiding (incl. passive-aggressive attack other), looking away, rumination, pleasing/placating

DISCONNECTION --> Reaction --> Environment (int and/or ext) = Overwhelming Threat

   ---> Polyvagal: Freeze/Flag/Faint/Immobilize with fear

   ---> Compass of Shame: Withdrawal
   ---> Purpose of Reaction: Restore "false" equilibrium/safety by "flipping"
   ---> Physical Distancing: Eliminate space with other
   ---> Emotional Distancing: Create distance/disconnection from own feelings/needs AND eliminate space with other
   ---> Strategy: Immobilize for mutual regulation to bring other closer while distancing from self
   ---> Typical Attachment Style: Fearful/Avoidant
   ---> Primary Feelings: distress-anguish (including sadness, depression)

   ---> Primary Defenses: *Repressive Defenses, Regressive Defenses (e.g., dissociation, splitting, projection, compliance, helplessness, weepiness, slowing down)
   ---> Behaviors: withdrawal, isolation/hiding, hypoactive (slowing, sleepy)

*NOTE: Repressive Defenses (e.g., reaction formation, denial, intellectualization, rationalization, minimization, avoidance, instant repression, slowing down, isolation of affect, etc) function to distance oneself from one's own feelings, a goal of reaction. As such, they may be seen in all or any specific reactive state (e.g., denial in "flight" or rationalization in "fight" or slowing down in "freeze"). This deserves further thought.

Shame-Humiliation/Fear/Anxiety underlies and connects all nodes of Reaction. The bridge back to Social Engagement from Reaction is (self-)compassion, holding/acceptance, and learning.

Our "choices" between 2a, 2b, and 3 are mostly made out of awareness, as are the constant threat evaluations our central nervous system is making, including whether or not we can "win" or flee against a particular threat or threats.

This also represents a slight departure from the Polyvagal Theory. Specifically, Porges defines life threat only in the "immobilized/freeze" reaction. I call this "overwhelming threat" instead of "life threat", and posit that the same threat (i.e., ↑ probability of death) exists in each of fight, flight, and freeze -- it is just in different intensities and quantities. This would explain his finding that babies did not exhibit "life threat" (which he associates with only "freeze") reactions when encountering disconnection from a caregiver. Moreover, based on direct experience and observation, I conceptualize "flight" on a continuum of what Irvin Yalom called "death anxiety". And, of course, experiencing any attack but certainly physical attack that evokes a "fight" reaction can easily be understood as an existential threat. Therefore, the only "life threat" is not in the "freeze" state.

The middle of the circle represents our experience, both in #1 and in #2a, 2b, and 3. The red represents our experience both when an other is reacting AND when we are reacting.

Our ability to respond depends on whether or not we conflate experience with self. If we do, then we (our self) will be embedded in experience when reaction happens and red will be our experience AND our self -- there will be no "us" to see things as they are and choose understanding or empathy or trust. If we don't, then we (our self) will see our experience and others' experience as separate from our selves and then be able to choose RHEST. It depends on understanding that our experience is NOT the same as our self, that our experiences are separate from our self. This is an important example of reality-checking.

We (our self) can then always pivot around shame to connection, using the energy from shame or threat of shame to connect and be safe through (self-) compassion, holding/acceptance, and learning.

***I have come to see that when we are in any reactive mode, whether or not we are intentionally trying to hurt others, reactive behaviors will trigger others' reactivity (i.e., "flip it" or put them down b/c the probability of shame/death increases) UNLESS they can actively see and understand our behaviors in the context of the circle of reactivity.***