More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
dreamed that Ethel had been killed in a car crash in Los Angeles, and the telegram had come.
“Because I don’t want to change things!” Orr said, as if stating the superobvious. “Who am I to meddle with the way things go? And it’s my unconscious mind that changes things, without any intelligent control. I tried autohypnosis but it didn’t do any good. Dreams are incoherent, selfish, irrational—immoral, you said a minute ago. They come from the unsocialized part of us, don’t they, at least partly? I didn’t want to kill poor Ethel. I just wanted her out of my way. Well, in a dream, that’s likely to be drastic. Dreams take shortcuts. I killed her. In a car crash a thousand miles away six
...more
Okay again did he dream up Ethel in the first place. Also conflict with Haberman is starting. Haberman is approaching ? as a clinician? Watch out George. 11 9 25
v-c induction
“Was it there an hour ago? I mean, wasn’t that a view of Mount Hood, when I came in—before I dreamed about the horse?” Oh Christ it had been Mount Hood the man was right. It
“We’re getting somewhere, George!” “Where?”
11 10 25 Satire, a satire of therapy.
11 11 25 The tell that Haber was aware and manipulated George. George will figure that Haber wanted have George switch the murals back.
Did Haber think George would not pick this up? Haber also manipulated George from the beginning.
Orr was not a fast reasoner. In fact, he was not a reasoner. He arrived at ideas the slow way, never skating over the clear, hard ice of logic, nor soaring on the slipstreams of imagination, but slogging, plodding along on the heavy ground of existence.
He thought: Haber knows, now, that the mural has changed twice. Why didn’t he say anything? He must know I was afraid of being insane. He says he’s helping me. It would have helped a lot if he’d told me that he can see what I see, told me that it’s not just delusion.
Now, it’s well established that under hypnotic suggestion a person can and will do almost anything, whether or not his conscience would permit it in a normal state: that’s been known since the middle of the last century, and legally established since Somerville v. Projansky in
“Well. Possibly. It could be managed, if there’s good cause. But look, calling in a lawyer as witness in the event of a possible privacy-infringement case is going to absolutely wreck your therapist-patient relationship. Not that it sounds like you’ve got a very good one going, but that’s hard to judge from outside. The fact is, you have to trust him, and also, you know, he has to trust you, in a way. If you throw a lawyer at him because you want to get him out of your head, well,
what can he do? Presumably he’s trying to help you.”
Oregon Oneirological Institute
the Elektroson or the trancap?”

