In describing my FOO I used to describe the main focus of what I learned to do, and what the older women did, as "We build ego for a living." There's obviously more to it than that, but how to describe it? I don't have any words that I really like, because I loved those people and. . .believed/wanted to believe they loved me.

So the UPR fed into a fantasy life, for me. Maybe/probably other clients do not have it. But I did. And learning what is fantasy and what is not -- took me a lifetime, including 55 years in therapy on and off.

I also had a very disconnected rational side so I could get along in the world and make decisions. Only it came to a point that -- what WAS the point? No interest in living, etc.

I "fell for" the UPR. Or the idea of therapy. Or something. Didn't really feel the unrequited love. Maybe/probably it was numbed out, as I had numbed out in childhood. Maybe the UPR just fed into my ego or something. I don't think I had a very healthy one going into therapy. We in the family were all kind of dependent on each other for the "ego building". No one was "allowed" to do it for herself. A kind of enmeshment, maybe.

I majored in math and love abstraction. An escape from the feeling/social reality of my (family) life? Maybe. But I still find value in abstraction. And find little useful, really grounded abstraction in psychology. (How can one have "grounded" abstraction? Look at physics. I spent 8 years in graduate school in cognitive psychology trying to work toward a start toward better theory in psychology and was not allowed to do an "independent" dissertation and have it fairly evaluated or rejected by the committee, so I quit. Plus my husband was dying. An idealization of the reality of the academy these days, yes, I know.) The "touchy-feely" feelings and values focus on life has merit. But not exclusive merit.

I think Budfox's observations and analogies have merit, too. Not exclusively perhaps but as an alternative point of view I definitely welcome them.