I should say right away that I'll be using ver 2.1 -- of which few have yet been informed. This is:
- -- simpler in that it doesn't allow different parties to have different doubts. Reason: dt is about what is communicated, & what is communicated to one party at a card table (aka options board) is communicated to all. Whatever reasons for doubt have been given, are given to all -- they're "on the table". (If this were not so, we would have modeled the interaction using 2 card tables.)
-- more complicated in a necessary way. It allows two kinds of doubt about an intention: (1) doubt as to whether it will or won't be carried out -- shown as usual by a ?; (2) assumption that it won't be carried out -- to be shown by an X. No mark, as before, means assumption it will be carried out. We then say that I have a rejection dilemma with you if there's a ? or X on my stated intention to reject your position & you have a persuasion dilemma with me if there's a ? or no mark on that same stated intention. So if there's a ?, both dilemmas obtain. Reason: makes more sense. Clarifies enormously what the card table is telling us.
We refuse (position DP) to accept death; Death can't take us. We're aware, however, that Death takes no position on whether we should accept him or not (the dash in column D). His position: he'll take us regardless. So stated intentions is a threatened future, not an agreement. The question-marks mean we doubt Death's threat -- but aren't sure. There's not yet sufficient evidence "on the table". If there were, then at the moment of truth we wouldn't doubt it!
Death faces a rejection dilemma (position mode). His rejection of our position in favour of his own is doubted. The same rejection, being uncertain, gives us a persuasion dilemm. As time passes, Death will overcome his dilemma by demonstrating indifference, capability (he can kill us) & inevitability (he's going to). Our first resort: look for ways to make the threatened future better for us & worse for Death. Anger motivates this search. But there are no ways. Death will simply implement his position by unilaterally carrying out his intention. Unable to fulfil its purpose, our anger intensifies, with Death losing its rejection dilemma as we realize rejection of our position is inevitable -- as seen here.
Anger is KR's stage 2 of Dying.
My own reaction when last year the surgeon sd I wldn't live long was to get an estimate of time-to-live -- 10 yrs? 5? 6 months? I cld take it, I thought. Knowing that denial was the first stage of Dying, I denied denial. I became hyper in my determination to accept Death -- & make the best of it. To go out in a blaze of glory. Same pattern repeated itself last week when time-to-live was drastically reduced further -- to weeks, perhaps. Both times I've felt anger, but realizing it was pointless I've directed its energy toward the problem: how best to die? I've been witty, taking people aback by admitting everything (denying denial) & saying everything (about love, etc) that needed to be said. Above all, I've launched everyone on a Project to pass on as much as possible of the work I've done -- work on dt, plus other things.
So anger has been used more profitably by being recognized. Recognition has also led to better management of
KR's 3rd stage: negotiation.
As modeled here, Stage 3 starts when, seeing anger isn't working, we try conciliation. What are Death's objectives ? Can't they be met some other way? Perhaps Death, like an angry parent, wants us to reform? We bargain with Death across this re-defined options board. We no longer doubt Death's intention, but feel he may change it if we reform.
I've gone this way. I've researched dietary methods for reducing cancer. This is health reform as set out on the card table. At the same time -- acknowledging that to find a "cure for cancer" at this stage of my life is a bit ambitious -- I've seen the Project as a way forward. This is moral reform. Get on with it. Finish the stuff you shld have finished long ago.
Of course, none of it stops Death. Death doesn't care, as shown on the table. But that doesn't matter so much because the Project is worthwhile in any case, and the health reform may delay Death a bit to give the Project more room. There's evidence that cancer patients who seek self-cures in addition to medical ones do better. So that's what I've been doing. Also, of course, I've been seeing my family. That's a whole other Project. I've been shamed & amazed at how my dying has brought the family together & made them love me & each other more -- not that they were doing badly anyway, but it's been wonderful. And the work project -- transferring dt so that others can use it in filming & making careers -- also helps family. So 3 big Projects. 2 of them life-enhancing even though not Death-stopping. The third perhaps Death-delaying for the sake of the other two.
Death continues to take no notice. KR's fourth stage is depression. As shown here, we eliminate all dilemmas by taking no position or intention.
I did this last year at at a certain stage in that cycle. It hasn't happened yet this time, I'm still hyper. But it will do. Steroids may be staving it off. Dilemmas are eliminated, but in a tragic, miserable way rather than a resolving one. When depression does come, it can be overcome (was last time) by Projects. This is recycling through more bargaining, of course, but it seems to me that understanding what is going on leads, again, to the possibility of using the emotional impulses in a realistic, profitable way rather than uselessly.
KR's final stage -- not yet reached, as I'm still recycling through the bargaining stage by continuing with my projects -- is acceptance. This is the model below. Of course, I've reached this stage already in anticipation. I did almost immediately the surgeon told me. But anticipation isn't the real thing. I've got that to look forward to.
As with many cancer patients, I feel more concerned about the fate of those I'm leaving than about my own! But I'm sure knowing the dt analysis of the whole thing has helped enormously.