Elaboration 51

Therapeutists, it is thought, have the trade to make unhappy people happy again. For this calling, they are paid very well indeed. But is it too much to ask that they understand their job properly? Since unhappiness is decidedly not physical, they need not know much of the physics, the 'somatic' part of life, but the more so about, first, happiness itself, and secondly about the means, the ideation, the psychic principles of teaching. True, all happiness is self-happiness, all learning is self-learning, and so on, yet, clearly, it is not enough to give unhappy people a copy of Seneca or M. Aurelius A. in his hand, but should not the therapeutor himself know enough of these recipe-books to tell (teach) the story again, fitted more to the unhappy complainer? My goodness! Cicero wrote about The Good Life, is not that what we all are after? Should not the one, one turns to when in need of help, be able to at least say the same things as Cicero, FROM expertness, not through rote learning? When one wants to know about world-problems, their solution, one studies a book about it, this book e.g. When one wants to know about solutions for his own unhappiness, one studies an expert book about 'that'. But it just 'might' be that it would be more effective when it is taught by a present helper, a modern one, one that does such things in a hypnodynamically optimal teaching situation. Is it so new, what I ask, when the same thing was possible 2500 years ago? True, in Epidaurus, and through other disciples of Crotonian descent, there was much use of snakes and so on. But when a therapeutor today leave all that out, doing exactly as these (Democedes, Melampus, etc.) did, or, as the later Coué and Baudouin did, he would at least score 60 % success (the figure of roughly all 'placebo' successes) instead of 3% by pseudo-analysis. Speaking of medical (?) ethics.