Footnote: Retelling an episode renders it ontologically malleable

This is extremely interesting and deserves its own article.

This model presupposes that intentionality is hugely important. An event without intention cannot be traumatic. An episode were subjective will was not countered—or, as LRH would say, when Survive! was not thwarted—is only perceptual information and has no relation to our strong motivation to survive (and all the deep emotions this triggers).

And here we arrive at the other main principle of Schematism Tech:

There is no semantic content without intentional construction.

All actual construction is particular. This is Kant’s principle of ontic construction, now championed in abreaction theory by by Ed Watkins:

2009

Concrete abreaction helps

Watkins, Edward R., Baeyens, C. B. & Read, R. (2009). Concreteness training reduces dysphoria: proof-of-principle for repeated cognitive bias modification in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 118(1), 55-64.

2008

Schematizing and control theory

Watkins, Edward R. (2008). Constructive and Unconstructive Repetitive Thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134.2, 163–206.

The semantic content of the original event was no less composed by an intentional element. There is no truly objective original to hold up as a standard. That is, the thing is thoroughly intention-dependent. This means that retelling it necessarily changes the original.