Getting started
As I write this, I've been following the Janice Walton-Hadlock (JWH) PD protocol for something close to six months. Having concluded that mine was very likely a case of Type I PD with a good possibility of Type II as well, my focus so far has been on the dialogue with the “other.” (I have not yet tried the visualization exercises for helping mechanically to turn off pause described in Stuck on Pause. All in good time...) For now, that will be my focus in these posts, which should also be appropriate for 95 percent of those PD folks reading this.
I've already forgotten some of the details of the experience during the early going. I can say, though, that initially my efforts at the dialogue with the “other” were considerably less intensive and less consistent. Even today, during daily activities I manage to engage in the dialogue only sporadically. Getting that to be more constant is a continuing challenge, though I do believe I'm making slow progress. More consistent is my use of a couple of daily, dedicated sessions reserved for the dialogue.
One of the key items I do recall: When you begin the JWH approach you have to decide first who you will be talking with. I came into the process somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. So I could not just begin talking to the God of some established religion. Even if you are a practicing member of some religion, you have to make sure your version of God fits the profile held by JWH to be necessary for the process to work. That is, the god or “other” you talk to must be loving, benign, someone you can talk freely with, laugh with, etc. So if your version of God is stern, judgmental, punishing, or anything similar, you'll have to make some changes, develop an image of a different sort of “other.”
Fortunately, JWH makes clear that the entity you talk to need not be any traditional version of God. It can be “a deceased beloved friend or relative, a 'higher power,' some saint or sage, or even a beloved, deceased pet” (Recovery from Parkinson's, 2019, p. 79). More generally, it seems it can be “whatever it is that a person understands to be universal Love or the source of all creation” (Stuck on Pause, 2017, p. 158). See JWH's writings for still more options.
For me it was easy enough to believe in the universe and the interconnectedness of everything in it. So that was my start. It was my impression that this “other” should be somewhat humanized to make “him” more relatable. So I gave him a name and a vague look designed to seem gentle and benign yet wise and knowing. JWH suggests not spending a great deal of time fretting over who you will choose as your “other.” Probably best to let it unfold organically. In fact, at first I tried our deceased dog Daisy. I'm sure I could have made her work, but after a couple of days I felt it a bit difficult to see her in quite the right way. So I switched to the idea of “everything,” in all its mystery, in a humanized form. Do what works for you.
But what if you are such a staunchly logical atheist that even options like those I've described seem like too much “woo” for you to tolerate? Well, are you really going to let that stand in the way of taking a fair shot at recovery from a progressive, degenerative condition? You're human. That means you can change. Talk yourself into believing a little something new!
Once you've chosen your “other,” you need to get going on the dialogue. I'll share much of what I've learned about that in subsequent posts.