Thoughts from a Therapist

Category: Philosophy & Theory

The ‘philosophy and theory’ category contains post which offer explanations of philosophical tenets and abstract and/or subjective offerings from the author.

  • A subtle difference between Narrative and Cognitive psychotherapy

    Quick Summary: Narrative and Cognitive therapy both help people to think about their world a bit differently. Cognitive therapy helps people to look at and to change disruptive beliefs and Narrative therapy helps people to put more attention on the positive storylines that make up their reality. Both hold that positive thoughts and a positive self-narratives tend to have a positive or advantageous impact on a person’s behaviors and emotions.
     
    A cognitive intervention rests on the idea that we humans tend to have many negative and self-defeating thoughts and beliefs which have a detrimental impact on our behaviors, emotions and overall quality of life.

    • Cognitive psychotherapeutic interventions help people to focus their attention on these disruptive thoughts and beliefs so that those thoughts and beliefs can be adjusted so as to not have such a significant negative impact on a person’s life.
    • Often these thoughts and beliefs are somewhat unconscious or at least beyond our control (this means that the beliefs and thoughts were accepted as ‘true’ without the person making a conscious choice about the validity of those thoughts and beliefs).
    • Cognitive therapy is based on modernism. Modernism theory is the basis for scientific investigation… modernism believe that there is an objective, measurable and consistent reality.
    • Therefore cognitive therapy deals with the removal of ‘false’ thoughts and beliefs… cognitive theory would feel justified in objectively labeling thoughts and beliefs as true or false.

     
    There is significant overlap between many psychotherapy theories…
    On the surface, Narrative therapy looks very similar to cognitive therapy.
    Narrative therapy states that we live within the stories that we tell our selves and the stories which people tell regarding us. This means that according to narrative therapy your reality is determined by the beliefs that you choose to hold regarding your life.

    • A narrative intervention would help people to ‘rewrite’ their personal life story so that their reality could be filled with greater positivity.
    • Narrative therapy is based in postmodernism – in this theory, reality does not exist objectively, truth is simply what you believe to be true. If you believe that events in your life should make you unhappy than ‘unhappy’ will be your self-created reality.
    • Narrative interventions are not concerned with true or false beliefs – as nothing is objectively true you can believe anything that you want to.
    • Narrative therapy helps people to live within more positive and life enhancing narratives.
    • Every day good and bad things happen – narrative therapy helps people to see that they choose which perceptions… which narratives… take the majority of their consciousness.

  • 'narrative means to theraputic ends' – book summary and review

    Quick summary: Below is a book review for ‘Narrative means to therapeutic ends’ written by Michael White and David Epston. I use this opportunity to highlight the major themes of Narrative therapy in general. This is a great book!
    For more information about David and Michael you may visit http://www.dulwichcentre.com.au/ (this is a center in Australia which is dedicated to helping people through narrative therapy (Epston and White were co-founders I believe) – the book I am reviewing is a must read for the philosophically inclined – you can get this book at any major online retailer or by clicking the web site above.
    Review of White and Epston’s
    Narrative means to therapeutic ends
    Summary of the basic content of the book
     
                This book starts out very philosophical. White lays out his reasoning for his narrative view and compares that view point against other widely known theories concerning the way we perceive and organize our existence. He explains why he disagrees with certain aspects of the more objective sciences and educates us on some of the current themes in the social sciences. In his philosophical discussions he briefly explains some of his techniques used in narrative therapy. The last two thirds of the book are devoted to helpful examples of how to help clients by offering written narratives. The letters are real and the authors offer their reasoning behind each different type of letter.
    What this book is not- this book does not focus on the actual therapy sessions and the way that those sessions could be conducted by a narrative therapist. Instead this book was primarily written to explain the philosophical tenets that led to the narrative therapy model and an in depth explanation on how to use written letters to help your clients.
    The Philosophical beginning
     
    Power- White fist talks about the two opposing views on the concept of power. One theory being that power is a construct maintained through language and the other theory being that that power actually exists and can be utilized to oppress others. 
    Text analogy-The narrative view point is related to the social scientist’s text analogy which suggests that given objectivity doesn’t exist and we cannot actually know a true reality, we then make up stories, which serve as our interpretations of our subjective perceptions.  In this way White extrapolates that change can occur by “re-authoring” or telling a different story about the same perception.
    Positivist physical sciences and biological sciences- To understand the text analogy it is nice to compare it to other leading theories on how change occurs. The two theories above believe in a degree of objectivity and therefore look at change in more definite terms. In short, a problem cannot be altered by changing the way we perceive it; instead a problem must be isolated, diagnosed and then removed as if it were tangible. Essentially the problem actually does have an objective existence, which is in contrast to the text analogy which would suggest that a problem is only a problem if one chooses to perceive it that way.
    The inherent shortcoming of using narratives as a means of organizing our lived experience– White suggests that we do not in fact offer a story to all aspects of our lived experience; instead we tend to focus on stories that fit nicely into our dominant story and perhaps into that story which is most pervasive in our society at large. White uses this belief as the starting point for many of his narrative techniques. Essentially he suggests that we can offer precedence to un or under-narrated aspects of our lived experience to offer a change in the way we perceive our lives. This flows right into the concept of unique outcomes, which is a technique used to find an exception to the dominant “problem saturated” narrative.
    Foucault and his view that power and knowledge are essentially the same thing- White references this man quite often and uses some of his philosophies to explain the many dimensions of the narrative perspective. It is suggested that power is knowledge because when we push an ‘objective truth’ onto a society the individuals in that society will align their own narratives around the dimensions outlined in the ‘truth’. In this way knowledge is power as knowledge can be used to direct the narratives of individuals in the direction of agreed upon truths. This has many Multi-Cultural themes as the dominant cultures have historically suppressed the subjective narratives of individuals in minority groups by forcing them to align with oppressive narratives. In simple terms, when an individual believes a stereotype to be true they might write their own story in a way that ignores authoring their experiences that are contrary to the stereotype.
    Brief overview of Narrative techniques (extremely simplified) – White and Epston include these in their theoretical discussions and they use these concepts in their letters to their patients.
                Deconstruction – The therapist asks question to get to the specifics of a stated experience. So instead of saying,” I am sad,” the client would specify that ,” when my child’s incontinence came into our life I have noticed that a heightened sense of irritability towards my spouse came with it.” This is used to show that an event can be interpreted many different ways and the idea that there is solely one meaning to a perception or narrative is what some authors have described as an illusion. This technique has dialectic attributes as the therapist might ask questions such as what is good about that event and what is bad about that event. When a client can see an experience with greater dialectic maturity she/he is more able to re-author that experience in a way which will best serve her/him.
                Externalizations – This is used to help the client to separate the problem they are facing from their identity. Often this simply involves the addition of a preposition such as ‘I am with depression’ in stead of ‘I am depressed’. White and Epston will ask their clients question such as,” and when did this depression enter into your life?”
                Therapeutic questions – Are used to decipher the client’s narrative. They are used to help the therapist to understand the client’s perceived reality. As objectivity does not exist it is important for the therapist to get an idea as to how the client perceives their lived experience and how the client authors what he/she perceives. White enjoys asking question with words that suggest the inevitability of the new narrative coming to fruition. He will say “when this happens” instead of “if this happens”.
                Unique outcomes – The therapist tries to help the client to give examples of instances where the problem was resolved or viewed differently. The therapist tries to get the client to tap into un-authored aspects of their lived experience. The un-authored experiences are unique or different from the dominant story, which the client might be having trouble living within.
                Definitional ceremonies – out-side observers re-tell the new narrative of the client to “thicken“the new narrative.
                Therapeutic letter – (from the therapist) helps in displaying the advancement of new narratives, and to give positive feedback and encouragement. This is the main concept of the book and will be described in great detail below.
                Supportive leagues – this is essentially a gathering of people who have separated a problem from their identity and can work together to co-create narratives to stay successful. If a group was being oppressed by a socially constructed truth, they can band together to author a different interpretation.
    Goals of therapy – The goals of therapy are to separate the client form the problem and to re-write self defeating narratives.
    Written tradition vs. oral tradition – White gives us the argument in favor of writing letters containing alternative narratives. White supports his idea of writing letter by offering some points on the advantages of the written language. For one, our culture tends to put more emphasis on the sense of sight than any of the other senses. Therefore it is easier for us to accept a new story when we can see it. Second, a written story offers a sense of time which then aids the reader in making meaning from the temporarily relevant narrative. In other words it allows us to see our story in a timely context so that we might make meaning from the linear conglomerate of perceived experiences.
    Panopticon- White ends his philosophical discussion with a jab at the current systems in place for oppressing the populace by quantifying existence and allowing it to be constantly evaluated based on the constructed variables of those in dominant positions. The Panopticon was literally an architectural design that would maximize the efficiency of those people working within its boundaries. The inhabitants were all classified and then were measured on set variables. All the inhabitants were made to believe that they were constantly being watched though the architecture was actually designed so as to create the illusion of constant observation. The example was mostly a metaphor used to display how fear can be used to get a populace to adhere to dogma so that they can be controlled. With a freedom from dogma, which is essential if one is to adhere to postmodern principles, our authentic self in free to narrate our perceptions towards our existential growth.
    Letters written to clients and people relevant to the clients- White and Epston believe that it is important for people around you to share in your new narrative. Sometimes letters are written to people other than the client so that a new narrative can be shared with significant others; this is especially important given the systemic nature of this theory’s base. Often the process of letter writing is a collaborative effort between the therapist and the client/s.
    Types of letter (I will try and be brief) he calls them Narrative Modes
     
               
                Letters of invitation – Given narrative therapy is a systems theory it is desirable to involve multiple members of that system.  There are often times when a member of the system is not present at a therapy session though their presence could be of benefit. These letters are sent to encourage a person or people to attend a session by sharing some of the new narratives of the attending people with the absent person or people.
     
                Redundancy letters – in this case redundancy is related to the jobs or familial roles that people perform within a given system. These letters are often written by the client with the help of the therapist to inform someone that they have been relieved of their job. As the client re-authors his/her life, the resulting independence might lead them to relieving a person from a care giving role. In this example a letter would be written to the caregiver so that the caregiver can accept the new independent narrative of the client.
                Letters of prediction – In these letters the therapist writes a new narrative which encompasses the goals and hopes of the client. The premise is that the client will believe the story and the belief in the new story will result in the prophesy coming true. Essentially the therapist writes what will happen and the client then makes it happen.
                Counter-referral letters – In these letters the new narrative is sent to the person who referred the family to the therapist. This is a way of spreading the new narrative and offering a follow up to a potentially concerned person.
     
                Letters of reference – In certain situation clients are found to believe a troublesome narrative because it has been pushed on them from an important person in the client’s life.  In Epston’s example he was meeting with a couple who were constantly told that they were bad parents by the husband’s parents. The clients ended up believing the narrative which suggested they were bad parents despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. In this situation a letter that was filled with lived experiences in support of a new narrative (that they were good parents) was written to the husband’s parents. Again this is an attempt to get more people to participate in an alternative narrative.
                Letters for special occasions – These letters are written to help a client prepare for a potentially stressful occasion by writing down how the client would like the occasion to proceed. All pertinent information that is necessary for the other members of the system to perceive the client accurately during this special occasion is included. These letters are pre-emptive in that the purpose is often to explain how the client perceives the situation so that other members of the system can interact with the client with insight.
                Brief letters – There is a vast array of content that might be included in brief letters, and there seems to be one consistent theme. The theme is to let the client know that you are thinking about them and that you genuinely care. Often times these letter offer a brief summary of the new narratives of the last session. Other times brief letter might be sent to an old isolated client to simply let them know that you are thinking about them. The act of receiving mail tends to make people feel important. Brief letter are very often used to offer a quick reminder that the client can use the above techniques to re-author aspects of their lived experience.
                Letters as Narrative – These letters essentially encompass all the aspects of the narrative theory. They are used to depict the linear nature of the client’s story while showing that that story can progress forward without the detriments of inevitability. The process allows the client to first externalize the troublesome variable and then choose how they intend to author their story. Often a letter will be offered by the therapist in which unique outcomes and other progress will be summarized. The client will then write back a letter including the advancement to their new narrative. Again, seeing your story on paper helps you believe it. This has a lot of over lap with the secret, which is very popular these days. In a sense you can create your own truth as you are the author of your own life.
    Self stories – these are letters written by the client once they have successfully authored their story in a way that fits their liking. Once the therapeutic process has been successful and the client feels great within her/his new narrative these letters offer significant others the opportunity to read the new story of the client. This new story can include a re-authoring of the past present and the future to anyone the client so desires. The letters are the client’s authentic autobiography.
    Counter Documents – These are awards or diplomas for the successful completion of a goal. They are a visual reminder of success.
     

  • Rogerian (or Person Centered) therapy summary

    Quick summary: The basis idea of Person Centered (or Client Centered or Rogerian = they are the same theory… just different names) is that humans have an innate drive to grow towards their potential and they will act with the best interests of themselves and the community in mind if placed in a nurturing and accepting environment. Rogers maintains that if a therapist offers a setting in which he/she is genuine, empathetic and can offer unconditional positive regard to the client, then the client will naturally grow into an effective, affectionate, empathetic, accepting, self-aware, secure and happy person.
    Client centered or Person centered – it is also called client centered as the direction of the therapy is guided by the client and not by the therapist. This is a non-directive approach. The therapist maintains that the client is the expert on himself or herself… the therapist offers a supportive environment for the client to grow to their fullest potential.
    History – this theory was invented by Carl Rogers in the early 1900’s. Carl believed that humans were motivated to be good and to reach their full potential. He saw that sometimes people’s negative self-views impacted their potential. Carl maintained that with the right kind of supportive environment, people will naturally grow and resolve. This theory was in response and in contrast to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory which suggests that humans are motivated by mostly primitive drives.
    The human potential movement was a positive influence on the theory which basically stated that human’s are good, they have an innate drive to reach their full potential, and they are driven to be good to themselves and to others.
    Therapist Attributes are the key to this intervention – this theory does not place too much importance on techniques… instead the theory suggests that the character traits of the therapist in the therapy room are the most important variable related to outcome. When a therapist is Authentic, Genuine, Empathetic, and unconditionally accepting (offers unconditional positive regard) the clients will reach self-actualization.
    Client directed – the therapist will not suggest topics or try to change anything about the client. Again, the belief is that needed change naturally arrives when a person is accepted by a genuinely authentic, accepting and empathetic person.
    Not problem or solution focused – the theory does not try and fix anything directly.
    Therapeutic Relationship – Rogers maintains that within a safe, accepting, and trusting therapeutic relationship, clients can reach Self-actualization.
    Humanistic – Humans are innately good… this is a humanistic theory… we are innately motivated to be good to ourselves and to others.
    Self-actualization – the goal of this type of therapy is self-actualization – meeting your fullest potential. This full potential is something within every person. The full potential of a person will grow in a supportive and nurturing environment.
    Therapist attributes

    • Congruence – the emotions and beliefs that a therapist portrays should be congruent with the therapists’ true emotions and beliefs. This means that a therapist must do his or her own work to truly be unconditionally accepting and empathetic.

     

    • Unconditional positive regard – The therapist creates a place of acceptance where any thought, belief emotion, narrative, behavior etc that the client has can be expressed without the threat of negative judgment from the therapist. The therapist holds the humanistic perspective that the client is always innately good.

     

    • Authenticity – the therapist is a real person who does not present to be an omnipotent expert of the client. In order to do this type of theory a therapist will likely have to engage in a fair share of self-actualization. The non- judgmental and empathetic presentation must be sincere – authentic. This does not mean that the therapist shares all their personal beliefs, traumas, or emotions with the client (as this would be taking the focus away from the client).

     

    • Empathy – the therapist puts themselves in the client’s shoes to fully understand and hold compassion for the emotional experience of the client. To be empathetic it is important for a therapist to have a good understanding of their own emotional experience so that they do not confuse their emotions with the client’s emotions.

     

    • Genuine – the empathy and unconditional positive regard must come from a place of authenticity.

     
    Techniques – this is not a technique-based intervention, but some themes are prevalent.

    • Reflection – this is where the therapist summarizes what the client said and verbalizes this summary back to the client to display listening and understanding. Sometimes a therapist will pay special attention to reflecting the emotional content of a client’s narrative.

     

    • Active listening – the therapist is actively engaged in hearing the client as opposed to seeking out information for some other purpose such as a problem or a symptom. The goal is to listen and to empathize.

     

    • Undirected uncensored experience leads to personal growth – The therapist does not lead the client towards certain topics. The clients will take the therapy where is should go.

     
    Goals of therapy – growth of the person and not removal of a problem
    Openness, self-awareness, acceptance, insight, self-esteem, and felt security with self and with others.
    Whom it does not always work for – this theory can really upset the Ego of a person (we all have egos = our self-concept – the voice that tells you how things should be and how you should do things). Egos demand that we do things… fix things… Egos do not believe that things get better without intentional action. As such this theory does not always work for people who are having a difficult time controlling the ‘just fix it already’ demands of their ego. It is hard for many people to believe that humans can reach resolutions by simply working on their more fundamental attributes (such as self-awareness). This indeed can be a difficult theory for some people to accept, as it requires trust in your innate ability and patients for that ability to develop. If Rogerian therapy was a weight loss program it would be the opposite of a diet pill.
    Research – research has substantiated Rogers’ claim… a positive therapeutic relationship is the number one predictor of successful therapeutic outcomes despite what theory is being used. The research also shows that technique and theory are almost irrelevant to therapeutic outcomes (I would guess that as long as a therapist can use a theory authentically then the theory can be helpful) – there is a tremendous amount of attention on ‘empirically based practice’ right now… this is kind off a distraction as they are studying the efficacy of theories (which have little effect on outcomes) and they are basically finding that all main stream theories are valid. The validity of psychotherapy interventions have been well substantiated for decades… psychotherapy is and has always been successful. On the surface it seems like the ‘empirically based practice’ movement in a ploy with the covert intention of implying that some theories are ‘dangerous’ and other theories are ‘one size fixes all’… though it would be perhaps profitable to many to come up with a perfect technique, the truth is that no technique is that helpful if delivered by a person lacking therapeutic attributes such as the ones Carl suggested. In closing Rogers was mostly right, if your therapist is authentic, empathetic, and accepting she/he will likely help you.

  • Gestalts vs. Math and deductive reasoning

    Does Gestalt theory (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) display one of the limitations of math in general? In other words does gestalt theory show that not all reality can be quantified with mathematical equations? As far as I can see (and I am far from an expert) math is based in deductive reasoning (if all a is b and b is c then a is c). If there are no ‘truths’ (if gestalt theory displays how 1 + 1 does not always equal two) then what does this mean for all the ‘truths’ that mathematics has suggested. Is our reality a construct based on our universal agreement in mathematical ‘truths’ that might not be true? Are we creating the existence of other universes and  laws of physics based on inductive reasoning that we constructed to be deductive reasoning?
    When we arrive at a conclusion or ‘truth’ using facts, definitions, rules, or properties, it is called Deductive Reasoning… deductive reasoning claims to arrive at a truth with absolute certainty.  
    Inductive reasoning is when we use observations of apparent consistency to derive a hypothesis about the potential existence of truth… but Inductive reasoning does not claim with absolute certainty that the truth exists.
    Gestalt theory suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A simple example of this would be a car… if you add all the parts together (paint, metal, rubber, wheels, brakes, gas, etc) you get something which is greater than the sum of its parts (movement, direction, intentionality, a car, transportation, momentum etc). (Paint + metal + rubber does not always = movement or car etc. the product of adding those variables can lead a seemingly infinite amount of results.)
    Postmodernism – reality is that which we construct based on agreements; these agreements are transferred through language. Reality is what we choose to believe – there are no absolute truths.
    In order to use deductive reasoning (in order for deductive reasoning to be a valid tool of deduction) there must be at least two universal truths in our reality… what are those two universal truths? (In my own philosophical investigations I have not found them… but again I do not claim to be an expert in this area.)
    I am absolutely in no way an expert in math, physics, or quantum theory (as a psychotherapist I perhaps have close to the least amount of formal mathematical education for a person with a graduate degree… MA and not a MS) … what I am suggesting is not intended to negate any of the physicists who are surely infinitely more intelligent than I am. Instead, perhaps I am asking for clarification if there is a good answer to my proposal.
    I was watching the Colbert report last night (re-run) and one of his guests was a physicist named Brianne Greene who has been using math to come up with hypotheses about the existent of other universes, and alternate ways of explaining what we call reality etc. At one point the physicist talked about how Math can be used to explain every aspect of existence, as math seems to be ‘true’ in our reality… Colbert jokingly (or not… hard to tell) stated that he read a book in which 2 + 2 = 5 (which is sometimes true according to gestalt theory)… the point is that mathematical equations claim to report truth as math uses facts, rules, definitions or properties in reporting answers (this is deductive reasoning) if any of those rules or facts etc was not absolutely a logical certainty then math would be using inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning… math would then be a tool for speculation and not a tool for truth.
    Inductive logic uses observations of consistency to report that something is very likely to be true… then deductive logic can be used to ascertain whether or not it is true. In order for deductive reasoning to be utilized you must have indisputable truths or laws that you can use as an inference…
    In short, there must be certain mathematical truths to prove other mathematical truths.
    Most high-level equations use inferences in there proofs… this means instead of reproving every mathematical ‘law or truth’ in every equation you use an inference to point to a known truth that was already deduced using a previous proof.
    As far as I can see (again… not a mathematician) most sophisticated mathematical equations are in some way based on the ‘truth’ that 1 + 1 = 2….
    My question is this… If 1 + 1 is not always 2 then does this rattle the efficacy of all mathematical equations?
    Brian Greene is professor of Mathematics and Physics at Columbia University… the quote below was taken from www.colbertnation.com
    “My area of research is superstring theory, a theory that purports to give us a quantum theory of gravity as well as a unified theory of all forces and all matter. As such, superstring theory has the potential to realize Einstein’s long sought dream of a single, all encompassing, theory of the universe. One of the strangest features of superstring theory is that it requires the universe to have more than three spatial dimensions. Much of my research has focused on the physical implications and mathematical properties of these extra dimensions — studies that collectively go under the heading “quantum geometry”.”
    I love this stuff… thinking about other universes and such… my question is this… are we constructing these truths these ‘all encompassing theories of the universe” based on premises that we claimed to arrive at deductively when in fact we arrived at then inductively?
    Could we change math and change the very make up of our universe? Or is math truly the truth that we can use to display the existence of objectivity?

  • Fear of Snakes is from the fear of snakes

    Quick summary: A fear of snakes is one of the most common fears held by humans… why? Many would answer, “they are poisonous and can kill you,” but many things kill significantly more humans than snakes (especially in the US). I am going to offer a hypothesis that I have been thinking about. The fear reaction of a snake is seemingly instantaneous… perhaps we fear snakes as they represent an emotional reactivity unhindered by a cognitive filter… they react to the ‘unsafe or danger’ emotion in the present moment without projecting a deductive tool of a belief system onto the invoking stimulus. There is then no way for us to assume control without a control of our own emotional disposition as the snake will react instantaneously to our disposition.
    Historically there were many in both the religious and scientific (redundant perhaps) communities that claimed that animals lacked emotions (excluding the human animal)… anyone who has had a dog would argue that such a belief is crazy. For whatever reason this message stuck with me subconsciously and I have recently come to realize that I have projected this emotionless notion onto reptiles.
    Human have a consciousness of their consciousness. With this meta-consciousness we hold an awareness of our emotions and an ability to observe our emotional reactivity. Perhaps the early peoples concluded that animals did not have emotions, as animals are arguably less conscious of their emotions and less likely to attempt to alter there emotional reaction as humans so commonly do.
    Many Animals (especially mammals), I would suggest, do have a consciousness of their consciousness… and this ability is often augmented by domestication… which is perhaps why domesticated animals do not fair well in the wild as they lose there ability to react according the natural law in the moment.

    • I will suggest that emotions are an intuitive guide for survival within the natural environment. When we cognitively alter or suppress our emotions, perhaps we limit the survival abilities most adaptive to the wild.

     

    • If you try and take food from an untrained dog, the dog will likely bite you… there was danger in moment and the dog would instantly react against the danger (survival response).  A trained dog would notice the danger (you are taking its food which it needs to survive), but alter its’ emotional response to a response that it learned was ‘better’. This cognitive override takes time… In the wild the dog would have an increased likelihood of dying.

     
    Snakes (I am not an expert I am simply offering a hypothesis created for entertainment) do not appear to have a consciousness of their consciousness… therefore, they react instantly to a perceived danger. I would suggest that this reaction to danger illustrates emotional dictation of a behavior…

    • Most humans seem to be terrified of emotional dictation of behavior. Our Ego’s want control and certainty… emotions are inconsistent and heavily influenced by external forces.

     

    • Many humans have learned to experience an emotion – make a conscious and unconscious decisions about that emotion – and then engage in a behavior which is influenced by both beliefs and the emotion. This process offers validation to the misguided belief that life is predictable and that we control our destinies (no matter how smart and ‘emotionally regulated’ you are there is nothing you could do about our universe crashing into another universe).

     
    Snakes are a tangible reminder of our inability to control our destinies… despite any cognitive intervention… a snake could kill you…
    Humans consciously and unconsciously desire predictability… the emotional reactivity of a snake makes them inherently unpredictable… they are a symbol of unpredictability.
    Many would suggest that snakes cannot be domesticated… their non-threatening behavior while in captivity creates the illusion of predictability when in truth it is our disposition related to believing the snake to be ‘safe’ which placates the snake.
    In conclusion, we fear snakes as they represent the unpredictable nature of life… an “unpredictable life” is the archenemy of the human ego.
    I sat once with a rattlesnake that had been recently run over by a bicycle. It was coiled and ‘angry’… it was perhaps terrified by its’ physical pain… the pain made its’ very existence dangerous. I sat next to it far enough so that it could not strike me. I contemplated my fear of the snake and became conscious of its emotionality… The instance became a metaphor… a life lesson that I desperately needed in my own time of suffering… I felt compassion and gratitude for the snake… the snake slowly uncoiled and moved away peacefully.

  • Ignorance is Bliss?

    Quick summary –  Applying a ‘lack of knowledge or beliefs’ onto your perceptions so as to intentionally use ‘ignorance’ as a means of attaining ‘bliss’. ‘Ignorance is Bliss’ is a very common saying that is interpreted many different ways. I intend to offer one explanation as to why ‘ignorance’ can lead to bliss… I will suggest that ‘ignorance’ is something that we can attain intentionally… if we let ignorance guide our perception we can find more enjoyment or ‘bliss’ in life. When we project knowledge onto our perceptions we unintentionally draw automatic conclusions about our environment… often these automatic conclusions, thoughts, emotions, beliefs etc bring us to a place of suffering or at least to a place of reduced curiosity, excitement, openness and interest. If you have nothing to project onto your perceptions (no beliefs, no historical relevancies, and no facts) then every moment is novel and has the potential of bringing you bliss. This bliss is in contrast to the boredom or anger etc which arrives when we label a perception as ‘understood’.

    To keep this post more succinct I will be talking about using ‘ignorance’ as a way of avoiding anger.

     
    I am not defining ignorance as a negative thing… I am defining ignorance as a chosen position. “I know that I know nothing… therefore I know something,” is an example of chosen ignorance.
    If you are not angry, then you do not understand.” – How often have you said, thought, or felt this way? Is it true?
    What if the response to the above statement was…
    “If you did not ‘understand’ then you would not be angry?”

    • Do certain perceptions need to elicit anger?

     

    • If you did not project your belief system onto a perception then it is unlikely that you would have a seemingly automatic emotional response – anger.

     

    • If you had no knowledge (ignorance) to project onto a perception then how would you react to that perception?

     

    • If you generally had a positive disposition and you did not allow knowledge to influence the way that you reacted emotionally to a perception, then perhaps you would be living in bliss.

     
    Anger often comes about when we “know for a fact” that something is right or wrong/good of bad.

    • Perhaps if we never believed that we ‘knew for a fact’ that something was right or wrong/good of bad then we would never experience anger.

     

    • Do you have to be ignorant to ‘not know’… or is it ignorance which leads us to believe that ‘we know’?

     
    Curiosity and authentic open-mindedness is a state of accepted ignorance.
    To attain your desired bliss from a state of  intentional ignorance you can:

    • Choose to know that you do not know anything for certain…
    • As you perceive something that would historically elicit anger, apply curiosity to your reactions – notice the beliefs and emotions that surface when in the presence of this perception… this subject.
    • Do not try and alter your beliefs or emotions, just observe their presence… where did they come from? Do you control the onset of these beliefs and emotions?
    • Are your emotions the ‘right’ emotions and are your beliefs the ‘right’ beliefs… apply curiosity… where did your belief about ‘right emotions’ and ‘right beliefs’ come from.
    • Imagine know that you did not have these beliefs related to the subject at hand… imagine your self having a different emotional response attached to the subject you are perceiving.
    • Now that you have regained control over the onset of your emotions and beliefs… look at the subject and perceive it as if you are experiencing it for the first time… as judgments of right or wrong surface gently notice the automatic reactions and choose not to react to them.
    • You are now perceiving without knowledge… you are now ignorant about what you are perceiving… you are now free… bliss.

     
    Debates about objectivity and the behaviors that we engage in surrounding objectivity (as in the idea that there needs to be a way for us to determine which things are always bad or always good) ultimately lead to the same question…
    Counter position: “If everyone didn’t have beliefs and did not believe that anything was definitively right or wrong, then what would encourage people to do good and what would discourage people from doing bad… it is the responsibility of the educated to offer the structure needed for a harmonious and functional community… without knowledge there is no order or ethics… there is simply chaos”
    I have talked about the above sentiment in many other blog posts, so I will not take too much time today with that counter argument. For the sake of today’s post I would suggest that universality is a bit irrelevant anyways as we are simply trying to increase a bit of bliss… I am not suggesting that you dismiss all ‘knowledge’… instead I am showing you how to be less emotionally controlled by your ‘knowledge’.
    Alternate meanings of’ ignorance is bliss’: people also interpret this saying as suggesting ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you’, ‘the more you know… the more problems you are aware of’’, ‘if you are ignorant than you are free from the burdens of knowing… and are therefore not responsible for fixing what you are unaware of.’

    • A common theme for these interpretations is that they are looking at ignorance as a quantifiable condition which is free from intentionality. The result of these meanings is that people who label themselves as objectively ‘not ignorant’ are inherently limited in their ability to access bliss. The saying might also feel un-empathetic to those living with less knowledge… ignorance can have some marginalizing effects which interrupts bliss.

     
    It is the beliefs about a subject which cause mental suffering…
     
    If a person was to believe for a fact that death was the path to utopia, then would death elicit sadness, fear and/or anger in those who held such a belief?

  • Anti-dogmatic types have a dogma themselves

    Quick summary: For this post I am reporting on the following study – Bartlett. j. psychological underpinnings of philosophy. metaphilosophy. vol. 20 1989 – As I consider myself somewhat of a philosopher, I am using this post for humor… the joke is essentially on me. The study examines the personality traits which are suggested to be more prevalent in philosophers… the piece is intended to have an ironic humor… the irony being that the philosopher’s conscious intention is often motivated by an unconscious intention that is motivated by the opposite intentions of the philosophers conscious intention… what?
    This paper (Bartlett’s paper – reference above) takes a metaphilosophical position which asks where the drive towards any philosophical orientation stems from. The author begins by pointing out the externally or visually available congruencies between the students in the philosophy school or the philosophically inclined or motivated individuals. He suggests that the tendency to have facial hair or to wear sandals etc represent an inner state that might have a degree of continuity amongst philosophers.
    Next our fine gentleman laid out a psychological profile of a typical philosopher. Essentially stating that there are many correlates between a philosopher and certain personality traits.
    He suggests that philosopher tend to be:
    Rigid – the cornerstone of their philosophical ideas are so firmly intertwined with their sense of self that they end up being dogmatically oriented towards some base truth. An example of such a truth would be the idea that there is no truth.
    Contentiousness – philosophers have a strong need to prove themselves right or to win. they are driven by a competitiveness, much like athletes, to prove there position (identity) against another’s.
    Narcissism – the author describes this as “self involvement to the point that an individual is unable to accept realities beyond his or her subjective world.” essentially we have such a strive for meaning and such a drive against authority and objectivity that we end up believing in only in our selves.
    Intellectual lassitude – this is an avoidance of a unitary methodology such as to safe guard our idealism (subjective optimist) or in other cases to safe guard our traditions (religious philosopher). Without a consensus we are free to be governed by our narcissism.
    Philosophical systems: the objectification of personality defenses – we objectify defenses so as to create an illusionary answer to the chicken or the egg argument. By using linear philosophy we have identified defense mechanism with philosophy while avoiding the idea that defenses might have created our philosophical positions. Your defense mechanisms therefore might be firmly correlated to your philosophical orientation.
    In conclusion – In our drive to disprove objectivity we unconsciously align with rigidity to the objective position that objectivity does not exist – we are dogmatically against dogma. Second, our drive to lessen our attachment to our ego is motivated by our ego – it is the ego’s desire to be an identity which is unattached to the ego… so our conscious intention to lessen the ego is unconsciously driven by the ego’s desire to strengthen itself…
    Have fun! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  • A subjective interpretation of Jesus’ message about the forgiveness of sin…

    Quick summary: The purpose of this post is not to engage in any type of debate as to the efficacy of one religion as opposed to another (or the efficacies of religion in general as most religions carry a consistent fundamental structure). On my own spiritual journey I don’t really trouble myself with facts, if there is something helpful than that is good enough for me… I enjoy my minds inability to understand everything… this cognitive roadblock often frees me to simply be. Instead of a debate or a search for fact I am offering a subjective interpretation of the teachings of Jesus (whether you believe he existed or not or whether you believe he was who Christians say he was or not) that I find helpful in understanding the idea of forgiveness and the possibility of peace. I am going to suggest that the nature of humans is good and when we forgive (accept with compassion and empathy) the sins (traumas, offenses) that are done to us we are better able to not pass (with our own thoughts and actions) that sin onto other people… this is true justice… this is peace (heaven). To clarify I do not define myself as being anything in particular and I do very much appreciate the teachings of religions…
    I have and have had clients who take great value from using their religions to help their therapeutic process. While joining them on their journey towards their goals I have grown a gratitude for the ways in which religion can help people. I therefore am on a path to increase my compassion and understanding for all religions as this growth has proved to be beneficial to my vocational role as a therapist, and to my desire to be the open-minded person I am when I allow myself to drop my resistance and my defensives.
    What is sin? What is forgiveness? What is justice? What is suffering? What is acceptance? What is peace?
    And how do you explain such philosophically and spiritually complicated concepts to the masses… to the masses which during the time of Jesus where still largely concerned with primary survival needs?
    Humans have a very interesting relationship with metaphors, parables and narratives driven by a moral theme.
    I enjoy theological conversations and I have been lucky enough to have met many different mentors and teachers from many different spiritual and religious backgrounds.
    Specific to Christianity, I have been fortunate enough to listen to many radically different interpretations of the message of Jesus. I believe there is a spectrum that many Christians find themselves on… the spectrum ranges from interpreting the bible as 100% metaphorical or figurative to 100% literal… perhaps most people are in the middle (as with most spectrums).
    My subjective interpretation of Jesus on the cross: He hung on the cross in mental and physical suffering, and though he had many followers, he asked no one to revolt and he asked no one for vengeful ‘justice’. He did not refer to his capturers as terrorists or the enemy… instead he spoke of them with compassion and labeled them the same way he labeled his followers (the sons and daughters of god – all are one – he avoided the idea of ‘us and them’, which is the minds way to justifying committing ‘sin’ onto others). He stated that he was to die for the forgiveness of sin; I am suggesting that his death was a symbol of how human kind can do so. Jesus did not resist his suffering… he accepted it… he did not hate or express vengeful desires for his offenders… he expressed unity, compassion, empathy and love for them… he died without hate in his heart… he died so that people could see that the root of sin is reacting to sins done unto them… if humans could hold compassion, empathy, unity, and acceptance for the suffering they will inevitably endure then they will cease to place suffering onto others (they will cease to cause other pain through sin)… If we allowed ourselves to experience the forgiveness which was displayed in the story of Jesus on the crucifix, a peace would exist… we would experience a spiritual evolution away from ‘sin’… and there would be ‘heaven on earth’.
    The mind enjoys tricking us with ‘us and them’ cognitions… “this is who or what we are and this is who or what they are”… the mind does this in a feudal attempt to create a stable identity. It causes the world pain and suffering when we assign the rigid labels of ‘good’ and bad’, ‘enemy’ and ‘ally’, and ‘terrorist’ and ‘friend’ onto others. If we truly want to remove ‘sin’ from this planet the first step could be to stop labeling people as the enemy… these labels are just a way for people to justify committing ‘sin’… Jesus showed the people how to hold compassion and empathy for the very people who caused him suffering… I believe that this message is helpful to all people of all faiths. Again, this is simply my subjective interpretation of what Jesus was trying to tell the people. I hope that I did not offend anyone… the topic of religion often encourages a heightened emotional availability or reactivity… Forgive me if I caused you discomfort.
    Forgiveness is the heart of justice
     
    Peace is in acceptance
     
    the path to peace in in compassion and empathy

  • Postmodernism – making an ‘out there’ philosophy useful

    Quick summary – By allowing yourself to investigate how your relationships, actions and emotions are governed by your perceptions you may find that by offering yourself a freedom of perception you can change the way in which you are impacted by your reality. – By using open-mindedness and an adaptability in relation to your beliefs and ways of perceiving, you free yourself from patterns of seemingly automatic reaction. Postmodernism suggests that reality does not exist… it is a construct of your belief system… a radical postmodernist would say that if you believed that you could walk through a wall, then you could walk through a wall… perhaps this is not particularly helpful to the masses, but what if we took this down a notch… what if you allowed yourself the freedom to perceive a situation differently so as to reduce your discomfort related to the subject? What would be the benefits of letting go of some of your deterministic thinking (‘when this happens I must feel this’ ‘If I did that I would be bad’ ‘I should_______ because _______)? Sometimes we trap ourselves in suffering by rigidly holding on to what we label to be objectivity… postmodernism suggests that objectivity does not exist – there are not facts. Perhaps if we took a small piece from postmodernist thinking we could all say that “I don’t have to feel or behave in a set way… my reactions do not have to be predetermined… I have a consciousness which is evolved enough to allow me to live without being controlled by my environment… I can choose to perceive or believe my reality to be different.” Embracing your subjectivity is an emancipation from atomization. 
    According to the philosophies inherent in postmodernism reality is a construct which is ever changing… reality is simply what we have chosen to believe… anything can be a fact if you believe it to be a fact… and facts become more factual when we use communication to get others to believe that those facts actually exist. According to postmodernism, if everyone believes the world to be flat… then the world is flat.
     
    Through language we allow the collective to live within a reality which appears to have objectivity and continuity… a radical postmodernist would suggest that if you want a different reality you must simply believe that a different reality exists.
    Now this theory might be fascinating to certain people (such as myself) but it is not particularly useful for a society which still seems reluctant to accept modernism (modernism basically states that the world is governed by logic – math and other sciences can accurately depict and explain reality… reality is quantifiable).  
    Our reactions and actions are related to the beliefs which we project onto a stimuli or event etc. I view postmodernism to be useful if it is used as a means of increasing adaptability related to perceiving… this could make a person less reactive and perhaps more content with the random happenings of existence.
    As a therapist there are many themes that I have seen surrounding the subject of deterministic thinking.
    Here are some very common examples of rigid deterministic thinking patterns that often create unnecessary suffering in people’s lives. (Remember to be nice to yourself… I am well aware of all the below cognitive distortions and I still find myself caught up in them anyway… this is not an exercise intended for you to cast negative judgment on yourself… notice which phrases you use and explore the subject with open curiosity.)
    “I have this characteristic so I should to this.”
    “I am a ________ so I must ___________ .”
    “Anyone who __________ is a _____________ and must __________.”
    “This happened with a family member so I must do this.”
    “I have to feel this way because this happened.”
    “Bad things never happen if you do things the right way.”
    “I can’t do it that way or else I would not be me.”
    “He did this so he needs to do this.”
    “When someone does this the only solution is to do this.”
    “We don’t do that or we don’t emote like that or we don’t think like that in my family/culture/community/country.”
    “I should _________because ________.”
    “I can’t support her because she is a ________.”
    “___________ is always wrong or bad.”
    “If I did that then I would be a __________.”
    “I am a _______ and we believe _______ should always be handled by ______.”
    We all have intuition and we all have subjectivity… countless times I have witnessed people fall hopelessly into suffering because of an inability to overcome their rigid ‘shoulds’.
    What would happen if you allowed more of your actions to be governed by what felt right in the moment as opposed to adhering to a rigid ideology which states objectively what you should do?
    Postmodernism is then useful to every one if we use it as a tool to better understand how our lives can benefit from lessoning our grasp on deterministic thinking… lessening the degree to which we are controlled by the ‘shoulds” in our lives…lessening the degree to which we believe that we must react a certain way to certain stimuli.
    This process will also likely have a nice affect on your relationships… people don’t generally like it when you force your own subjective reality onto them… people tend to get along better when they are less concerned with proving objectivity… proving that someone is right and someone else is wrong.

  • Chaos is the result of resisting what is

    Quick summary: what is, is simply what is until we try and capture what is with structure… as we move forward and find no structure to apply to what is then we resist our acceptance of this dilemma and by doing so create the chaos itself… in other words chaos does not exist without resistance… without judgment, without a need to define, without a need to make meaning or to organize, chaos simply is the same as what is. Chaos generally has an effect on the mind and the body… chaos generally arrives with an emotional vulnerability, with stress, with explosiveness, with confusion, with volatility, or perhaps with anxiety. Without resisting what is you can free yourself from some unnecessary stress. A good example of this is found in the resistance of fear or sadness… Anger is exceptionally common among humans and anger carries with it its’ fare share of baggage… much anger would be avoided if we allowed ourselves to experience our fear and sadness in the moment (or after – it’s not too late)… sometimes sadness or fear is what is… anger is often resistance… anger is generally chaos.
     
    Most of the reality which we humans have chosen to live within is a constructed structure… If you took this lesson too far constructs such as law, culture, ethics, religion, self image, politics, etc would cease to exist.
    Perhaps it is a bit unhelpful for me to suggest such a radical disintegration of structure. Further it is possible that at our current state of physical and spiritual evolution, such a movement would unintentionally or unconsciously fuel an enlargement of our egos – in short we would increase egocentrism by using the justification of non-resistance.
    The purpose then is allowing – for us to allow ourselves to simply accept and to move with what is in situations where it would not be existentially devastating to enjoy acceptance as opposed to forcing a structure or a judgment onto the moment.
    Previously I have looked at chaos as the opposite of structure and as I read more about Tao I have found a different perspective to contemplate. Tao is mostly inexplicable yet it is at the same time universally understood… perhaps this has to do with the concept that we have an innate of intuitive knowledge that is a bit beyond our mind’s (or any deductive computing system’s) capacity to integrate into a coherent structured belief system… oh we do try though… infinitely. Thought Taoism is considered by many to be a religion, its’ nature to me feels more abstract and philosophical… much like a theory which feels no need to validate or prove itself.
    According to Taoism – Tao is everything; it is the ungraspable force which drives the balance and motion of all things… It is Tao that manages to give the earth and the universe a homeostasis which exists without universal law, rule, or dogma… Tao is… and as I try to better explain this concept I fall into the minds trap… a trap which abhors meaninglessness and chaos… and so I try to apply structure to Tao and lose an understanding of Tao in that very process.
    Taoism can sound a bit like anarchy if a person is given a brief description, but it is far more complicated than this. Taoism suggests that there is a natural order, or balance, or destiny, or harmony in the way that things are… it is when we try an apply our own rules and laws (human constructs) that the harmony is disrupted… the idea is that when you create a law you also create a process of resistance to that law. This is not to say that order does not or cannot exist… Taoism suggests that most other life forms simply follow Tao… a tree will take water as it needs… animals will breath… water will flow… certain wavelengths have certain colors…animals find safety before earthquakes or tsunamis…a bear will find a warm place to hibernate… sleep happens etc.
    We are often not aware of our resistance… a mentor, a helper, an empathetic person etc can help us to find our place of acceptance… often this process necessitates finding what it is that we are or have resisted.
     
    Our mind wants solutions… it wants to apply a logical and linear protocol to achieve a goal… the irony is that often this protocol is what keeps us from our goals… What is simply is, and as you free yourself to follow the force which guides everything then you will free yourself from much suffering.
    Often noticing is the ends as opposed to being the means to an ends. To apply acceptance to what is all you have to do is notice… allow yourself to stop judging and quantifying your perceptions… and allow yourself to feel content with not needing to alter or change what is noticed.
     
    The body will have sensations… emotions… it is the process of acceptance which will alleviate the chaos of your life.
     
    it will be difficult for your mind to integrate what I am about to state as it is truly difficult for my mind – chaos does not exist… you create your own chaos with your resistance…
     
    Yesterday I was lucky enough to have my somatically oriented supervisor assist me in arriving at a place of noticing… a place free of judgment where I could enjoy and accept what was… what is…I noticed love, fear, confusion, doubt and a protective impulse heavy like a weight pushing a few inches higher than my solar plexus and radiating a tension which offered a flexing sensation throughout my muscles. This sensation was from something that was… but was no longer in the moment… as I applied acceptance to this experience the tension crumbled away from the edges… and I was free to be with what is… to be in the moment… balance… release… relax… relief…

  • Selfishness is also Selfless

    Quick summary: If you allow yourself selfishness you can increase the effectiveness of your selfless intentions. 
    There are many different types of people and people are impacted by the drives of selflessness and selfishness in differing ways and by differing degrees. The message here is most suited for the people who act with intended selflessness with greater frequency than selfishness.
    In this post I am not engaging in an argument as to whether true selflessness exist (I have tried to create a case against egocentrism’s apparent universality, but that subject can be for another time)… so let me quickly suggest that selflessness is doing for others with greater effort than you do for yourself. Selfishness is doing for yourself with greater effort than you do for others. (In this post lets assume that selfishness does not inherently have a negative effect on others… it is simply focusing the positives on the self).
    When I say that selfishness can be selfless I am pointing out an apparent truth of the human reality… the innate limitations of the human body and mind make a degree of selfishness necessary to properly operate (which is why egocentrism is so difficult to disprove). In short, we must do enough for ourselves in order to operate at a level which would lead our selfless intentions to effective actions.
    At times the more selfless people give more than they can truly afford to give… the result is deterioration of both the brain and the body’s ability to function optimally (and in some cases to function at all). 
    the truth is that often many selfless individuals work in positions in which they are asked to do more than is reasonable (or rational) and those in positions of authority unknowingly reduce the effectiveness of their employees by ignoring the limitations of being a human.  It is very likely the vast majority of all healthcare, social workers, educators, military personnel, and police officers (to name a few) are being asked to work with greater time and effort than is ideal… yes, I am saying that by decreasing there time spent at work you would likely increase their effectiveness (though this seems counter intuitive it has been researched to be true). 
    When we neglect the self we can unintentionally put our body into survival mode… often the willpower (or ego) of a selfless individual is so strong that they stay the selfless course… they are able to resist the body and mind’s plea for rest and recovery.
    In doing so they maintain an ability on the surface to continue to engage in selfless actions… but the body and mind are self-protective, and they will shut down. 
    Though the individual might engage in the same selfless actions, they will likely be doing so with less cognitive, dialectic, physical and empathetic etc ability. The result is a dramatic decrease in the efficiency and effectiveness of the helpful act. The helpfulness of the help given is reduced. So by this I suggest that selfishness is also selfless in such an instance.
    If you allow yourself the time and space to recover… to find balance… to reduce reactivity… to increase supports for yourself… to increase hope… to increase the happiness of your own existence, then you will be better able to offer such benefits to others. Therefore selfishness can increase the effectiveness or your selfless intentions. 
    My supervisor put this point very succinctly the other day when he stated… “It is unethical for you to not take care of your self.” I had just received some personal news and I was contemplating whether my ethical responsibility was to cancel an appointment or to keep an appointment. 
    In the field of psychotherapy there are many very well trained people with an advanced knowledge in helping people to find solutions… in order for a therapist to actually help they must be empathetic… it is empathy which is the driving force behind effect therapy (though on the surface one might conclude that strategy is most important).
    Without a high degree of selfishness a therapist will lose there ability to engage with their full empathetic potential… therefore I agree with my supervisor… from a business and from a personal view of ethics… it is unethical to not indulge in a bit of selfishness.

  • Motivation v.s. Dedication … Can dedication be created?

    Quick summary: My coach at Easton Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in Boulder Colorado chose to talk about the difference between motivation and dedication to illustrate an important point that he arrived at while contemplating the journey in becoming a black belt. I believe he had two intentions – one was to inspire and the other was to assist the students by offering them a glimpse of reality (the reality being that in a process which takes years and is exceptionally difficult, many if not most people will fail to reach their initial goal). The basic concept is that nothing good comes without effort, and motivation does not ensure the same longevity of that effort as dedication can provide. Motivation is fleeting and is often related to the positive impulses of a finite time period… because of the inherent finite nature of motivation, motivation alone will not produce the effort needed to achieve a long-term goal. Dedication is an internal contract which attempts to guarantee that effort or work will continue with regularity even when motivation is lacking or when apathy or hopelessness are present (this is the definition in my own mind… the actual original definition of dedication suggests that it is an external process – almost every definition I could find had to do with faith or religion – I believe that both I and my couch are talking more of an unrelenting commitment to an internal goal or intention.) This point is very accessible when related to exercise – it is unreasonable to assume that you will have motivation to train or workout every day that is needed for you to meet your individual goals – sometimes you’ll be tired, lazy, apathetic… it could be too cold, too hot, too rainy etc. Those who succeed will need to be dedicated to follow through even when they have zero motivation. Is dedication a choice that all people have equal access to? If dedication was a learned behavior that could be grown in apparently un-dedicated people what effect would this have on our culture?
    I was very surprised in my brief investigation about the lack of information concerning the process of dedication.
    The dedication that was so commonly referred to seemed to be inherently flawed and therefore somewhat unhelpful in my search for answers as to how to increase dedication.
    dedication I found was most commonly found in religious writings… the problem that I found was that often the writings were not talking about dedication at all … instead they were talking about being recurrently motivated by the fear of punishment (such as hell) or the by the acquisition of positive (heaven).
    -I am not intending to pass judgment on such a process (the process being the use of punishment and rewards to encourage a behavior), instead I am investigating how dedication came into existence… is there dedication which is unaffected by rewards and punishments? I believe the answer is yes… I believe that there are people who are dedicated to their religions, relationships, goals etc that are not doing so out of promise of reward or fear of punishment…
    But what is the source? How can one become dedicated? Is it simply a choice?
    One way of creating dedication is through anxiety – both intentionally and unconsciously. If you attach the meaning of your life to a certain variable then you are perhaps more likely to stay dedicated to that variable. This can be done with an “I am” statement – such a statement suggests a permanence that actually does not exist. If you rigidly define yourself with an “I am” statement then you will likely experience significant existential anxiety (anxiety surrounding apparent meaninglessness) if you lose your dedication to a variable which defined “who you are”.
    By this reason the quick path to apparent dedication is to strengthen your ego (an ego is the apparently stable identity that you created to explain your own existence – your ego attaches itself rather rigidly to beliefs and characteristics in an effort to define an objective existence and to promote the misguided notion of predictability – all this in an ironic effort to reduce existential anxiety – the irony being that there is no existential anxiety without the ego).
    As a psychotherapist I believe that the topic of dedication needs quite a bit more attention from my field…
    A therapist can do many things to help an individual or group of individuals to find awareness and hope surrounding changes that would harvest positive benefits… we can encourage and motivate people to engage in those changes, but the therapist cannot ensure that a client will stay dedicated to their desires and goals.
    As it is we can increase awareness, we can increase skills, we can increase attachment, and we can increase motivation etc… not only can we do so but we also have a rather stable understanding or how we are doing so.
    We do not seem to have a stable understanding of how to create dedication though sometimes dedication is the result of a psychotherapy intervention.
    Dedication is the key to maintaining the benefits of a change over a long period of time. The most obvious is substance abuse… it is very common for people to make changes regarding substance abuse… but many of those people will not be able to maintain the effort needed over time… especially when key supports are removed.
    I hold dedication… and yet I have no idea or philosophical explanation as to how that dedication came to be…
    As I contemplate this issue my mind seems to hover around words and thoughts such as intention, consciousness, the absence of judgment, collective, authenticity, destiny, breath work, and the moment.
    A part of me seems to believe that dedication is an authentic intention which arrives at our conscious awareness through finding the destiny or purpose of the non-judging self as is related to the collective intention of all…

    By this reasoning dedication would be inherent… dedication would be an unyielding drive towards authenticity… and authenticity which is not created by the mind or encouraged by the environment… perhaps then you can not be dedicated to something which is not authentic or to something which does not reflect your most fundamental purpose.
    The purpose of one is related to the intention of the collective… we are all part of the homeostasis… we are all part of the balance… we are all part of the whole while being the whole itself.
    To find balance perhaps you must find yourself… you must find your purpose related to the collective… I believe this is more difficult than it sounds as most of us have spent a large amount of time ‘creating’ a self which is a different process then finding oneself…

    For dedication to exist there must be a part of all of us which is a constant… from that point arises dedication… dedication is the belief that constant exists… dedication is the intention of the constant.
    I find myself once again going to the breath… to find dedication you might follow your breath… follow that breath past judgment… past belief… past identification… to acceptance… acceptance becomes the constant that we find ourselves dedicated to without need of intention… authenticity is arrived at… the gestalt is found… dedication is to your placement in and as the gestalt… dedication then is one with our authentic intention.

    I shall receive a black belt if that is my authentic purpose… if that is what is the purpose of the collective… this is true so long as I am able to find my authentic purpose.

  • Love is something we experience with our emotions

    Quick summary: This sounds very obvious – what is less understood is that many people impact their ability to love by using logic and other defenses to guard themselves from the suffering that love can bring. As a couples therapist I can suggest that when you guard yourself from being emotionally impacted from your partner, you often unintentionally make your partner less important to you… it seems that it is virtually impossible to love someone if you have successfully protected yourself from being emotionally responsive to your partner… in making your emotions concerning an your partner ‘unimportant’ you in turn make your partner ‘unimportant’. There are many different ways to interact with our environment… in different time periods and in different cultures we find that one interaction or organizational tool is used with greater frequency and value than another tool (hearing, vision, logic, being mindful, and using emotion etc are examples of ‘interaction or organizational tools’). Currently logic seems to be in favor though I am both excited and hopeful that other tools seem to be gaining popularity. The point of all this is simple – with the tendency for our culture to favor the use of logic many people are finding themselves falling out of love with their partners. Often this is do to an individual’s conscious or unconscious intention to protect themselves from the vulnerabilities which are inherent in being emotionally available… though such a method is useful in certain professional functions and though it is indeed a safeguard against certain types of suffering, the method creates a problem itself… using logic to trump emotions seems to disable some of your ability to love… an inability to love often creates a suffering which can neither be fully understood nor resolved by logic… perhaps the explanation for this is simple… you don’t hear with your eyes, you don’t see with your mouth, and you don’t experience love with your logic…so again… Love is something we experience with our emotions.
    To be clear, one way in which love is inherently painful is the existential truth that anything that exist can cease to exist… love exists within the dialectic of being infinitely alive and infinitely dead at the same time.
    “We all fear love for we all fear losing the love.”
    Much of this dilemma is tied to dialectics (again there are many definitions for this term – I have blended many of the definitions for my personal philosophical investigations. I tend to look at dialectics as being the ironic opposite of dichotomies. Dichotomies suggest ‘either or’… black and white thinking… you are either bad or you are good… it is with dichotomous thinking that we created what we refer to as opposites. Dialectics suggest ‘both and’… everything is infinitely everything thinking… you are bad and good and in order for bad to exist there must be good… the very nature of everything is the coexistence of what we call opposites at the same time. A simplified example of a dialectic would be stealing… stealing is good for the one who obtained the needed goods for free and bad for the individual who lost for no gain.)
    Using dialectics I can suggest this – If love is happiness love is also suffering… there is no happiness without suffering and there is no suffering without happiness – on a deeper level, which is way beyond my current intellect, it would seem that apparent opposites are fundamentally the very same thing.
    “The sharpness of pain is the cornerstone of passion”
    To live with the full potential of love you must open yourself up to both the pain and the joy which is inherent in love.
    When you cut off your reception to feeling painful emotions you cut away at your ability to experience love.
    As we try and experience love while guarding our self from the pain that being emotionally available creates…  we find that that thing we call ‘love’ is no longer particularly important to us… we become altogether un-reactive to this ‘love.’
    If you are emotionally un-reactive to your partner then what interactional tool are you using to experience the ‘love’ in your relationship?
    Love is much like life – it is a roller coaster of inexplicable experiences – I hold gratitude that my current conscious existence has feelings to experience the greater collective existence… I hold gratitude for my suffering and my happiness… it is within such experiences that I gain a certain understanding and enjoyment of love and life itself.
    My grandmother’s motto was to never be bored… this is truly helpful advice… and to do so I would suggest opening your self up to love – love is many things at the same time, but it is rarely boring when left uninhibited.
     
    We often grow from nurturing and suffering… we rarely grow from avoidance.
     
    Many suggest that life is love… if we block ourselves from experiencing the ups and downs of love do we also block ourselves from experiencing life itself?

  • Labels, identification, and judgments from an existential view

    Quick summary: Sometimes the masses seem to all engage in a consistent behavior … and when such an occurrence happens it is easier perhaps to take the phenomenon for granted so as to not put all too much thought into what motivates such a seemingly universal behavior. Most humans pass judgment, assign rigid labels, and identify with certain beliefs or attributes etc… but why do we do this? Of course there is the basic reason which is fairly consistent amongst all animals – if you label your environment you can act accordingly to increase your likelihood of survival (learning cause and effect demands this ability)… but what about when assigning labels, passing judgment on others, or creating a rigid identity has no measurable outcome on basic survival or is arguably detrimental in some way?… what then is the purpose of this common behavior? From an existential perspective I would suggest that we do such in our endless effort to create meaning from meaningless and to provide evidence that we exist in the first place (perhaps the idea that we don’t truly exist is even more frightening than the inevitability of death). The point is that by better understanding this tendency we are able to move towards a greater acceptance of ambiguity which can set the stage for being more accepting of the transitory nature of all things… this could reduce the anxiety you hold pertaining to the subject of judgment, identification, and labels… and perhaps reduce your need to pass judgments and to hold labels which might not be in your best interest or in the best interests of others. Increasing your tolerance for ambiguity fosters an improved ability to change.
    Who am I and who are you if there is not consistency?
    If I cannot label you how can I understand what you are?
    If I don’t judge you how do I contrast observations to comprise an image of who I am?
    In other words if there is no label or judgment that I can identify with than I will have no way of proving my own existence… I know this sounds way out there so let me bring it down a notch.
    Who are you?
    The answer to this question holds the point of this conversation…
    What words do you verbalize to yourself and to others when asked who you are?
    “I am a psychotherapist, in a loving relationship, who loves to play music, who lives for tele-sking, charismatic, philosophically investigatory, grad student, mislabeled introvert, funny but often too deep guy, compassionate, wild, nature lover…”
    this is where is gets tricky… if your labels stopped being ‘true’ would you still be you?
    In my experience many people want to say that they would still be themselves without the labels, but in truth they hold uncertainty and a high level of existential anxiety about the idea of living without the ability to identify themselves in objective terms.
    existential anxiety is an anxiety that surrounds our underlying understanding that there might not be any meaning in life, that we will all die, and that we have no certainty that we are not or will not at some point be completely alone.
    How do we calm our existential anxiety?
    The answer is simple…
    – We make our own meaning.
    – We create an identity to identify with.
    – We create stories to explain death.
    – And we place judgments on our relations to other objects.
    “I think therefore I am.” – I would agree that you think therefore you think you know something… but personally my mind is not very adequate at conceptualizing existence… in other words my mind is mostly unable to comprehend the objective meaning of the phrase “I am”… perhaps this is do partly to the fact that my mind believes more in objectivity than reality seems to.
    At this point I must point out that there is no definitive answer to any of the questions that I have provided… can you accept that?
    I would suggest that your ability to come to a place of acceptance surrounding the ambiguous nature of some of the most fundamental questions to the human race is a useful journey.
    As you embark on this journey you may find that change comes with less reactivity and defensiveness and with more curiosity and gratitude.
    No need to quantify existence all the time… enjoy the idea that a lack of predictability and objectivity is scary and exciting at the same time.
    “We are more likely to change in a way which is advantageous to the collective if we are willing to place less importance on both our tendency to pass judgement and on those judgments themselves.”
     
    “I’m not right and I don’t know anything for certain and within this belief system (itself as transient as the next) I find an almost ironic comfort… something about the acceptance of ambiguity holds a secret about our fear of death… for me not knowing, and accepting such, is far more comforting than anything my rather limited mind can propose concerning the subjects of life and death.”
    By this a proposed meaning of life is…– “the meaning of life is to live within the transient constructs of the relative moment’s interaction with the collective.”
    yep

  • Forgiveness is the Heart of Justice

    Quick Summary: Forgiveness is the heart of justice… by this I mean to say that the ‘justice’ we seek can often be deconstructed into meaning simply vengeance. There is no justice is vengeance as the suffering which we seek justice for actually tends to grow with acts of vengeance (these acts which perpetuate suffering are often validated by suggesting that they are healing mechanisms inherent in the concept of justice). Forgiveness is the balance to suffering… in forgiveness you interact with the suffering as opposed to the host of the suffering (the offender). In forgiveness you see the intention of suffering and you recognize that to balance the suffering in this world you cannot simply take measurable action against other biological entities… suffering is an abstraction… it is with compassion and empathy and love that we might balance the suffering in this existence. Forgiveness is not to condone or to forget… it is to love everything unconditionally.
    Ultimately we are all interconnected – you can look at this ecologically, from a social dependence stand point, from a biological attachment stance (we need secure attachments to others to function optimally) or from any other vantage point such as the spiritual… whichever way you choose to look at the issue I am suggesting that vengeance ends up hurting the very people who were tempted by its dramatic pull.
    The perpetrators of vengeance unintentionally expand and perpetuate the very suffering which was done unto them.
     
    – let me clarify here that to some degree we are all the perpetuators of suffering to some degree at some point in time… I do not claim to be above this influence.
     “If I shall be wronged I shall feel my offender’s pain so as to not pass on suffering again…”
    In our existential pursuits to make meaning from meaninglessness we created good and evil and chose to view the subject dichotomously.
    I have felt the pain of unimaginable suffering transmitted into the safety of my therapeutic space and I have something to report… there are no evil people.
    Instead there are people who’s suffering is of such a magnitude that that suffering unconsciously and/or consciously encourages the host (the person who suffers) to perpetuate that suffering.
    Our innate ability to offer compassion in the face of suffering appears to be relative to the individual – by this I mean that for some unexplainable reason there are people who have suffered comparably less and engage in colossal acts of vengeance and there are people who have suffered unimaginably who are not persuaded by the temptations of vengeance.
    I would also suggest that to some degree we have the ability to feel the suffering of the world in its’ entirety… so then we can feel a compassion for the world in its entirety.
    Forgiveness is love, compassion, empathy, acceptance and an appreciation for the interconnection of all things. Forgiveness is not to condone but rather to transcend suffering… to see suffering as a natural part of life… and to then choose to let your intuition guide you towards being compassionate towards all, which is the way to truly be compassionate to yourself.
    Forgiveness is something effectively offered to suffering itself… a suffering which has been around infinitely longer than the offender who newly presented to you an old abstraction.
    I personally do not claim to truly know forgiveness… perhaps such an ability requires transcendence.
    Though I perhaps engage in relatively less acts of vengeance externally I will often perpetuate suffering with endless ruminations… these ruminations affect my emotions… which then effect the collective.
    Yet I hold hope… a hope which is growing… that I will find forgiveness… That we all will hold forgiveness.
    Perhaps this is what Jesus was saying… (I hold gratitude for the teachings of all religions)… perhaps the greatest suffering known to life is the death of that life. In forgiving those who would take your very life perhaps you move the collective towards compassion universal… peace… balance. In the moments of his suffering he called for forgiveness though he had followers enough to suggest vengeance – or some other act of suffering.
    Holding the energy obtained from empathizing with suffering is extraordinarily heavy and perhaps doing so leads many people in the helping professions to ironically develop dissociation, rationalization and avoidance tendencies…
    I maintain that I will hold the suffering with hope and let the compassionate path of my breath take me closer to forgiveness.
    In order to forgive the suffering sometimes you need to find that suffering first… In my experience the breath can take you there…
    If you can love one thing you can love all things…
    peace

  • Fear

    Quick summary: So I was contemplating feelings of discomfort that I was holding some time ago and I started to think about this article that I had just read concerning a scientific discussion about our universe and the possibility of other universes existing that were governed by differing laws of physics. Fear is the feeling that I was holding… I was uncertain about some huge life choices that I had recently made and I was fearful about the lack of predictability in my life. Then I started thinking about the other universes and I tried to conceptualize what a universe, which was governed by different laws of physics, would look and act like. I imagined another universe crashing into our universe… I started laughing at how ridiculous my thoughts were… then I started to laugh at how ridiculous fear was in general. Fearing the future became quite the same thing as fearing another universe crashing into our universe… I decided that it did not do me all too much good to fear such things… or anything.
    Perhaps this is one part of the therapeutic process that is helpful and somewhat difficult to articulate…  therapists can allow you to express your fear and to attach a different emotion (or no consistent emotion) on that subject which was expressed… sometimes fear goes away when you allow your self the space to interact with the fear.
    Fear is a huge component of couples counseling in my opinion… I can think of many occurrences where couples “fixed” their “problems” simply by allowing themselves the space to verbalize, in a useful way, the fears that they were holding (this is why the therapist is helpful – without assistance it can be difficult to articulate fear, and to understand and listen to your partner’s fear, in a constructive way.)
    Once fear is recognized it can be accepted… once fear is accepted there is generally little reason to fear… if you accepted that one day you will experience death, would you fear it?
    We all tend to propose the “what if?” question with regularity… what if you stopped asking such a question to yourself? What would happen to your fear? How would the cessation of that question affect you ability to enjoy the present moment as opposed to holding fear about a most unpredictable future… what if an alternate universe crashed into our universe.
    Most of us fear:
    Meaninglessness – we fear that our life will be without meaning or purpose.
    Losing important relationships and being alone – we fear that there is a part of who we are that could lead us to lose those who are important to us. “If I tell you what I think, what I feel, or who I believe I am… I fear that I will lose you.”
    Death – we fear that we will not survive and we hold fear about the unknown experience of death.
    It seems somewhere along the way the human condition created somewhat of a dysfunctional relationship with fear as it is hard to define why fear would be in anyway beneficial to the above variables
    Fearing death has no effect on death…
    Fearing meaninglessness will not help you find meaning…
    And fearing the loss of a relationship often causes the loss of a relationship (jealousy, criticism, pessimism etc are often the products of fear).
    I was asked by a man the other day if there was any type of fear that was useful…
    I don’t know if fear is useful at all, but in my current state of development, I answered as follows:
    “Fear is only helpful in the moment as it prepares your body to react to a threat that is actually in existence… fearing something that already did happen or fearing something that could happen is not a particularly useful process.”
     
    Some would say that “fear is what encourages people to do the right thing… without fear a community could not function in an ethical way.”

    • Do you believe this?… think about it… it is ok if you do most people think that this is true.

     

    • Does the forest act ethically because of fear? Are all ecological principles based on nature’s adherence to fear?

     

    • How is it that the earth seems to survive in balance without the human race’s fear based governance?

     

    • I would propose the opposite… all earth entities have an innate drive to maintain the balance of the whole (the earth)… It is fear that is the creator of future thinking and unethical behavior (behavior that would throw of the balance and hurt the whole). Good = Balance…

     

    • My Bias – I believe that all things are intrinsically good… good is relative to conduct with other parts of the whole… we are all the parts and the whole – the balance is what is good by my definition.

     

    • My other bias – I believe that “the ends justify the means” is irrational and motivated by fear and the misguided notion that life is predictable – as life is not predictable the ends do not truly exist – the only subject to judge is the means – all that can be good is the means.

     
    Many would argue that fear is adaptive as it prepares us for survival – the idea would be that if you were constantly afraid of something such as a venomous snake… then you would be more vigilant and therefore less likely to be bitten by the snake…

    • Perhaps (though I’m not convinced) you would be less likely to be bitten by a snake if you were in a constant state of fear about snakes, but if you were so preoccupied with such a specific fear would you not be less likely to appropriately engage other stimuli in your environment? How would this distraction affect your relationships?           

     

    • In short if you are holding a fear for the future aren’t you distracting yourself from the present… don’t you then negatively impact your chances of survival if your attention is not on the present moment (a snake can only bite you in the present… a snake can not kill you now from in the future).

     
    The final point is stress and anxiety – the killers of health, relationships, presence, and productivity.
    If you had no fear would you have stress or anxiety? If the point of fear was for survival, and stress limits your chances of survival, then perhaps fear has become a mostly useless part of the human condition.
     
    Fear is a cognition which elicits an emotion … you have more control over your cognitions that you might believe… you are already “emancipated from your mental slavery” – you simply need to accept that this is true.
     
    “Fear is a choice… it tempts you to follow… what will you choose to do… to believe…to feel?”

  • Forgiveness

    Quick summary: Forgiveness is one of the most difficult tasks that is asked of us in life. It requires us to be humble, honest, compassionate, selfless, accepting, authentic, open-minded, loving, positive, hopeful, empathetic and emotionally mature.
    I will define forgiveness as – reaching point of complete acceptance surrounding a pain and suffering so that you and your environment are liberated from the suffering which is perpetuated by the negative emotions that were created by the act or thing to be forgiven. Forgiveness is freedom from automatically reacting to your suffering with actions that could be in conflict with your morality or ethics (people that do not believe in killing others would not suggest that killing others was reasonable retribution if they honestly felt forgiveness.) Forgiveness is feeling empathy and compassion for your offender… with forgiveness you do not condone behaviors which cause suffering, and you do hold compassion for those whose actions are dictated by their own suffering.
                True forgiveness is incredibly rare in my opinion… in many situations if you break down the act of forgiveness you find that it was truly either:
          An act of truce (“I agree to not react with vengeance or to seek retribution but I still hold negative emotions regarding the instance (which may affect actions in conscious and unconscious ways”).
          A change in the forgiver’s subjective perception of the event (I no longer think that the action that the person did to me is wrong… I therefore am no longer upset at them).
          A move towards indifference (“that person doesn’t live around me or effect my life anyway… thinking about that person is not worth my time.”). (this is very rational – our emotions are not dictated by ration)
          A move to initiate the recovery that follows true forgiveness (some people forgive as they believe that the action of forced forgiveness will make themselves more likely to eventually honestly reach forgiveness).
          A well intentioned effort to do the ‘right thing’ or to make the situation better (forgiveness is done because that is what is ‘supposed’ to be done and the person offers forgiveness in an effort to be someone extraordinary… the act is intended to serve ‘the greater good’ though the forgiveness might not actually be felt.)
    So how do we reach forgiveness? Most of us have probably reached a point of forgiveness surrounding acts that did not create a large degree of suffering (“I forgive my brother for stealing my pack of gum when he was ten… I can understand the temptation and the act had no intention of hurting me.”)
    What is more difficult to forgive are the acts that cause continual and life changing suffering such as murder, rape, intentional oppression, violence, destruction of something that was significant to us, acts of war, and actions that harm important relationships.
    Why should we seek to forgive? If it takes so much effort why should the process of forgiveness be engaged?
    I personally have never met a “bad” person… I have worked as a therapist in situations where my clients had engaged in “bad behaviors”… they all had endured their own suffering… some endured unimaginable suffering and found themselves suffering long after the cruel actions were no longer an occurrence in their lives.
    If there are not bad or evil people then why are there bad and seemingly evil actions?
    I have found that suffering is something that we all carry and it is something that grows despite a person’s intention… the suffering we carry seeks to spread itself to new people, things and environments.
    When someone puts there own suffering onto another person in the form of a cruel or bad behavior, that suffering does not dissipate in strength… instead it seems to grow stronger.
    Often the intention was not to spread the suffering… people try to make meaning of their own pain and suffering and in the process they at times will reenact and transmit the suffering they feel onto another entity. This creates guilt and more suffering for the person that continued the spread of suffering… and now forgiveness must be attained for the actions received and for the actions engaged.
    The cycle of suffering in strong at this point…
    The willingness to cause suffering to others in a futile attempt to relieve your own suffering is increased…
    We become willing to sacrifice our own morals in an effort to relieve our pain…
    We lose a degree of our free will and find ourselves acting automatically to the impulses of the suffering that we hold… and then we perhaps arrive at the truth that forgiveness is freedom… forgiveness is for your self.
    This is why we seek forgiveness… to stop the spread of suffering… and to regain our own freedom.
     
    The research has also found that forgiving people are statistically more physically and mentally healthy… so the scientific reason to forgive is that it is good for your health.
     
    The process to reach forgiveness seems to require an enlightened individual… a wise person who is humble and patient in extraordinary ways… how can we become this type of person?
     
    Ho do we become this forgiving person who can not only maintain but can increase their own health while ensuring that any suffering put onto them is eradicated with forgiveness instead of spread with vengeance?
    How is it that just about every religion speaks of forgiveness while the human race continues to choose vengeance… to choose vengeance even in the name of the very religion which was trying to teach them the wisdom of forgiveness?
     
    Perhaps we believe that we are less free than we are… perhaps the answer to the forgiveness quandary is to start with something seemingly simple – A CHOICE…
     
    Yes I am saying that the 1st step toward forgiveness is to choose to try and become a genuinely forgiving person… If you value the path you will put your energy towards it.

    •       You will seek to empathize with the offenders of the world so as to recognize that when we offer forgiveness and empathy we offer the opportunity for resiliency to spread through the collective.

     

    •       Perhaps you will see that we are all victims of suffering and we are all hero’s when we triumph over suffering with forgiveness.

     

    •       There are no enemies in objective terms… an enemy who’s suffering can be healed with your empathy is your friend… they never were the enemy… and it is understandable why it would seem that calling someone an enemy would make your suffering better… but it will not.

     

    •    Life is not fair… it seems as though vengeance is an act of justice… this makes sense if you believe in bad people… but people are not bad only their action are… and I have yet to see a human help another human without using compassion, empathy, and acceptance.

     

    •       Though forgiveness seems to be an external process it is an action mostly for the good of your self… the injustice that was done onto you may have been from a source of suffering born hundreds of years ago… you can keep that suffering and pass it along to others with acts of vengeance… or you can heal yourself and in doing so you can heal countless others that would have suffered if not for your strength and resiliency.

     

    •       With the freedom of perception that is born of forgiveness who will have the presence and the sensibility to act for the advancement of justice and equality without being misled by the temptations of suffering unrecognized… without being led to perpetuate suffering with ideas of vengeance.

     

    •       You have the freedom to define the hero as the one who forgives as opposed to the one who seeks vengeance at all costs. (the typical movie hero)

     
    I will not pretend that I have reached a point at which I could immediately forgive actions done directly towards the ones that I love… and I know that I am moving in the right direction. 
    Forgiveness is a process… I can forgive enough to help people that have engaged in actions that have harmed others… I can offer empathy… and I can help them to heal… in this way I am growing with forgiveness and I cherish the opportunity to do so. 
    “As I forgive I become free… I learn to accept… I gain purpose as forgiveness opens the door for me to help a wider range of people… and I gain love… unconditionally.”

  • Chaos, structure, rigidity, compassion and acceptance

    Quick summary: The path to “enlightenment” is indeed a bit confusing and as I was contemplating my own journey I came to an interesting point of discovery. I have not reached enlightenment and therefore do not know exactly what it is … perhaps until you reach the state, the experience of enlightenment in mostly inconceivable; I will offer some interesting notes that pertain to my current journey. I was thinking about how a path of chaos or a path of structure might lead a person to acceptance and compassion (generally thought of as the more important ingredients in an enlightened entity).
    I will define acceptance as – freedom from automatic reaction, freedom from automatic categorizing, living in the moment, instantaneous forgiveness, unconditional love and compassion for all, and a drive for harmony and balance with a genuine empathy for that which disrupts the balance.
    Most people have heard the ideas about not judging your environment so as to reach a point of universal compassion and acceptance… what choices affect this end goal? I could choose to align with chaos to reach acceptance… in this way I will hold no consistent beliefs or morals and will therefore be better able to accept most anything (any occurrence, philosophy, perspective etc) without the stress and anxiety that arrives when existence proposes something contrary to the constructs I might have otherwise held in order to explain my existence.
    The chaos model promotes a general indifference which is not necessarily in line with the concept of compassion, which is generally associated with enlightenment. If nothing is good or bad then I would have no basis for concluding whether or not an action was compassionate.
    The opposite (according to some constructs) of chaos is structure. With structure I could neatly arrange my existence to create somewhat of a linear path toward enlightenment. I would use theories such as deductive reasoning, probability, and other cause and affect based beliefs to create a path that was mathematically most likely to arrive at the variables associated with enlightenment. The Jedi (Star Wars movies) generally used this modality – Yoda even made comments about love – something like, “love leads to fear… fear leads to anger… anger leads to hate.” on such a path one might avoid certain types of love as doing so could make attaining acceptance more difficult (it is easier to have acceptance for the murder of a person you are not so connected to… if someone murdered your child or you spouse it would be very difficult to come to a place of acceptance). Structure can carry a degree of rigidity that distracts a person’s attention from what is… this can creates a resistance of the present moment.
    Both paths seem to carry a strong theme of avoidance for me… and on my current journey I have found myself confused. Avoiding structure can make acceptance easier while avoiding certain experiences or beliefs can also make acceptance a bit easier. So which is the path?
    I have been trying to use dialectics to aid in this philosophical inquisition. When using dialectics the path to enlightenment becomes both chaos and structure (as opposed to structure or chaos) – this means that perhaps the constructs which suggests that opposites can’t simultaneously exist (this is called dichotomous thinking) is what makes the subject so difficult for my growing mind to comprehend.
    Perhaps the variables which could clear some of this up are the ideas of destiny, intuition, and living in the present moment without resistance. Trying to find a “path” is ultimately a choice to engage in future thinking… the future is uncertain and does not exist (except in your mind). If I focus my attention on the future and believe that I can create predictability then I will be distracting myself from the present moment (which is all that truly exists).
    I would suggest that universal compassion, acceptance, authenticity and empathy are perhaps more difficult to achieve when you decide to live outside of existence … or outside of the present moment.   (This usually means that you are living within the constructs of your brain – you are using your brain to create an existence that is separate, to a degree, from the shared existence.)
    In this philosophical inquiry I am reaching a point of understanding based ironically on simplification – chaos and structure are both mostly irrelevant and/or unproductive if they are used as mechanisms to resist the present moment – to resist existence.
    All that one needs to reach enlightenment is in the current moment… acceptance is allowing one’s self to experience the flow of the river as opposed to finding ways of making that flow predictable. As you accept the flow of the river you will intuitively know what is required from you in the moment to maintain the balance of the whole – the while is the parts and the parts are the whole. The river is chaos and structure.
    When in the present moment you can accept and hold compassion for all as you free yourself to see that you are the all… and so empathy and selflessness is understood.
    Some people will flow towards hours of medication in areas removed from the complexities of a diverse array of relationships… some people will flow towards a diverse array of relationships.
     It is not the type of flow which is perhaps most important… instead it is the acceptance and the dropping of resistance towards the flow, which will guide you in the present moment… enlightenment is for everyone… it already exists… our resistance makes it elusive… sometimes our resistance is born of our method of dropping our resistance.
     
    “Chaos is the resistance of structure while structure is the resistance of chaos.”
     
    “I entered chaos to find the structures of my acceptance and the structures of my resistance”
     
    “In structure I found the acceptance of chaos.”
     
    “Follow the breath… water the sole.”
     
    “Existence is chaos and structure”
     
    “If you are striving for enlightenment than you are trying to live in the future (which does not exist)… enlightenment is an occurrence of existence… enlightenment is in the now.”

  • Gestalt Psychotherapy – an overview

    Quick Summary: For this post I will give an overview of Gestalt psychotherapy, which is popular for both its’ experiential nature and its large amount of techniques.
     
    Key Concepts
    View of Human Nature

    • Fritz Perls viewed clients as manipulative and apt to avoid responsibility.

     

    • Contemporary Gestalt therapists view the desired relationship between client and their environment as one of interdependence.

     

    • Human beings are capable of knowledge via the immediate experience of the perceiver.

     

    • Views individuals as striving toward actualization and growth

     

    • Believes that people have the ability to self regulate

     

    • People change when they become more aware of who they are.

     

    Four Basic Underlying Principles

     
    Holism: The whole is different from the sum of its parts
    Field Theory: A client must be understood within their context, which is always changing.
    Figure – formation Process: How the client organizes his or her environment from moment to moment.
    Organismic Self-regulation: When our equilibrium is disturbed by the emergence of a need, we do our best to restore the equilibrium.

    The Now

     

    • The present time is the most significant tense in Gestalt Therapy.

     

    • One of the main contributions of Gestalt Therapy is its emphasis on learning to appreciate and fully experience the present moment.

     

    • When the past comes up in therapy, the Gestalt therapist tries to bring it into the present as much as possible.

     

    Unfinished Business

     

    • When figures (or issues) emerge from the background (field) but are not completed or resolved, what is left is unfinished business.

     

    • Can manifest as unexpressed feelings, grief, guilt, resentment, etc.

     

    • Are carried into present life and interfere with effective contact with others and ourselves.

     

    • Persist until they are faced and dealt with

     

    Personality as Peeling an Onion

     

    • 5 layers of neurosis:

     

    1. The phony/cliché
    2. The phobic/phony
    3. The impasse
    4. The implosive
    5. The explosive

    Contact and Resistance to Contact

     

    • In Gestalt therapy, contact with the environment is necessary for change and growth to occur

     

    • Effective contact means interacting with self and others without losing sense of individuality

     

    • Prerequisites for good contact are:

     

    •  
      1. Clear awareness
      2. Full energy
      3. Ability to express oneself

     

    • According to Gestalt Theory there are 5 major ways people try to resist contact:

     

    •  
      1. Introjection
      2. Projection
      3. Retroflection
      4. Deflection
      5. Confluence

     

    Energy and Blocks to Energy

     

    • Gestalt therapists pay attention to energy – where it is located in the body, how it is used and how it is blocked.

     

    • Blocked energy is another form of resistance

     

    • The therapist actively seeks to bring these blockages into the client’s awareness by helping them experience what they are blocking.

     
    The Therapeutic Process
     

    Goals of Therapy

     
    The basic goal of therapy is attaining awareness and thus greater choice. Involves:

    • Knowing the environment and what is happening around us

     

    • Knowing ourselves and accepting all aspects of ourselves

     

    • Being able to make contact with the internal and external world

     

    Other Possible Outcomes

     

    • Gradual ownership of one’s experience

     

    • Development of skills and values that allow one to satisfy his/her own needs without violating rights of others

     

    • Increased awareness of one’s senses

     

    • Acceptance of responsibility

     

    • Movement from external to internal support

     

    • Ability to ask for and give help

     
     

    Therapist’s Role

     

    • By engaging with clients the therapist assists them in developing their own awareness and experiencing how and who they are in the present moment

     

    • Creates safe space for client to explore him or herself and try out new behaviors.

     

    • Encourage clients to attend to their sensory awareness in the present moment.

     

    • Pay attention to client’s body language as a provider of rich information regarding his or her feelings and potential avenues to increase awareness.

     

    • Pay attention to client’s language patterns as avenues to increase awareness and experience in the present moment

     

    Client’s Role/Experience

     

    ·        Active participant in the process

    • Treated as an equal
    • Client decides what changes to make
    • Willingness to explore oneself
    • Tolerate spontaneity within sessions
    • Capable of insight
    • Willingness to try out new behaviors with therapist and others outside of session
    • Willingness to try often “bizarre” techniques

     

    Relationship Between Client and Therapist

     

    ·        Trust very important

    • Involves person-to-person relationship where therapist is affected by client and client is affected by therapist
    • The relationship with each other is experienced in the here and now
    • One of complete acceptance
    • Therapist is genuine – fully themselves
    • Therapist self discloses in appropriate way
    • Therapist is a therapeutic instrument
    • Therapist is willing to explore client’s fears, expectations, blockages, resistances, and feelings

     
    Application of the Theory: Techniques and Procedures 
     
    The techniques and experiments that a Gestalt therapist uses usually evolve out of the process – what is happening in the here and now.

    Techniques versus Experiments

     

    Techniques

     

    • A ready-made technique used to evoke emotions and awareness

     

    • Used to make something happen within the session or reach a goal

     

    Experiments

     

    • Grow out of interaction between client and therapist

     

    • Aimed at helping client learn by experience

     

    • What is learned is usually a surprise

     

    • Are spontaneous and usually one of a kind

     

    • Designed to bring out internal conflict by making the struggle an actual process in the room

     

    • Help the client gain fuller awareness, experience internal conflicts, resolve inconsistencies, and work through an impasse

     
    IMPORTANT: When using an experiment in session it is important that the client be well prepared for it!

    The Role of Confrontation

     
    Confrontation can be viewed as a way of inviting clients to examine their behaviors, attitudes and thoughts in a gentle and respectful manner.

    Techniques

     

    The Internal Dialogue or “Empty Chair”

     
    Bringing a conflict between two opposing poles in the personality (or personal struggle) into the room to increase awareness. Can also be used to help client dialogue with another person.

    The Rehearsal Exercise

     
    Rehearsing with therapist in session before doing it outside of session.

    The Exaggeration Exercise

     
    Asking the client to exaggerate a movement or gesture repeatedly usually results in an intensified feeling attached to the behavior making the inner meaning clearer.

    Dreams

     
    Dreams in Gestalt therapy are brought to life and relived as though they are happening now. The dream is acted out in the present.
    Evaluation
     
    Contributions
     

    ·        Very experiential in nature

     

    • Dynamic way of helping clients deal with the past in the here and now

     

    • Very unique approach to dreams

     

    • Very holistic approach

     

    • Very creative approach that encourages creativity, spontaneity and present-centeredness in both client and therapist

     

    • Sessions can be very fun

     

    Limitations and Criticisms

     

    • Therapist can get too technique oriented because of the plethora of techniques available to the therapist

     

    • Not much room for psychoeducation because client comes up with things and the therapist is the facilitator

     

    • Requires therapist to have high level of personal development and self-awareness.

     

    Multicultural Strengths

     

    • Techniques and experiments are tailored to the individual

     

    • Approaches clients opening without preconceived notions

     

    • Paying attention to nonverbal cues may be helpful with clients from cultures here indirect speech is the norm

     

    • Because of the holistic approach, the Gestalt therapist attempts to understand fully the client’s culture and context.

     

    Multicultural Limitations

     

    ·        Focus on affect may be putting off to some individuals

     

    • Need to be careful not to intimidate client through confrontation

  • Spend your energy on that which you can truly influence

    Quick summary: How much time and energy do you spend on things that appear to be urgent and important that are not particularly urgent or important to you, your family, or your community directly? My sister sent me an article about how little of an effect politics and government agendas actually have on the more important variables concerning a population such as longevity and overall quality of life. The author provided some very compelling research that very much substantiated his point… he displayed how dramatic government policy shifts ended up having very little effect on variables we tend to think of as most important. I then was reading a condensed version of ‘The seven habits of highly effective people’ and found that the author said somewhat of the same thing… spend most of your energy on that which you can significantly influence. Other sayings started popping in my head such as “think globally act locally”… I came to the realization that I completely agree… my intention would be to do so… but I too get caught up in over thinking about issues that I really don’t have much control over. The process is detrimental on a range from wasted energy all the way to being destructive and isolating as the energy spent often does not produce while it does create more conflict.
    In becoming a therapist I did a good share of my own “work”, which involved some extremely helpful supervision and individual therapy. 
    The best supervisors where the ones that had the courage to help me to explore how my history, my family, and my identity influenced the therapy I conducted; the most memorable help that a supervisor ever gave me was when he asked what my emotional reaction to a specific therapy case had to do with my own history… transformative.

    • On a quick side note I was just asked an interesting question the other day being … “If someone goes through a difficult or challenging experience won’t they be better able to help or empathize with someone currently going through the same thing?” – The answer is very often no… if you have not done your work to come to a place of understanding, meaning, and acceptance around a difficulty you survived you may actually be less able to help a person presently going through a similar difficulty… this is related to over identification, projection, and transference (future blog).

    Anyway, while doing my own work I found that the way I interacted with politics was destructive and a waste of energy… the shock value news stories we are constantly exposed to tend to elicit strong opinions and the ego (your view of who you are… beliefs, character traits etc) gets very emotional as it defends a topic that it decided to over-attach to.
                The ego is why political conversations can get so heated… you identify with the topic and then you actually unconsciously start defending yourself (as you believe that the topic is a symbol of yourself or your history etc) when on the outside it appears that you are still talking about politics (often you are not… you are defending a part of your identity… that is what I was doing).
    The point is this – my political conversations (which I often initiated) made people feel isolated and defensive… the conversations took greatly from my energy and wellbeing… and they had pretty much no measurable positive effect on any outcome…
          I spent energy and I did not influence in the way I intended to.
    In short, arguing about politics is entirely ineffective and the process is often actually destructive.
     
    Solution – What if I did exactly the opposite?
    What if instead of arguing over politics I decided to be open-minded, empathetic, and supportive of a person’s right to a differing political opinion?
          What influence would that have on important variables?
    This is the great irony… in arguing about politics we are trying to have a positive influence on things that are important to us such as family and community; by avoiding political confrontation we would live within those very variables we were trying to create.
          By being empathetic, open-minded, and supportive of differing opinions you are actually doing effective work at influencing your family and friend’s wellbeing… these qualities will have a measurable effect in the moment.
          You can argue with your brother about the US policy with Iran till your vocal chords dry up… will you effect anything in a measurable way? (obviously this would not apply to people such as the president of the United States – are you the president?… leave a comment)
    Spend your energy on being empathetic, understanding, compassionate, open-minded, and supportive instead and this will have the following influence:

    •       reduces stress and anxiety
    •       reduce conflict  – encourage harmony, ease, and peace
    •       increase trust and emotional intimacy
    •       encourage reciprocation of empathy and the other above variables
    •       encourage more effective communication
    •       foster a solution focused mindset
    •       create greater acceptance and less attachment to the ego

    What influence would we have on the community if our families and circles of friends were able to access these benefits… what impact would it have on the entire planet if other families and circles of friends started modeling such behaviors…? How would this effect politics? Want to save the world?… Try acceptance… especialy in your family.
    This is my own personal example – What do you spend your energy on that does not have the influence that you intend?
    How could you use your energy to influence more effectively?
    I may no longer read the news everyday… and yet I still help this democratic nation by picking up trash when I’m out in nature, by supporting families and individuals with therapy, by recycling, by modeling a passionate commitment to my relationship, by smiling and honestly wishing kindness to people…