ehowton: (Default)

The sinewy, woven threads of past present & future mock those who discredit mindfulness as a roadmap to navigating the potential butterfly-effect eddies surrounding the almost imperceptible movements of the weaving process. Understanding any one dimension of time without taking into consideration the other two has proven time and again to be a precarious endeavor - time, that seemingly everpresent irreversible succession of unidirectional duration which causality calls home, cements our cognitive understanding of the entire universe.

Intent is primarily motivated though desire and belief, two very different animals insofar as the former requires prior knowledge of a thing in order to have a longing for it whereas the latter consists of load-bearing constructs which support our limited understanding of the world and our place within; reason and (epistemological/empirical) comprehension.

A rational person is one who accepts a belief because it is supported, who rejects a belief when it is not supported, who only believes to the extent that evidence and support allows, and who has doubts about a belief when the support turns out to be less reliable than previously thought.*

Will is an act with intent, fueled by our desires and beliefs. Action therefore is an outward attribute of that which motivates us manifesting itself most basically as behavior. I interpret behavior primary through attitude. Its not the frequency nor subject of our interaction, nor the duration or intensity - attitude alone will tell me everything I need to know; whether that interaction is mutual or not. I recently ran across a Reality Creation Mantra which I realized was a way to convey my almost eerie ability to peer into another's psyche; their soul, simply by reversing it:

Attitude reveals character, character reveals actions, actions reveal beliefs, beliefs reveal thoughts.

I know what you think because of your attitude.

And the problem oftentimes with attitude is the eternal struggle between pride and shame, two sides of the coin of self-worth. If you are ashamed of anything in your life, it will show in your words, your actions, and your attitude. Shame can be healthy in correcting wrong behavior, but knowledge of shame without correction or at least understanding is a marvelous way to stay broken, much as pride without reason, also known as beliefs. Beliefs give rise to values, values give rise to behavior, behavior is visible, as is attitude.

We cloak our true selves for fear of exposure, working hard to create a grand facade. But that often leaves us unfulfilled, because even if we create a convincing front, the message it sends us is clear—our true self is unacceptable. The message "I had better posit a facade lest I be found out" only perpetuates excessive shame. Be yourself without abashment—but with sensitivity and awareness of the effects of your behaviors on others. No shame in trying.*

Let's read that again, more slowly. "Be yourself without abashment" often comes back to me as a willingness or carelessness to harm others. I suppose to those who can only think in extremes that might at first be the case. Thankfully, there is a qualifier here, "but with sensitivity and awareness" which can only come through mindfulness. So why be yourself if you have to apply stipulations on it? In a word, causality. "...the effects of your behavior on others." Future events being determined by present behavior. This is how life works. Future events being determined by present behavior. To undo everything you've done based upon a belief of only one-possible future is ignorant at best.

At one extreme, a belief might be one which a subject has because she has thought about the subject matter carefully, or has done some empirical investigation, and, as a result, she can see a whole host of interconnected reasons for thinking that the proposition she believes is true. In other words, the belief is robust because it is, by the subject’s lights, evidentially extremely well supported, so well supported that it stands near the core of her web of belief. Such contrary evidence as comes in would be seen as requiring adjustments not with the belief itself, but elsewhere in the subject’s web of belief.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, a subject’s belief might be robust because she is completely irrationally disposed to cling to her belief. The belief might be the product of wishful thinking, say, so that no matter what countervailing information comes in, the subject will be disposed to reinterpret that information, or ignore it, or the information will in some other way be prevented from having its proper evidential impact.

And there will be cases in between as well. A belief might be robust not because it is the product of wishful thinking, and not because the subject has thought about it and seen so many reasons for assigning the proposition believed the degree of belief she assigns it, but rather because she isn’t very good at thinking through evidence and is vulnerable to certain systematic errors, or perhaps because she is too lazy to revise her beliefs, or for some similar reason.*


When we see that lone tendril peeking out from the surface of the tapestry of life, though we may be tempted to pick at it; pull it, comprehension of either inductive or deductive reasoning and its resulting causality would suggest an unraveling - a paradoxical self-inflicted headslap - from being unaware of the delicate relationship the three sisters of fate share with each of us, and one another.

Buddha said, "The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, worry about the future, or anticipate troubles, but to live in the present moment wisely and earnestly." Living in the present wisely doesn't mean not preparing to paying future bills or maintain an uncluttered home, it means the opposite of that - to be aware. We can be aware of both past and future without either mourning or worry, and that seems to be a most foreign concept. Perhaps Qui-Gon Jinn said it better when he instructed Obi-Wan Kenobi to be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment. I understand for some that is simply too deep, and too wide a chasm.

The same point applies to fragile beliefs. Some beliefs that subjects possess are fragile because, existing as the subjects do in a constantly changing evidential situation, the changes in their beliefs simply reflect the vigilant exercise of their capacity for reasoned belief revision. At the other extreme, some subjects’ beliefs are fragile because the subjects in question simply forget what it was that they came to believe in the first place, or because the subjects are prone to make all sorts of random errors in their assessment of the incoming evidence, or because they are systematically influenced by what those who are around them think, where those who are around them vary from time to time as regards what they think.*

Causal fallacies and the assumptions which are acted upon because of only one possible future appear with frightening frequency in my world. It takes open-mindedness and "good thinking" to understand the nature of relation; cause and effect. Too often we're destroyed by that which we thought we understood, but didn't.



ehowton: (Default)

I recently watched Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes and its magnificent sequel, and will admit to being downright smitten with the intimate relationship Holmes and Watson share in this particular interpretation - what is it in the psychology behind the homosociality of bromance buddy-films that endears us to them?

Imagine observing two house painters whose brushstrokes seemed to be playing out a duet on the side of the house. They may be shocked to think that they were engaged in an intimate activity with each other, however from an experiential point of view, they would be very intimately involved.*

Nancy Sherman's [philosophy professor and author] elucidation on Aristotle's intimate nature of friendship helps define the importance of the empathetic "singleness of mind" for a truly intimate relationship - through sharing in argument and in thought. Not just thinking alike, but arriving at similar conclusions through similar processes:

The point is that the friends “share” a conception of values not merely in that there is significant overlap between the values of the one friend and those of the other, and not merely in that this overlap is maintained through the influence that the friends have on each other. Rather, the values are shared in the sense that they are most fundamentally their values, at which they jointly arrive by deliberating together.[Friends have] the project of a shared conception of eudaimonia [i.e., of how best to live]. Through mutual decisions about specific practical matters, friends begin to express that shared commitment. Any happiness or disappointment that follows from these actions belongs to both persons, for the decision to so act was joint and the responsibility is thus shared.*

It wasn't just the antics Holmes and Watson found themselves embroiled in, nor was it their inherent trust in each other to play to their strengths - it was their attitude in the acknowledgement that the relationship existed; something I used to endeavor to understand about myself and my friends when I was younger, even up to a decade ago - most recently the relationship I had with my hetero-lifemate [livejournal.com profile] drax0r which I now understand to have also been a very intimate one by the many and varied definitions of both intimacy, and friendship.

So just what are some of those definitions of intimacy? As already mentioned there is experiential intimacy - a sharing of activities without communicating thoughts or feelings - but being actively engaged with one another nonetheless; unique in the choice with whom we choose to share these activities with, and for what reason. Emotional intimacy is where two or more people can comfortably share their feelings with and/or empathize with each other much as intellectual (cognitive) intimacy is an exchange of thoughts and ideas enjoying similarities and differences between opinions. Both emotional and intellectual intimacy are separated from casual conversations/relationships by a level of comfort in that communication which allows for trust building, introducing vulnerability.

The meaning and level of intimacy varies within and between relationships. Intimacy is considered the product of a successful...process of rapport building that enables parties to confidently disclose previously hidden thoughts and feelings. Intimate conversations become the basis for "confidences" (secret knowledge) that bind people together.*

In short, without first exposing oneself wholly (vulnerability) and without opaque motivation (transparency) and having it returned (reciprocity), intimacy will never be experienced. Ever. No matter how much sex takes place - the lowest common denominator of one possible intimacy which most people confuse as the physical act of penetrative intercourse itself. We all want our cake, and want to eat it too.

Sex is the icing on the cake. Intimacy is the cake.*

My first post on intimacy postulated that dialog, transparency, vulnerability & reciprocity would take on different characteristics upon each level toward self-actualization; transparency behind communication during periods in which someone is fearing for their life would differ from those trying to win the respect of their peers, for example. In comparison, this thesis will be on defining the different levels of intimacy, and attempting to structure an order behind them so we can discover why a foundation is so very important to growth and what that growth looks like once it reaches maturation. To that end, I've manifested a illustrative graphic:



Network giant CISCO's Get Intimate at Work presentation uses a common intimacy pyramid to convey how to build trust in a client relationship from a business perspective, but the steps they outline to get there are all the same. In order to advance through the levels, we must first have an authentic foundation. But what is authenticity and how do we identify it? The answer to that was surprisingly found in the periodical Shambhala Sun concerning the nature of being truly genuine:

To be genuine you have to be honest with yourself first, and then with others. Don't make anything up. Just do it. Just be it. Its's pretty straightforward. But being honest with yourself is is not so easy. There's a little think called self-deception that gets in the way.*

Starting at the top, reciprocity is giving and taking selfishly and selflessly - a [mutually beneficial] cycle of Randian ethics; abject communication without repercussion - having individual needs fulfilled while fulfilling the needs of others. Needs cannot be met without exposing one's self to another. To be vulnerable we must be willing to place ourselves in harms way, to acknowledge the potential to be hurt. And this takes mature amounts of emotional fortitude and personal responsibility. This is the same mindset which must also occur at the lowest level - likes, interests & sex. If we cannot be genuine and open at the lowest levels, we will never even reach the higher levels. All pyramids of ascending aspirations work on this principle.

Over time, we deny our needs and replace them with defenses. Then when someone values us, we have to reject him or her. To let ourselves be cherished for who we really are would be to violate our parents' edict that we are flawed, and to arouse our fear that if we do, feel, or think certain things, we'll be neglected and abandoned—in the most primal sense, left to die. So to receive love is to risk death.*

But in attempting to articulate how very unlikely it is the majority of us can honestly self-evaluate, I ran across an interesting psychoanalytical term, alexithymia - a state of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions. So while the majority of us probably succumb to some degree of self-deception unconsciously, therefore preventing us to be honest even with ourselves - others of us aren't even capable of comprehending our own emotions to evaluate. We must at all times be mindful of what we are feeling.

To end self-rejection, you have to learn to love in another what you hate in yourself.*

Honesty about our likes, dislikes, interests and yes, sex is all about laying a foundation of authenticity, something from which to build on. Its what makes the next level, expressing personal goals and aspirations so fulfilling - genuine interest in each other - a test of compatibility and genuineness. While rejection can come from any level of the pyramid, trust (intimacy) ascends with it, in essence a self-strengthening process, bolstered by honesty of the previous success and anticipation of the next. Fears & challenges then is the first introduction to vulnerability, albeit on a much safer scale. Its the baby-step of climbing the intimacy ladder - topple this and trust topples with it. Yet succeed, and dialog - true back and forth exchange of ideas and information - becomes possible. What are you going to discuss?



Dialog however, is merely the gateway to the transcendent meta-intimacies. That said, I have attempted to structure them to aid in comprehension. Transparency is a complete accountability of self and declaration of motivation - its the "why" behind the facilitation of dialog. Revealing incentive is the first step to vulnerability because it exposes us to criticism. That exposure - even prior to feedback - builds trust, inherent to intimacy. If being transparent is accepted with genuine honesty, full-on vulnerability is a natural progression. I define vulnerability as allowing the true me to be unabashedly judged. For those who can push through the self-deception and self-rejection, for those who can honestly self-evaluate - that's an enormous step. But only by empowering someone else with that knowledge are we truly vulnerable.

When we start shading what we say to keep our relationship calm, we destroy intimacy and desire and diminish our sense of security and self-worth.*

Like every other character-building ground we may gain, it will absolutely require continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation as a matter of preventative maintenance. Never hitch self-worth to that which can be given or taken away. Those who cannot bear to be judged should never open themselves up for judgement. But for those who can withstand judgement, the gifts are immeasurable.

The highest values [in life] are not learned, they are discovered.*
ehowton: (Default)

The dismantled KGB would weep for the lack of subtlety discovered in my online checking account Monday morning:

CHECKCARD ACTIVITY: RUSSIANCUPIDS.COM LONDON $29.99
CHECKCARD ACTIVITY: RUSSIANCUPIDS.COM LONDON $29.99
CHECKCARD ACTIVITY: RUSSIANCUPIDS.COM LONDON $29.99


And while I would never willingly deny anyone their own personal Russian Cupid, I also wonder what would be worth $89.97. Or to be more specific, I shudder to think of the possibilities. I remember my Air Force roommate in Korea who started dressing better, and wearing expensive cologne when he started paying locals for sex. All of a sudden my self-imposed celibacy seemed sane. It was the one thing I never wavered on the entire 12-months I was there.

But I was in a different place then, too. My longtime childhood girlfriend had broken up with me; the one who demanded total honesty from me then left me when I gave it to her. As I work through issues I require perspectives which differ from my own. I seek out those who will disagree with me so I may learn from them. The more someone disagrees with me, the more I learn, the more I learn the more I incorporate, the more I incorporate the more I change - as does the person I am in disagreement with. Over time - because of the learning process involved in dissimilar ideas - we both become stronger. She viewed disagreements as distasteful. And while I never enjoyed fighting with her (and fight we did), I did enjoy the exchange of ideas when she could separate the two.

I also hated all women during this period in my life. I'm sure in part because of my girlfriend (its hard to effect any change when you're 7,000 miles away in a locked tour) and in part because of the blatant intent behind the local culture which existed right outside the front gate of Osan. But mostly it was the things I saw on base between American military men and women. While I admit to being surprised at the level of depravity I found there, I was mostly saddened at the pervasiveness of deceit. Then again, we all have our own personal thresholds of tolerance.

Looking back today, and piecing together everything else that went along with my roommate splashing on cologne for his "date" what with the improved hygiene and dressing better - I wonder if what he was paying for wasn't sex, but therapy. Knowing his childhood difficulties and the hurdles which had been placed before him in breaking free of his shackles, perhaps this was his path to discovering self-worth? I became comfortable with who I was during my time in Korea - albeit not extrinsically and certainly without banging Asian chicks - and while my path afforded me much permanent significance in learning about myself, doesn't his path sound more...fun?

I recently ran across someone who's self-worth waxed and waned depending upon (in part) his level of sexual involvement with another. This type of individual seems incapable of intrinsic motivation. I hope what I saw in my roommate was self-confidence building - that which cannot ebb. To me, that's worth $89.97. In fact instilling self-worth into a complete stranger is worth $89.97 to me, because it would help make this world a better place one human at a time. I know men who have Russian brides and they are just like you and I. They have joys and struggles and experience enlightenment and mortality.

So while I had the charges removed by blushing middle-aged women at the local branch of my bank who couldn't stop giggling at the obviousness of the name, I was glad it happened. I was glad it happened because it allowed me to re-frame some things and better understand myself, and perhaps others. I'm now sitting on the fence about the veracity of banging Asian chicks for my own empirical data. I don't lack self-worth, not one iota, but I weep for those who do.
ehowton: (Default)

SHOULD

The more I discover, the more I am in awe. The more I thought I knew how life was supposed to be, the more I've had to unlearn. Simply put, I was wrong. About everything. I now understand that even thinking that things "should" be a certain way is indicative of cognitive distortion, the hideously opaque mask of mood disorders - once we know what to look for.

When we know what to be on the lookout for, it becomes rather easy to spot the cognitive distortions in others. It may be a little more challenging to spot our own, but it is possible. Doing so usually brings lasting positive change in the way we experience stressors in our life.*

Of course given my nature I am far more interested in spotting and cutting out my own seeds of negativity. Besides, its near-impossible pointing out shortcomings in others. They become irrationally defensive (despite the fact I wasn't even accidentally attacking the poster). No thank you. I'll pull the plank from my own eye first to empower myself with jesus-authority prior to removing the speck from theirs. I do this for one reason alone - I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE LIMITATIONS OF LOVE. I seek lasting positive change in the way I experience stressors in my life.

"Should Statements" occur when anyone thinks anything should happen a certain way. No matter what we think is normal or right is immediately wrong if we believe it should be that way - and all of a sudden we're treading the dangerous waters of expectation - where disappointment lurks. When someone doesn't behave as we think they should, we become hurt or angry or resentful. When we ourselves break our own rules of how we think we should act or behave, the emotional consequence is guilt. The problem lies with reality - which often never seamlessly matches up with what we experience. "Should" is someone else's ideas planted in our head that we didn't know were false, and which have no basis in our everyday lives except to frustrate us when nothing seems to go as planned. The problem isn't anyone else, rather entirely our own fault. Unsurprisingly, this brings us right back to personal responsibility. We alone are solely in command of our every thought, our every action, and our every consequence. Right or wrong we feel how we choose to feel 100% of the time.

Our feelings follow what we are thinking. When we’re feeling stressed, anxious, or worried, our thoughts about ourselves or the thing we’re worried about are almost always negative.* And negative thoughts like these can send us spiraling down into depression. If we think something often enough, we begin to believe it's true and our feelings match what we are thinking.*

OPTIMIST

The funny (or sad, really) thing about cognitive distortion is that it very nearly (not entirely) falls along the same lines as self-fulfilling prophesies. That being, negative beliefs predicate negative behavior. Its entirely about false definitions evoking new behaviors - nothing positive ever comes from it. But it was being led down this primrose path in which I discovered why I am an optimist - cognitive distortion! Optimists apparently can subvert cognitive distortion into positivity. And all this time I used to think pessimists were a natural balance to optimists. Nope! Pessimism is nothing more than another brutal mask of mood disorder. Goes to show how much unlearning is required when we think things should be a certain way.

Optimists explain positive events as having happened because of them (internal). They also see them as evidence that more positive things will happen in the future (stable), and in other areas of their lives (global). Conversely, they see negative events as not being their fault (external). They also see them as being flukes (isolated) that have nothing to do with other areas of their lives or future events (local). Understandably, if you’re an optimist, this bodes well for your future. Negative events are more likely to roll off of your back, but positive events affirm your belief in yourself, your ability to make good things happen now and in the future, and in the goodness of life.*

TRIFECTA

Psychology, Spirituality and Eastern religions. The more I know, the more I know I don't know. When I first read the quote in Psychology Today which stated, "Attachment reduces marriage to a quest for safety, security, and compensation for childhood disappointments." It didn't immediately dawn on me they were using the word attachment as the Buddhists do, as the origin of suffering as detailed by the Four Noble Truths on which the cessation of such is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Wheel of Dharma. Psychology. Spirituality. I've read many times over that the application of Buddhism is eerily similar to that of cognitive-behavior therapy. One might draw the correlation that psychology is our version of those Eastern religions.


Take a look at the prism of self-realization as filtered through this trifecta:


Even Plato taught that the attachments and defining illusions & behaviors that human beings conventionally rely on for security, respect, affection, social identity, and other needs must be questioned and abandoned in their original form.* In short, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation.*

RELATIONSHIPS

It just so happens that I was introduced to interdependence through a Psychology Today article on marriage - but my initial, though limited understanding of it, is that it can be applied much more broadly. To all relationships, friendships, acquaintances and even to society at large for there is no society without us, without our individual thoughts and actions operating in relationship to the greater whole. Therefore attempt to search for application in that vein despite the martial context of the quotes. Unhealthy and unsustainable can transcend marriage and seep into our personal lives no matter what our station is.

Wikipedia revealed to me that the first recorded use of the word was in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto which I then delved into to glean the original meaning - in this case the opposite of narrow-mindedness in the required adaptability of burgeoning nation-states. This jives with interdependence psychologist David Schnarch (the subject of Pamela Weintraub's article in PT) who likens dependency in relationships to the emotional security an adult would provide an infant. The opposite in relationships isn't independence, which is easy compared to pursing our own goals and standing up for our own beliefs, personal likes and dislikes in the midst of a relationship, no, the relational opposite is interdependence.

Interdependence allows partners who are each capable of handling their own emotional lives to focus on meeting their own and each other's ever-evolving goals and agendas in response to shifting circumstances. Dependent partners by contrast spend their lives compensating for each other's limitations and needs.

Therapeutically Schnarch recommends a dynamic process he calls differentiation; living within proximity to an emotional partner while not caving to pressure from them in order to maintain a sense of self. This could again be applied between not only spouses but lovers and friends and neighbors as well. Acknowledging and overcoming differences in who we are rather than making excuses for them or worse, trying to change ourselves or our partner. A process which requires discomfort and confronting conflict. A dynamic process remember; Active. Not passive. Basically, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation. Interesting how that keeps coming up.


There are twelve nidanas or "preconditions" for causal relations in Buddhist philosophy, of which two are agreed upon to be the most important for enlightenment/self-realization/interdependence:


  • Ignorance

    • The lack of wisdom not limited to not having learned some fact that they need to know, but rather rather that their habitual ways of perceiving the world are fundamentally flawed thus they are "blinded" by greed, desire, lust, etcetera.


  • Craving

    • A desire not to be separated from pleasurable sensations and to be free from painful sensations becoming reinforced into habitual patterns of attachment and aversion.


Believe it or not, I'm not making this up - though I admit it sounds like some shit I would say - this is actual Buddha philosophy. And it fits into our Western psychology quite seamlessly. Point is, for those of us who may eschew one over the other, it becomes increasingly difficult to pretend both sources are in error.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion.

And my point is this gives rise to self-validation (see optimist, above). Schnarch suggests rather than asking someone else for their stamp of approval, in which case rejection affects our self-worth, even if our partner were to aggressively reject or withhold that approval, by having respected our own thoughts and feelings we've maintained our sense of self-worth. He goes on to say that by having said what we think without fear of rejection, we are ironically loved and respected even more by our partner for speaking our true mind and are therefore now free to choose to be with our partner out of mutual respect instead of feelings of dependency - dependency being the state in which one person uses another person for a specific purpose. I wish to neither "use" someone nor in turn be "used" by them. Its not sustainable.

True, sustainable security can only come through self-reliance. I personally have been seeking communication without repercussion for a very long time. It would appear the search is now over, for apparently I alone am responsible to be the very thing I desire.

Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Ghandi

Schnarch has his own version of the Four Noble Truths he calls "Points of Balance" which emphasize resilience. As a gentle reminder, these are in direct opposition with cognitive distortion's inflexible all-or-nothing-no-change-under-any-circumstance viewpoint. These require adaption and quick redirection without losing track of one's overall goals, agendas, or sense of self.

  1. Operating according to deeply held personal values and goals even when pressured to abandon them.

  2. Handling one's own inner emotional life and dealing with anxiety and emotional bruises without needing to turn to a partner for help.

  3. Not overreacting - but still facing - difficult people and situations.

  4. Forbearance and perseverance in the face of failure and disappointment to accomplish one's goals.


We alone are responsible for our happiness - easily enough said, more difficult to comprehend. But these are the repeatable metrics, recipes if we must for excelling at life, no matter what it throws at us. Not life as we expect it should be, but life as it actually is. These are the tools to use to manufacture our own hopes, our own dreams, and to realize our own desires. We can use others to bolster us, help propel us toward those goals - but only ever mutually, never at our own expense. Dependency and attachment weakens us. The more we become their master, the more we take charge of our destiny. Do not settle for anything less.

Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.*

ehowton: (Default)

I posted my picture on that snatch-laden Russian community where I received the guttural reply, "Вылитый Гордон Фримен, ага" which, loosely translated suggests I look like Gordon Freeman from the video game Half Life. Now while I wish I had that much hair, during my search for pictures I found others of Dr. Gregory House from the television series House, MD dressed in the same garb drawing the same conclusions (though I look even less like him).

And all of this just kind of came together with having been toying with the idea that restricting access to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden by the Omnipotent Being, "God" meant that we as a species absolutely do not require negatives in our life to more appreciate the positives.

Divinity aside, I myself have often fallen prey to the platitude that "bad" things tend to help us appreciate the "good" things; that taking anything for granted is a sure-fire way to discover your appreciation of something is ever only temporary. And yet, despite knowing this - believing it to be true - very few of us actively seek to live a life that sucks and is full of hardship and suffering so that later we can drink deeply from the vessel of happiness. Although I myself have chosen that path for that very reason, it almost always seemed to backfire. Regardless, I no longer require that level of empiricism. I absolutely know I do not require negatives in my life to put the positives in perspective for me.

So where does House fit in?

I was thinking about his uneven temperament. In his world, the outcome of identical scenarios is never consistent. One day he could react with laughing and joy, the next lashing out in anger. If everything was seemingly the same, why the difference? The difference is the rules in his head that no one else knows about, coupled with the foggy soup of feelings - unexamined emotions which are allowed to manifest. There was a neighborhood lady who liked to tell jokes and laugh and chase us kids. One day she didn't feel like doing that, but no one knew. All of a sudden what we were doing was unacceptable in her eyes and she became inconsolable.

I like rules, yes - but they only work if I know what they are. When my children were younger and playing tag with each other in the yard, "safe" areas were never stationary, they were arbitrarily designated places closest to wherever they happened to be at the time. Unlimited time outs designed in a such a way to never lose. And while I am convinced I no longer require strife to assist in illuminating happiness, I do believe that only through occasional failure can we truly learn unexpected things.

How can I believe both with a clear conscious? Simple. I don't hitch my feelings of positivity nor negativity to things which can be given or taken. By making myself solely responsible for my feelings of self-worth I have conquered all fear of loss. Many preach personal responsibility forgetting that it applies equally to behavior - not just actions.
ehowton: (Default)




Its easy to see the road ahead when racing around an oval track. ~ehowton



Having picked up the current periodical Psychology Today from Barnes & Noble, my wife and I shared an uneasy glance at the random cover story during checkout, "Are You With the Right Mate?" (article here) followed by a nervous chuckle. Luck of the draw to be sure. But what I was not expecting in its pages was article after article reinforcing everything I've reiterated here the past six months or so. In short, professional validation of potentially nonsensical pontification - starting with the subtitled, "Feelings mean nothing without context." (Link to my blog entry, not the actual article.)

There is no such thing as two people meant for each other. It's a matter of adjusting and adapting. But you have to know yourself. Successful couples redefine their relationship many times, relationships need to continually evolve to fit ever-changing circumstances. They need to incorporate each partner's changes and find ways to meet their new needs. ~ Psychology Today

Not that I believe context is everything anymore, at least not by itself. Here lately I've been foraying into the thick of intention - which I now understand to be related to context in a sleeping-with-your-sister kind of relationship. If context is the dynamic in which we wish ourselves to be understood, then intention is the motivation behind that communication. Conversely if the roots of that intention are misunderstood, then the context of the intent should clarify the dynamic, right?


"I don't care," is the statement I most closely associate with illuminating contextual misunderstanding or knowledge of intent - once everyone is on the same page - those who choose to disbelieve truth, despite facts to the contrary. "I don't care," really does say it all. And it speaks much more broadly and deeply about personal psychology than about the specific reason it was stated. I submit that no one can care deeply about the facts of one subject matter while entirely dismissing them in another. Facts are just that - truths known by actual experience or observation. Their reality is not colored by moods nor emotions. "I don't care" is the logical equivalent of the Dave Barry quote, “A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.” Basically, if you allow facts to change your opinion only on some things, but not others...what does that say about you? I'm not talking about disagreeing on what those facts may mean based on individual experience, only pretending they don't exist. Self-awareness is paramount for accepting change; a change which is going to transpire regardless.


I read a fascinating comprehensive article recently on the biological effects of love, sex, friendship, marriage and bonding (mostly sex) - and its surprisingly candid conclusions, which surprised me at how incompatible it was to the Psychology Today article. Basically anthropological behavior battling inter-relational behavior within societal constructs.

Due to the nature of the limbic system, you cannot will your feelings, emotions, falling in love, or staying in love, anymore than you can will your heart to beat, or yourself to digest a meal or sleep ~ Your Brain on Sex

So I get the whole Holy Roman Empire murdering heretics who blaspheme that the world may not be flat - that is about power. I get it, it makes sense to me. What I don't understand is how the "Nuclear Family" (Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on so-called "Family Values" here) evolved to be the ideal. Between these three sources I've discovered that everything I ever thought I knew, or to be more pointed - was taught - was wrong. And I do know how that happened. Belief systems.


I first saw the Penn & Teller episode back in 2006. It talked about "artificial limitations," something I wasn't entirely equipped to absorb at the time. Fast forward six years of varied and numerous life-experiences and I reel at the glaring differences between the psychological and anthropological. I absolutely understand that both articles are presenting truth - and solutions - but from two different perspectives tackling two discrete problems. The single thread which runs through them both however, is to be mindful. Not understanding a dynamic and/or acknowledging even an imagined problem exists, by all accounts I've read, is a guarantee for dissolution. Not just in marriage, but also in life.

Non-sexual intimate touching builds self-worth and deepens bonds of marriage and friendship.

There's a lot I don't know about primitive man and the rise of nations - knowledge of which would surely belay my confusion. But I do believe this - adaptability is paramount in survival. And everything is an experiment. The idea behind Christ as a savior is brand new compared to the history of mankind, and it too will soon wane into the obscure. As will how we structure ourselves as individuals, as a family, and as a community. Much as we have gone from dwelling in caves to plugging into massive technological cities, so then shall we continue to mutate. And this will run hand-in-hand with better understanding of ourselves both individually, and collectively.

What does society gain by defining an opposition to human nature as normal then constructing an edifying framework around it?

I only know that I don't accept anyone's answers at face value. I desire to live outside the restrictive facsimile of what someone else says life is supposed to be. Its no longer enough for me to expire my own baselines, I need to test those of the status quo to ensure those who stand by it know why they do so. I wish to explore my own personal full potential, and that simply cannot be accomplished with the yoke of unquestioning acceptance around my neck.


I'm working to not care what other men do, or do not do, and I'm certainly not going to let their deprecated, archaic, uninspired belief systems judge me. They're not qualified to do so.





ehowton: (Default)

Plato vs. Maslow

Plato taught that the attachments and defining illusions & behaviors that human beings conventionally rely on for security, respect, affection, social identity, and other needs must be questioned and abandoned in their original form, whereas Maslow's view apparently was that the meeting of such needs (by whatever mechanism) was sufficient.1 Interesting to stumble upon while I was trying to determine if there was anything which transcended Maslow's apex of self-actualization. While I'm a huge fan of the concept of self-actualization, when I went about attempting to better define it to determine when I reached it (and I'm still after a good used psyche textbook) I found that I disagreed with a couple of thoughts usually associated with self-actualized people, and wondered if that was a sign of "not quite there yet" or "way surpassed." As it turns out, I simply misunderstood their definition by assuming one of my own until I tracked it down. The other? My emotional ignorance, a term I found I had to coin today to make myself understood. There are simply too many emotional experiences I have not had. But in having previously expired all my known baselines for exactly the reasons Plato states above, I think Maslow would spare me my emotional inexperience.


Emotional Intelligence

However, if emotional intelligence is "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions"2 then I have a tremendous emotional IQ! Simply put, ever since I had my first irrational emotional reaction to a scenario I had already anticipated, I've added the expectation of such into said scenarios - I almost always expect an irrational emotional reaction. And I've only had once more since. But because I do anticipate them, that makes me its master. In ascending order:

  1. Perceiving Emotions: The first step in understanding emotions is to accurately perceive them. Acknowledge that you're having an emotional reaction and that its going to affect your mood, and more importantly, your judgement.

  2. Reasoning With Emotions: The next step involves using emotions to promote thinking and cognitive activity. Emotions help prioritize what we pay attention and react to; we respond emotionally to things that garner our attention.

  3. Understanding Emotions: We must start to dot the lines back to their triggers and our activities and responses. Understand why we reacted and/or felt the way we did and work to change it! This makes for more repeatable positivity!

  4. Managing Emotions: The ability to manage emotions effectively is a key part of emotional intelligence. Regulating emotions, responding appropriately to them and keeping them in check despite wanting to do otherwise are all important aspects of emotional management.


I have magnificent emotional management, which to me, surpasses the fact that there are some emotions I have yet to experience. When I do, I will be aware of them, catalog them, and manage them. Something I'd like to see more people attempt to do! Especially those who drive!


Platonic Intimacy

After reading Plato's Symposium, an introduction behind the motivations and evolution behind all manner of love, and expressly non-sexual love (hence Plato as the root of the word 'platonic'), I walked away with something more than the rote philosophical idea - I walked away with validation of my empiricism, the very same which has seemed so elusive, now made clear. As it turns out, I'm not crazy after all: Which is true not only of the body but also of the soul, whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears, never remain the same in any one of us, but are always coming and going; and equally true of knowledge... I am a fluid being. I am not the same as I was last week, last month, last year, or last decade. But that's not to say we all are. Not only do we all grow at different rates, psychologist believe that only 1% of the population ever reach self-actualization. And since I view dialog, transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity as intimacy, would I be, in essence, cheating on those who view it solely sexually? "Platonic love sounds beautiful in theory, but in practice the idealism and blind universality involved in such love often leaves it as empty as it is abstract. Romantic love is even worse, relying on the cheap thrills of mystery and sexual excitement to fuel a consuming relation that is usually codependent in that romantics generally rely on their lover for their primary sense of self-worth and direction in life. [the division of which] pits camaraderie and intimacy against one another as opposite poles in the platonic versus romantic duality."3 Apparently not! Because it is attempting to align too dissimilar ideas and calling it the same thing. I stand before you a faithful man! "[In that duality] the question of intimacy often leads to the problem of one person wanting a different sort or level of intimacy than another...As we spend more time with associates, friends, family, and lovers, we come to know them better than all other people and find ourselves experiencing a stronger, more complex, and more enduring sense of connection. It’s not that we love other people less, and it’s not even necessarily true that we love these people more, but we love them in a different, special way that is unlike our love for anyone else in the world."4


Socratic Love

I only know that I know nothing. Which is why I'm fascinated with everything. I spend my days in wonder of all that I see around me, and muse not only on what is, but what could be. While I'm...you know, working.


Me

  • Acceptance of self, of others, of nature
      Stoic style of calmly accepting even the worst.

  • Emphasis on higher level [meta]values
      Wholeness, perfection, completion, justice, aliveness, richness, simplicity, beauty, goodness, uniqueness, effortlessness, truth & self-sufficiency.

  • Perception of reality
      greater perceptual accuracy of reality. Superior ability to reason and perceive the truth.

  • Discrimination between means and ends, between good and evil
      Clearer and more focused upon ends than most people; though they view their experiences and activities more as ends in themselves than most people.

  • Resolution of dichotomies (conflicts).
      Resolved conflicts that plague most people, because of their highly developed, accepting philosophy of life.


Self-actualizing people are people who have learned to look at life from a broader perspective. They are attentive to the deadlines in life, but not carried away by them. They focus their lives on these abstract metavalues. Consequently, they are not so emotionally affected by the ups and downs of daily life. They feel a sense of happiness that comes from seeing progress toward satisfying these stable, inner values that do not depend so much upon external conditions.5

This sums up everything I've been posting about for the last several years, and yet I did not associate it to what it meant. It has taken me months to dig up this realization - and one I couldn't have done alone. I have attained self-actualization, and that's what's fucking everything else up. It would be far easier for me to tell my wife I was gay - at least that is something she would understand.

Because I now know what's going on:

Once people begin to live on a higher level (become more self-actualizing), their relationships tend to change. They view their old relationships in a different light. They increase their understanding and caring for others, yet feel less worried about what others think of them or their choices.

As the new metavalues become more important, people spend less time with persons or groups who don't share their emphasis on these metavalues. They often seek new relationships or groups that do share them. They actively try to bring every relationship more in line with their metavalues.
6

For those Stargate fans out there who have no idea what I'm talking about - I've ascended.

Sorry sweetheart.




1 - A handbook of wisdom: psychological perspectives By Robert J. Sternberg, Jennifer Jordan, pg. 306
2 - http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm
3 - http://treesong.org/Beyond-Platonic-and-Romantic-Love, ¶ 5
4 - Ibid ¶ 13, 17
5 - http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/h12maslo.htm
6 - Ibid

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags