Addiction
I’d like to discuss addiction with you and how it relates to psychotherapy. Addiction is a quite common understanding by client and therapists of various substance abusers such as alcohol and drugs. The commonly conceived nature of addiction is the disease model. This is that
1. Once a person had a sufficiently large amount of a drug they are addicted, and have to have their drug to avoid withdrawal symptoms
2. There is something about the person that compels them to their drug, the addictive character
3. The behaviour is progressive, you require more and more of your drug of choice
4. There is a loss of control when taking the drug
5. Persistence, even in the face of negative effects
So the essence of the disease model of addiction is people are predisposed through genetics to addiction, it is a disease and people are not responsible for their action as they are being physically controlled by their disease.
The standard treatments in this area are total abstinence for example AA or drugs that make the taking of the addicted drug unpleasant, e.g. antabuse.
It is also noteworthy that addiction is now applied to many things, shopping, sex, gambling to name but a few.
So the path I’d like to take is, does the disease model of addiction make sense, is it a valid and true concept, and is it useful to believe.
The etymology of the word addict says it comes from two Latin words addico which means devote, surrender, give yourself, and ad which means towards. So an addict is someone who surrenders themselves towards something. Modern usage of the word came around 1904 in reference to Morphine usage. The modern day sense of addiction as a disease is derived from thoughts about alcoholism and so I will start my investigation there.
In Colonial America we have a time just before addiction, in its modern sense was born, Increase Mather, the influential colonial pastor, spoke of rum as “the good creature of God” . Where people had unacceptable drunken behaviour then it was ascribed to keeping bad company and being in bad environments (Levine 1978; Fingarette 1988). That people were habitually drunk, was seen as a sin, and an abuse of the gift of god.
The industrial revolution at the end of the eighteenth century was a cultural, economic movement from a generally agrarian subsistence mode to a mechanistic way of life. The move in thought effectively was one from nurturing and responding to nature to quantifying, atomising and mechanistically utilising through repetition. Humans were starting to be understood mechanistically and the notion of disease was prevalent. Benjamin Rush, a prominent eighteenth century physician, first defined drunkenness as a disease, stating it as alcohol is the causal agent, which creates a loss of control in the drinker’s behaviour, such that it became a compulsive action and therefore it is a disease. In short he didn’t describe a disease he defined one (Levine 1978, P152; Schlaer 2000). He also stated that the only cure for it was total abstinence.
The temperance movement latched onto Rushes notions of abstinence. Their notion was that alcohol destroyed the will and that once you had succumbed to it you would lose control. The drunkard being the person with a weak will such that they would take the first drink that would destroy their already frail will, leading to a loss of control, and chaos. The temperance movement that ended in the Prohibition saw alcohol as a force that would deprive someone of their freewill, and those that used it, were sinners for taking the first drink, and victims of disease thereafter.
In its modern guise we can see the temperance movement alive and well in Alcoholics Anonymous. The only change being that AA don’t see alcohol as being universally addictive, only that some people who have the alcoholic “gene” or “character” are inevitably addicted and therefore you must seek help. The help is to acknowledge you are powerless to help yourself, as you are the mercy of a physical effect. It requires you to turn your will over to that of a higher power, i.e. God, as drunkenness is a sin, and you need saving.
So I guess that’s where our generally perceived notions of addiction come from. So let’s have a quick look at some of the aspects of it.
1. Addiction means a person’s will isn’t sufficient to say no to the physical effects of drug withdrawal, thus they are compelled to take the drug
If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, or have a wrap of heroin every day for a week, then stop, at the end of the week you will have some physical symptoms that will change if you smoke or take heroin. These are what are commonly known as withdrawal symptoms.
So let’s be a bit phenomenological about this. Ironic given I am smoking regularly at the moment, and I haven’t had a cigarette and have these physical symptoms. So what are they, hmm well slightly hard to describe. I’ve got a little tightness in my stomach, I know I want a cigarette, but that’s because I can see myself standing in the garden, blowing smoke out of my mouth and that’s what I do at this time. Okay I haven’t given you very much all that I’ve really said is I really want a cigarette, but haven’t given you any physical substance to this. All I’ve said, is I want to carry out a habit, something that I do frequently and without thought, a sedimented behaviour if you will.
Being a 21st century boy, I googled the nicotine withdrawal symptoms and found the following physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal symptoms:
1. An intense craving for nicotine
2. Tension
3. Irritability
4. Headaches
5. Difficulty in concentrating
6. Drowsiness and trouble sleeping
7. Increased appetite and weight gain
So all of these things can be explained by not being able to do my habit, if I’m stopped doing what I always unthoughtfully do, then sure I’ll want to do, be tense and irritable, which will provoke headaches and I’ll find it difficult to concentrate. There is no physical aspect of nicotine withdrawal that can’t be ascribed to a psychological cause, i.e. not being able to carry out my sedimented behaviour.
In short there are no physical symptoms that you could solely attribute to a loss of nicotine. The best I could give you is a knotting in my stomach, but hey that’s a sort of anxious feeling that can come from my life generally, in fact it could well be that I am trying to use cigarettes to counter this anxiety. Rather than cigarette withdrawal causing the anxiety, it could be that cigarettes are used to combat the anxiety, in fact even worse it could be that the smoking causes me anxiety through doing something that quite disgusts me, and caught in the turmoil of being disgusted at my action, I get anxious.
The fact that cigarettes don’t have physical compulsion over you can be seen by how smokers can sleep soundly at night, if it was a physical addiction then they must wake during the night to take their drug, its only when you’re awake that you have these “compulsions”.
So Heroin provides a stronger case, for physical compulsion. Here when we stop taking heroin we have some very strong physical outcomes, shakes, spasms, nausea and anxiety again, which again can be changed if we take heroin.
So here there are strong physical symptoms, the issue with heroin “withdrawal” is that the user doesn’t just want the physical symptoms to go away, as there are different ways to do this, for instance methadone. Rather they want heroin, why because they like feeling like that, they want to feel like that, and they want to repeatedly feel like that.
What we see here with both cigarettes and heroin is choice and desire. Indeed the complexity of behaviour that a heroin addict can display to get their drug would strengthen the idea that this is a deeply volitional behaviour. The absent mindedness with which a smoker smokes, they are generally not that aware of smoking, or they would be more averse, to sucking foul smelling, burning smoke into their lungs, would indicate an activity that is done for reasons other than smoking. When you eat food, often you savour the taste, as you enjoy eating. When you don’t you can often over eat and find yourself using food as a comfort. Likewise with smoking, you don’t savour the smoke you inhale, running its delicious taste around your mouth, rather you are doing it for other reasons.
At this point the argument could return that an addiction is made up of two parts a disease of the will and a disease of the body as Benjamin Rush initially declared it. The disease of the will gets the person to take the first dose, and then the physical addiction kicks in after that.
So what could this disease of the will be. When originally defined, it was mans nature to sin, drunkenness was a sin, therefore the drinker is a sinner, who does things contrary to the dictates of God. In modern parlance whilst we still have this moral trait, there is the character of an addict.
In general parlance, I think it’s fair to say, that an addict is seen as someone who has a weak will. However they show remarkable resilience in getting their drug of choice, indeed an iron will that subordinates all other goals to this one.
A couple of other aspects are prevalent, firstly their moral fibre:
“From the standpoint of psychosocial generalization, addicts lie, cheat and steal. They are deceptive, sneaky, secretive and a bit paranoid. No matter whom they are, or who they present themselves to be, they have only a single motivation - securing their next fix.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/200806/understanding-the-continuum-addiction-and-the-addictive-personality
Whilst it seems utterly reasonable to attribute this to an “addict” the same could be true of anyone who is single purposed, the top athlete, who wants only winning, the CEO of a multinational who doesn’t let anything stand in their way.
The last aspect of the addictive personality that I want to mention and then question is the Freudian take:
“We contend that in the case of an addictive character a particular kind of archaic narcissistic fantasy serves unconsciously to organize the subjectivity of such an individual. More specifically we have discovered that at the unconscious core of an addictive character lies a fantasy of being a megalomaniacal self and exercising illusory control over the psychological world of human emotions[..] having control over his or her emotional life through the use of a symbolic magic wand”
The self psychology of addiction and its treatment: Narcissus in wonderland by Richard B Ulman
In this instance the addict then uses their substance to control their emotional life through their magic wand.
There are certain problems I see with this approach, firstly it needs to posit theoretically unproven concepts such as the unconscious, and secondly and in this instance more questionable, is to apply the same theory to all addicts. When heavy drinkers drink, their emotions can be amplified as well as deadened. From the dead drunk to the roaring drunk, to the angry drunk. Substance abuse is behaviour, and as such has all the myriad varieties it does as with any other human behaviour.
The final aspect of addiction I’d like to look at is its characteristics of progression and loss of control. The commonly held wisdom is that as we get more used to our drug, then we need increasingly bigger doses leading to a loss of control. This is an essential aspect of the disease model, as without it, how could anyone claim that they cannot help themselves, and the drug is controlling their behaviour.
There was a study done by Merry in 1966, that is reported in Schlaers Addiction is a choice. 5 people all who had chronic alcoholism, which was described as involving loss of control. The people were in a hospital environment, and had unlimited access to alcohol. However if they drank less they would get better living conditions, if they drank over a certain level then would get worse living conditions. If alcohol is a drug which overcomes the will and forces of loss of control, then this “contingency management” would have no effect. The subjects however did adjust their alcohol intake to take advantages of the rewards. Their relation to their drug, was one based on the standard, albeit complex psychic economical thinking.
Thus there is logic and will involved within an “addicts” world, but we are still confronted by behaviour which from the outside doesn’t make sense as well from inside, where the “addict” may talk of being a victim to their drug, or being controlled. What sense can we make of this?
I would look to Herbert Fingarettes book Heavy Drinking for some illuminating answers. Here he comes up with the observation of central activities in people lives. A central activity is one which a lot of the rest of your life revolves around, which provides you with a viewpoint to the world. So I have worked with computers for many years, so in my house there are a lot of computers, there are computer books, and software, I have many contacts in the computing world and many relations to people through computers, I fix them, or buy them etc etc. Indeed some of the ways in which I see the world, are influenced by the logical structures that I have learnt and used in computing. Thus this has been a central activity for me and it guides how I see the world It has taken a long time to get here, a lot of decisions have been taken to get where I am, where one decision is based on another. In short then there has been a complex set of behaviours that have resulted in my now central activity. To understand my world of computers then you need to sift through the complex decisions that brought me to seeing and behaving in the world as I do.
The same is true for an “addict”; they have arrived at their central activity, say drinking, through a complex set of decisions and judgments. They do things that are harmful to themselves but they do it for the reasons that have brought them to that point and not the fact that they have engaged with an addictive substance, which now force them to make illogical decisions. An addict isn’t weak willed; in fact they show the strongest dedication to a cause known to man. An addict isn’t mad. Their behaviour might seem illogical and bizarre to us, but there is the same sets of decisions and judgements going on in their world as ours, it’s just a different central activity that is at play and different values.
There are several reasons why addiction is still seen as a disease, in spite of the contradictory scientific evidence of the past 40 years. They are as follows;
1. If it’s a disease there will be a cure, there is a magic bullet
2. Certainly in the case of alcohol, most Para-professionals are “recovering alcoholics”, who promote the values of their cure, even if there is no scientific community
3. Money. There is a huge business in helping addicts and that to have the scientific justification of a disease gives them credibility. Also the drinks companies, prefer it this way, so that the attention is focussed on the smaller minority of alcoholics, as opposed to the larger majority of drinkers, who drink too much, which is injurious to their lives, but would be classed an alcoholic, in fact I can at times fit into this category myself
The disease model of addiction I don’t believe to be helpful as it says that the person who suffers from this. It states that they are not responsible for this rather they have a disease. To say someone isn’t responsible for something however gives them no incentive to make the effort to change their behaviour, as they aren’t responsible for it.
If we take away the disease model of addiction where are we left with treatment? Well in a lot more of a complicated place, but also a lot more real place. Gone are the treatment centres, whose claims to efficacy are highly dubious. Indeed there was a large scale test in the 1970’s at the Maudsley Hospital that took two groups, one who were given a range of alcoholic treatments, one nothing. The results from the two groups were similar in terms of success. Which shows that having treatment for alcoholism doesn’t help.
Working with people with addiction, means working with people with sedimented behaviour. The approaches I believe to be useful here would be a phenomenological one. What is the behaviour like for the client? What values does it show? Is it still useful for the client? From here the answers may come, that the client neither likes of values their behaviour yet they still do it and they ask where they can go from here? At this point you come back to the perennial human condition the struggle, between the life thats wanted and the life thats lived. It can be tough. So whilst the potential cure of the disease is a lot simpler, the reality is different and a lot more involved.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ideas, question and remedies for obsessional neurosis
Ideas, question and remedies for obsessional neurosis
An obsessional neurosis is I guess a compulsive, repeated behaviour, where certainty is searched to allay a fear but is never achieved. The person who acts like this can often feel out of control citing their obsession as something that has got hold of them and threatens them with madness.
So by obsessional neurosis by example I mean repeated hand washing, or not being able to leave the house as you need to check the gas is really off. There are a few structures at play here. Firstly there’s an inability to feel something as true, secondly there’s an inability to tolerate uncertainty and lastly there’s a displacement of importance onto a seemingly trivial event.
So what is at play when there’s an inability to feel something as true?
When things are felt as true they don’t need to tested and checked for being right, 2+2=4 is obvious to most, as is when you turn the gas off and leave the house, you know you did it and you don’t need to test, or to check to see if this is so. So this feeling as true is the self evident, the obvious and for some people just simple experience. This feeling of the true, the obvious is for someone behaving obsessionally, missing.
What is the structure of an inability to tolerate uncertainty?
On uncertainty, with any fact there is always an element of uncertainty be it large or small as to whether it is true. Generally when people leave the house they feel certain that they turned the gas off. Of course if you sat them down and interrogated them, it would soon become clear that they couldn’t be absolutely certain, but that didn't stop them feeling certain. For others this uncertainty cannot be tolerated and they strive for an unreachable certainty.
What is the nature of displacement of importance onto a seemingly trivial event?
Obsessional behaviour is specific, and whilst might grow into other areas, linked from the first, it doesn’t focus on all aspects of their lives. Thus the conscientiousness which people might show to the most important events of their lives is now repeatedly shown on something trivial. Alternatively it could be that that the trivial is elevated in significance.
So we have a lack of feeling of something being true, an inability to tolerate uncertainty and the misapplication of conscientiousness to the trivial or the inverse of this which would be making a single event hugely significant. So what’s going on here?
I think conjecture will have to be my friend here. Firstly the aiming at the trivial seems to be a displacing, and condensing of modes of being in the world. So the displeasure of uncertainty in the world at large is focussed on one trivial event which hopefully can be made certain.
There is a second element around the repetition, the fear of oncoming psychosis and the potential negative feelings about the act itself, of shame or guilt. Now the neurosis has been used to relieve anxiety, but yet is creating its own anxiety. Relief from this anxiety is then attempted by the obsession, which provokes more. It is for this reason, you can see an increase of speed, of cadence of the obsession, which increases the amount of anxiety that needs to be dealt with. After an obsessive flurry and calm isn’t restored the person collapses, exhausted until the next time.
The thing that strikes me about obsessional neurosis is that it’s just an extended form of normal human behaviour. The devoted football fan, the businessman, who works all hours, the stamp collector all exhibit obsessive behaviour and these are still types which in themselves are still extensions of human behaviour.
So how can we make things better? Well there are three components, courage, humour and objectification. Because the obsession is self creating, then we need to stop fighting it, and just accept it. Now for someone with a high level of anxiety, who has focussed much of their world into this is a tall order.
So for someone to improve their obsession, then we need to reduce anxiety. Firstly there is anxiety that obsession will lead to psychosis and we need to show that obsession is part of normal human behaviour and that madness will not follow, which is strongly supported by clinical evidence. We can also reduce the anxiety through objectification and humour, which reduces the anxiety about anxiety.
If you repeat any word or action, a few things happen. Firstly meaning drops away repeat the word apple 100 times and see what I mean. Secondly the ability to achieve what you set out to is diminished. If you run and concentrate on every different aspect of your running, then you will find your speeds far down on what you usually do. Therefore, caught up in a repeated action, with hyper-attention on it will prevent you from achieving your aims. Thus if you can objectify, step out of your hyper-reflection to and reconnect with the purpose of your action, it can free you from your obsession. For the stutterer to think of wanting to communicate, not how it is done. For the compulsive washer then to focus on the desire of tasks, as opposed to requiring certainty with them, for someone who sweats chronically when meeting people, to focus on why they want to meet people.
On one level there is comedy and an oddness about obsession that if you can detach yourself from, is worthy of many things, of laughing at, of taunting. This leads to Frankls idea of paradoxical intent where you positively encourage the thing you most fear to reduce the anticipatory anxiety you currently have attached. The position is fate gives you the initial fear or activity and how you respond to it, is up to you.
So in summary, obsession is part of human behaviour, when it goes wrong, is when it becomes a flame that fuels itself, fuelling its action by the anxiety about its action. It also goes wrong when the behaviour is divorced from its original intent, such that difficulty with engaging with the uncertainty of life is focussed on one event.
Whilst these things are complex, and only relevant to the specific instance, the specific person that lives with them. The motions to help with this are to reconnect the behaviour to the original event. To reduce anxiety provoked through the behaviour, through Frankl's paradoxical intent, that uses humour, objectification, and the final and most important ingredient, love.
The one paradoxical idea that I will leave with you, is part of the structure of obsession, is hyper-reflection. This also seems one aspect that can be part of the 50 minute therapeutic hour and I would wonder if sometimes therapy can be the self fuelling fire.
By way of reference much of the thoughts above are taken from Doctor and the Soul, by Viktor Frankl, the section on obsessional neurosis, which I found moving.
With love and obsession.
An obsessional neurosis is I guess a compulsive, repeated behaviour, where certainty is searched to allay a fear but is never achieved. The person who acts like this can often feel out of control citing their obsession as something that has got hold of them and threatens them with madness.
So by obsessional neurosis by example I mean repeated hand washing, or not being able to leave the house as you need to check the gas is really off. There are a few structures at play here. Firstly there’s an inability to feel something as true, secondly there’s an inability to tolerate uncertainty and lastly there’s a displacement of importance onto a seemingly trivial event.
So what is at play when there’s an inability to feel something as true?
When things are felt as true they don’t need to tested and checked for being right, 2+2=4 is obvious to most, as is when you turn the gas off and leave the house, you know you did it and you don’t need to test, or to check to see if this is so. So this feeling as true is the self evident, the obvious and for some people just simple experience. This feeling of the true, the obvious is for someone behaving obsessionally, missing.
What is the structure of an inability to tolerate uncertainty?
On uncertainty, with any fact there is always an element of uncertainty be it large or small as to whether it is true. Generally when people leave the house they feel certain that they turned the gas off. Of course if you sat them down and interrogated them, it would soon become clear that they couldn’t be absolutely certain, but that didn't stop them feeling certain. For others this uncertainty cannot be tolerated and they strive for an unreachable certainty.
What is the nature of displacement of importance onto a seemingly trivial event?
Obsessional behaviour is specific, and whilst might grow into other areas, linked from the first, it doesn’t focus on all aspects of their lives. Thus the conscientiousness which people might show to the most important events of their lives is now repeatedly shown on something trivial. Alternatively it could be that that the trivial is elevated in significance.
So we have a lack of feeling of something being true, an inability to tolerate uncertainty and the misapplication of conscientiousness to the trivial or the inverse of this which would be making a single event hugely significant. So what’s going on here?
I think conjecture will have to be my friend here. Firstly the aiming at the trivial seems to be a displacing, and condensing of modes of being in the world. So the displeasure of uncertainty in the world at large is focussed on one trivial event which hopefully can be made certain.
There is a second element around the repetition, the fear of oncoming psychosis and the potential negative feelings about the act itself, of shame or guilt. Now the neurosis has been used to relieve anxiety, but yet is creating its own anxiety. Relief from this anxiety is then attempted by the obsession, which provokes more. It is for this reason, you can see an increase of speed, of cadence of the obsession, which increases the amount of anxiety that needs to be dealt with. After an obsessive flurry and calm isn’t restored the person collapses, exhausted until the next time.
The thing that strikes me about obsessional neurosis is that it’s just an extended form of normal human behaviour. The devoted football fan, the businessman, who works all hours, the stamp collector all exhibit obsessive behaviour and these are still types which in themselves are still extensions of human behaviour.
So how can we make things better? Well there are three components, courage, humour and objectification. Because the obsession is self creating, then we need to stop fighting it, and just accept it. Now for someone with a high level of anxiety, who has focussed much of their world into this is a tall order.
So for someone to improve their obsession, then we need to reduce anxiety. Firstly there is anxiety that obsession will lead to psychosis and we need to show that obsession is part of normal human behaviour and that madness will not follow, which is strongly supported by clinical evidence. We can also reduce the anxiety through objectification and humour, which reduces the anxiety about anxiety.
If you repeat any word or action, a few things happen. Firstly meaning drops away repeat the word apple 100 times and see what I mean. Secondly the ability to achieve what you set out to is diminished. If you run and concentrate on every different aspect of your running, then you will find your speeds far down on what you usually do. Therefore, caught up in a repeated action, with hyper-attention on it will prevent you from achieving your aims. Thus if you can objectify, step out of your hyper-reflection to and reconnect with the purpose of your action, it can free you from your obsession. For the stutterer to think of wanting to communicate, not how it is done. For the compulsive washer then to focus on the desire of tasks, as opposed to requiring certainty with them, for someone who sweats chronically when meeting people, to focus on why they want to meet people.
On one level there is comedy and an oddness about obsession that if you can detach yourself from, is worthy of many things, of laughing at, of taunting. This leads to Frankls idea of paradoxical intent where you positively encourage the thing you most fear to reduce the anticipatory anxiety you currently have attached. The position is fate gives you the initial fear or activity and how you respond to it, is up to you.
So in summary, obsession is part of human behaviour, when it goes wrong, is when it becomes a flame that fuels itself, fuelling its action by the anxiety about its action. It also goes wrong when the behaviour is divorced from its original intent, such that difficulty with engaging with the uncertainty of life is focussed on one event.
Whilst these things are complex, and only relevant to the specific instance, the specific person that lives with them. The motions to help with this are to reconnect the behaviour to the original event. To reduce anxiety provoked through the behaviour, through Frankl's paradoxical intent, that uses humour, objectification, and the final and most important ingredient, love.
The one paradoxical idea that I will leave with you, is part of the structure of obsession, is hyper-reflection. This also seems one aspect that can be part of the 50 minute therapeutic hour and I would wonder if sometimes therapy can be the self fuelling fire.
By way of reference much of the thoughts above are taken from Doctor and the Soul, by Viktor Frankl, the section on obsessional neurosis, which I found moving.
With love and obsession.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Frankl and Meaning
So I've been reading the amazing Viktor Frankl who came through many concentration camps with his heart and ideas intact. I can only be in awe of such a man. His ideas are stimulating but need mixing up with other ideas to get a fuller picture.
His favourite quote from Nietzsche is that once a man knows why to live he can endure anyhow; this is Frankl's initial launch pad. What is meant here is that meaning in life ensures a fulfilling life, possibly happy and definitely one that can endure suffering.
Meaning obviously has a huge impact on life. A dull job takes on new significance when a child is born and the job is then reinterpreted as that which supports them. An athlete will endure significant pain to win a race. Here meaning is given to the activity, by the meanings we ascribe, looking after children, or winning races. There are three different types of meaning for Frankl. Social meaning where you do something for society, e.g. make your world a better place. Experiential meaning which can be a sunset or the love you have with someone. Attitudinal, the meaning you give to your own pain, or joy, where you bear your cross with dignity.
The challenge for meaning is not a fixed ultimate meaning, as meaning only exists outside the act, i.e. the job is to support the child, so the only thing outside life is something outside my life, nothing inside will do. The only ultimate meanings would be God type events, so you need to ascribe meaning to the small parts of your life, the days, the weeks, the years, and the smaller the unit, the more vitality it will have.
The relation to happiness is that happiness ensues through successful outcomes of your meaningful engagements, spending time with your loved ones, winning races or supporting children. Happiness can't be aimed at in itself nor can success. You don't feel good about winning a race if you don't care for races, likewise aiming directly at happiness can only be seen with drugs, but here happiness is insubstantial, life becomes a hollow search for drugs.
There are however a few conundrums to be worked through with meanings. Is something really meaningful to me, or am I not truly doing the most meaningful thing. So whilst I might say I am finding meaning in playing a video game, I could realise it would be more meaningful to me to go to a party.You never ever reach any fundamental answers; whilst yesterday the party would have been better today it may be the video game.
So introspection, self awareness and therapy can help with this. The other more awkward notion is the hierarchy of meaning, i.e. this is meaningful because of that, so being polite to my boss, is meaningful as it helps my job as it helps me support my child, so either meaning this has another meaning or it is self standing. Even if you draw in some God figure to give meaning to the whole of life, then what gives God meaning?
Thus you have to ascribe meaning without foundation and then must confront the absurd. You could choose this value or that, and fundamentally each choice is irrational and absurd. If you question your values there is nothing to save you.
Ok so at the moment we're left in a bit of a pickle we all need to construct and support or own values, which can only have substance if we look away from the fact we create them. There's another side to this, albeit not entirely coherent. As much as we give meaning to life, life also gives meaning to us. Life calls us, has requirements for us. I am my mother's son, I have a book to write, and my friends want me to be there for them. As such meaning also comes from outside, from life. We still also have to choose which of these competing demands we respond to, but still there is a dynamic where meaning is generated internally and externally.
I would also at this point like to look at freewill and determinism. These are necessary bed fellows, two sides of the same coin. We are confronted by things, events in our world, of which we have no choice. How I interpret them, how I respond to them is up to me. I am free only in so far as I can choose my reaction to my determined position. I can perceive my determined position only in so far as I am free to choose it.
Whilst there is a natural relation between internal and free and external and determined, this is not merely the difference between me and the world, but rather between the subject of experience and experience. By subject here I mean not in the classical subject object split but rather in terms of the locus of conscience, the place where emotions are, the body, the primal place where we are engaged with the world. An embodied Dasein if you like.
There does seem to be a key question here that is asked of us. How much should I create my meaningful life and how much should I respond to it? This is the polarity between active and passive, planned and spontaneous, me and the other.
To focus too heavily on one side or the other comes at a potential cost, which I don't say is necessary, but certainly one I've experienced.If you focus too much on the self created then your projects can become empty as they are only enriched through the vitality of the world. If you focus too much on the world created then you lose yourself and your projects become dull and boring as your desire for them is absent.
His favourite quote from Nietzsche is that once a man knows why to live he can endure anyhow; this is Frankl's initial launch pad. What is meant here is that meaning in life ensures a fulfilling life, possibly happy and definitely one that can endure suffering.
Meaning obviously has a huge impact on life. A dull job takes on new significance when a child is born and the job is then reinterpreted as that which supports them. An athlete will endure significant pain to win a race. Here meaning is given to the activity, by the meanings we ascribe, looking after children, or winning races. There are three different types of meaning for Frankl. Social meaning where you do something for society, e.g. make your world a better place. Experiential meaning which can be a sunset or the love you have with someone. Attitudinal, the meaning you give to your own pain, or joy, where you bear your cross with dignity.
The challenge for meaning is not a fixed ultimate meaning, as meaning only exists outside the act, i.e. the job is to support the child, so the only thing outside life is something outside my life, nothing inside will do. The only ultimate meanings would be God type events, so you need to ascribe meaning to the small parts of your life, the days, the weeks, the years, and the smaller the unit, the more vitality it will have.
The relation to happiness is that happiness ensues through successful outcomes of your meaningful engagements, spending time with your loved ones, winning races or supporting children. Happiness can't be aimed at in itself nor can success. You don't feel good about winning a race if you don't care for races, likewise aiming directly at happiness can only be seen with drugs, but here happiness is insubstantial, life becomes a hollow search for drugs.
There are however a few conundrums to be worked through with meanings. Is something really meaningful to me, or am I not truly doing the most meaningful thing. So whilst I might say I am finding meaning in playing a video game, I could realise it would be more meaningful to me to go to a party.You never ever reach any fundamental answers; whilst yesterday the party would have been better today it may be the video game.
So introspection, self awareness and therapy can help with this. The other more awkward notion is the hierarchy of meaning, i.e. this is meaningful because of that, so being polite to my boss, is meaningful as it helps my job as it helps me support my child, so either meaning this has another meaning or it is self standing. Even if you draw in some God figure to give meaning to the whole of life, then what gives God meaning?
Thus you have to ascribe meaning without foundation and then must confront the absurd. You could choose this value or that, and fundamentally each choice is irrational and absurd. If you question your values there is nothing to save you.
Ok so at the moment we're left in a bit of a pickle we all need to construct and support or own values, which can only have substance if we look away from the fact we create them. There's another side to this, albeit not entirely coherent. As much as we give meaning to life, life also gives meaning to us. Life calls us, has requirements for us. I am my mother's son, I have a book to write, and my friends want me to be there for them. As such meaning also comes from outside, from life. We still also have to choose which of these competing demands we respond to, but still there is a dynamic where meaning is generated internally and externally.
I would also at this point like to look at freewill and determinism. These are necessary bed fellows, two sides of the same coin. We are confronted by things, events in our world, of which we have no choice. How I interpret them, how I respond to them is up to me. I am free only in so far as I can choose my reaction to my determined position. I can perceive my determined position only in so far as I am free to choose it.
Whilst there is a natural relation between internal and free and external and determined, this is not merely the difference between me and the world, but rather between the subject of experience and experience. By subject here I mean not in the classical subject object split but rather in terms of the locus of conscience, the place where emotions are, the body, the primal place where we are engaged with the world. An embodied Dasein if you like.
There does seem to be a key question here that is asked of us. How much should I create my meaningful life and how much should I respond to it? This is the polarity between active and passive, planned and spontaneous, me and the other.
To focus too heavily on one side or the other comes at a potential cost, which I don't say is necessary, but certainly one I've experienced.If you focus too much on the self created then your projects can become empty as they are only enriched through the vitality of the world. If you focus too much on the world created then you lose yourself and your projects become dull and boring as your desire for them is absent.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thoughts on Adler
Adler:Rob Thomson’s thoughts 21/06/09
This paper will look to explore Adler’s basic concepts:
1. Inferiority and Superiority Complexes
2. Masculine Protest
3. Individual Psychology
I will then summarise Adler’s position relate him to Freud and look at his assumptions and omissions.
Inferiority and Superiority Complexes
The basic drive for Adler is inferiority/superiority. We are born as children inferior in a world of adults, where adults have the power and we are dependent on them for our existence. As we grow we face other inferiorities, be they organic, for example having hearing problems, or social where we are not the cleverest child in the class. As Adler would say to “be a human being means the possession of a feeling of inferiority that is constantly pressing on towards its own conquest” (Adler,1938,p73).
There are three ways in which we can overcome this feeling of inferiority.
1. We can solve the problem, so if I’m not the best sportsman at school, I can become it. This Adler would regard as the normal, non pathological approach.
2. I can avoid the problem and use what Adler called “cheap tricks”. So instead of becoming a sportsman, I can become a hedonist, extolling the virtues of harming my body through drink and drugs and criticising those involved in competitive areas. This approach would be known as an inferiority complex.
3. I can have a vaulted opinion of my own self worth irrespective of the reality of the situation. Thus I may be very egotistical and arrogant of my own achievements, and dismissive of others, even when reality should ask for more humility. This is known as the superiority complex, and is an inversion, a compensation to the feelings of inferiority complex
You will notice that of the 3 approaches, the first is the only one that we are truly aware of, I have a problem and I solve it. The other two whilst attempted solutions don’t fully acknowledge the real problem.
Masculine Protest
Whilst inferiority can be organic, or through our perceptions of social interaction as described above, it can also be caused by bodies in power over us, for example our family or our society. Thus we can be oppressed, for example as a woman I can be restricted in what I am allowed to achieve at my place of work. I can then fight that oppression. This reaction what Adler calls masculine protest, where we look to achieve the power that we need, which functions in two ways. Firstly it overcomes our inferiority of the situation that we protest against and secondly in provides us with the power to overcome our other inferiorities. The reason why this is called masculine protest, instead of just protest, is it associates with a “masculine” set of values, power, dignity and pride. Things that in Adler’s day and less so today that are associated with men as opposed to women. As Adler remarks “Masculine protest is interpreted to be strong and powerful as a compensation for the feeling of inferiority” [1956,P145].
Individual Psychology
Individual Psychology is a paradoxical definition for Adler. “Every individual represents a unity of personality and the individual then fashions that unity. The individual is thus both the picture and the artist.” (Adler,1956,p73). The paradox lies in the word individual which usually means subjective, but for Adler is not, but rather encompasses the whole person, and the person’s society.
Individual Psychology comprises:
Holism.
Adler views the personality as a unity, thus any individual symptom would be understood in terms of the whole person’s life.
Social Interest.
Adler saw that it is only through a person’s successful social interest and interactions with society that they can be healthy “Social Interest is the barometer of a child’s normality” (1965,P14). Social interest here means the concern for society and societal goals, “making the world a better place” being a common phrase that encompasses this thought. He saw that in life “failures”, for example neurotics, drunks and perverts, all that existed was self interest.
Teleology.
Adler understood the individual as driven by a single goal, even if the individual is not aware of what that is. “The psychic life of man is determined by his goal...No human being can think, feel, will, dream without all of these activities...directed towards an ever-present objective” (Adler.P127, p29). Goals on the way for Adler were primarily sub goals, so career success, winning an essay prize were considered to be sub goals of a grander scheme, maybe to be the best, where best will be contextually understood, i.e. in any context I want to be the best.
The Creative Self.
Adler sees us as responsible for our lives, thus we choose how to overcome our inferiorities, and how to interact with our society
Style of Life.
This encompasses many of Adler’s theories, and is his sense of our way of engaging with the world, how we cope with inferiority, what our overall goal is and how we strive towards it. He sees this as set early on in life, but it can be alterable later on in life. He sees that it is accessible by earliest memories and being whilst self chosen, also influenced by our position in our family order.
Family order
The order in the family is Adler saw significant in determining Style of Life. The first born being the initial centre of attention and then the dethroned king when the second arrives. Thus they can be either attention seekers or people who cope with loss of status, which can manifest itself in a variety of ways, resentment, or by deadening activities such as drink and drugs. The second born can be very competitive as they seek to reach the standards set by their elder sibling and the last child can be very pampered and thus rather self indulgent. The only child can be handled nervously as well as extravagantly by the parents, treasuring and protecting their only progeny. The outcome here is the child can be timid in the world or in complete distinction arrogant and demanding.
Summary of Adler’s thoughts
We are driven by a need to overcome our context, we have a drive for superiority, which is subsumed under an overall purpose, our final fictional goal. The shape of both of these aspects forms along with other aspects how we view life, how we engage with society, into what is known as a Style of Life. Whilst we choose our Style of Life and at a very young age, and it can be changed. This is a very strong determinant of our behaviour, and in therapy Adler saw its understanding as crucial to be able to work effectively with people.
The concept of Style of Life, held two crucial elements, the holistic understanding of a person and the understanding of them via their social interactions. Adler saw that a person would only be well balanced if they had successful social interactions and had social interest. The second aspect was that he didn’t put primacy of one part of the human over the other, so a symptom would always be understood in the rest of the person’s life, in effect into the reification of their style of life.
Adler and his relation to Freud
So how does Adler fit into the history of psychotherapy? Looking at his links his first movement is from Freud. Originally in partnership with him, he split with him on 3 essential aspects. Firstly that we are not determined but rather choose , secondly that it is through our purpose that we should be understood not just our past and present and thirdly that it is through social interest that we are to achieve health and not merely through adjusting our individual psyche.
His connection with Freud is understandably very strong. He still valued the talking cure and the interpretative stance of the therapist. Freud the therapist was king of the dreams, of the unconscious and unintentional movement, as interpreter, and some would say definer of all. Adler loosens his grip on the psyche of the patient restricting the interpretative dominance to the act of defining the client’s Style of Life. Freud and his followers completely dominated the psyche of their patients. Their theories provided a total structure of the psyche with the id,ego and super ego. Thus the patient could be understood in mechanistic terms. From and through the id drives, desires are received by the super ego which requires satisfaction, as the id operates on the pleasure principle. The super ego inspects them for suitability and if they pass this test then they are acted on in the world and satisfied, in consciousness. If not they are repressed to a greater or lesser extent. The therapist's job is then simple if not easy. A client presents symptoms which are part of a repression. The therapist then needs to get the patient to re-experience that which was repressed but with a strengthened ego. The re-experiencing usually happens through the mechanism of transference. The bolstering of the ego can either happen naturally, as in the instance of an adult re-experiencing their childhood repression or it can happen through therapist intervention.
Adler’s world is more difficult. Every human is unique and only understood through the entirety of their being and their engagement with their world. Adler doesn’t have a psychic master plan that allows a detached third party scientific truth, rather he just wants to help people. Adler’s clients have problems and these are a failure to react to problems and inadequacies of the client's definition, derived from their ultimate fictional goal.
The last sentence is however contradicted by what Adler says about life’s failures, e.g. neurotics, drunks and homosexuals. This state’s therefore there are problems that are independently definable. I do believe Adler is not internally coherent on this matter. For him the good life is overcoming your deficiencies to superiority in your move towards your ultimate goal and that you must have social interest which effectively reduces to the emergent ultimate goals of the They. As such there are no 3rd party, independently assessable problems, rather there are the problems that I have relating to my world. My life is understood in terms of my ultimate goal and the same for societies.
Adler’s assumptions and omissions
There are as I see it a few assumptions and a few problems for Adler apart from the failures one mentioned above. Firstly why is their only one fictional final goal? Secondly what advice would Adler give to someone who had achieved their final goal? Would they get another one or sit weeping that their purpose in life has now gone? As there is only one ultimate goal is there not a paradoxical relationship to it in that I want to be driven by it but I don’t want to achieve or my life would be meaningless, so don’t we as humans now have to cope with inalienable dissatisfaction as part of our structure of life? Unfortunately Adler said nothing about that.
The other difficulty Adler gets into is with social interest. Here things get awkward for the child born in Nazi Germany or in the epicentre of the Khmer Rouge, here I would guess Adler would want to talk about the right social interest but then that begs the question about what is right.
Whilst Adler undoubtedly moves Freud forward, the key thing he misses is value and its sense of self creation. We have a final fictional goal sure, we have many and we have them because we give them value. Value doesn’t exist in the world it is created by human. You can see this through both the evolution and difference of values found in our world. Likewise for social interest sure we need to value society as it is an essentially constitutive part of me, but which society, which part of society is the question. Thus we need to understand what people value , whether those values still work for them and why they value what they value. For those answers we need to turn to the existentialists.
Adler and me
How does Adler resonate with me? The sense of inferior or superior is a strong driver for me, at my worst I can either think I'm not good enough or you're not good enough. This attitude leaves a judging relationship connecting myself to myself and to others. At better times my relation to myself is one of enjoying experiences, having experiences be they good, or paradoxically bad.
I also identify with masculine protest. As a child I felt stifled by my conservative and staid upbringing, I rebelled against this as I have done against many other groups in my life, the undercurrent being looking to find my power through escaping the tyranny of the others. For me though I only have had half the equation I knew what to escape from but not where to go after, a true reactionary! Therefore masculine protest only makes sense when you are aware of your final fictional goal otherwise your protest will be your final fictional goal.
Bibliography
Adler,A (1927)Understanding Human Nature
Adler,A (1938) Social Interest
Adler,A (1956) The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler
Robert Lundin(1989) Alfred Adler’s Basic Concepts and Implications. Accelerated Development
This paper will look to explore Adler’s basic concepts:
1. Inferiority and Superiority Complexes
2. Masculine Protest
3. Individual Psychology
I will then summarise Adler’s position relate him to Freud and look at his assumptions and omissions.
Inferiority and Superiority Complexes
The basic drive for Adler is inferiority/superiority. We are born as children inferior in a world of adults, where adults have the power and we are dependent on them for our existence. As we grow we face other inferiorities, be they organic, for example having hearing problems, or social where we are not the cleverest child in the class. As Adler would say to “be a human being means the possession of a feeling of inferiority that is constantly pressing on towards its own conquest” (Adler,1938,p73).
There are three ways in which we can overcome this feeling of inferiority.
1. We can solve the problem, so if I’m not the best sportsman at school, I can become it. This Adler would regard as the normal, non pathological approach.
2. I can avoid the problem and use what Adler called “cheap tricks”. So instead of becoming a sportsman, I can become a hedonist, extolling the virtues of harming my body through drink and drugs and criticising those involved in competitive areas. This approach would be known as an inferiority complex.
3. I can have a vaulted opinion of my own self worth irrespective of the reality of the situation. Thus I may be very egotistical and arrogant of my own achievements, and dismissive of others, even when reality should ask for more humility. This is known as the superiority complex, and is an inversion, a compensation to the feelings of inferiority complex
You will notice that of the 3 approaches, the first is the only one that we are truly aware of, I have a problem and I solve it. The other two whilst attempted solutions don’t fully acknowledge the real problem.
Masculine Protest
Whilst inferiority can be organic, or through our perceptions of social interaction as described above, it can also be caused by bodies in power over us, for example our family or our society. Thus we can be oppressed, for example as a woman I can be restricted in what I am allowed to achieve at my place of work. I can then fight that oppression. This reaction what Adler calls masculine protest, where we look to achieve the power that we need, which functions in two ways. Firstly it overcomes our inferiority of the situation that we protest against and secondly in provides us with the power to overcome our other inferiorities. The reason why this is called masculine protest, instead of just protest, is it associates with a “masculine” set of values, power, dignity and pride. Things that in Adler’s day and less so today that are associated with men as opposed to women. As Adler remarks “Masculine protest is interpreted to be strong and powerful as a compensation for the feeling of inferiority” [1956,P145].
Individual Psychology
Individual Psychology is a paradoxical definition for Adler. “Every individual represents a unity of personality and the individual then fashions that unity. The individual is thus both the picture and the artist.” (Adler,1956,p73). The paradox lies in the word individual which usually means subjective, but for Adler is not, but rather encompasses the whole person, and the person’s society.
Individual Psychology comprises:
Holism.
Adler views the personality as a unity, thus any individual symptom would be understood in terms of the whole person’s life.
Social Interest.
Adler saw that it is only through a person’s successful social interest and interactions with society that they can be healthy “Social Interest is the barometer of a child’s normality” (1965,P14). Social interest here means the concern for society and societal goals, “making the world a better place” being a common phrase that encompasses this thought. He saw that in life “failures”, for example neurotics, drunks and perverts, all that existed was self interest.
Teleology.
Adler understood the individual as driven by a single goal, even if the individual is not aware of what that is. “The psychic life of man is determined by his goal...No human being can think, feel, will, dream without all of these activities...directed towards an ever-present objective” (Adler.P127, p29). Goals on the way for Adler were primarily sub goals, so career success, winning an essay prize were considered to be sub goals of a grander scheme, maybe to be the best, where best will be contextually understood, i.e. in any context I want to be the best.
The Creative Self.
Adler sees us as responsible for our lives, thus we choose how to overcome our inferiorities, and how to interact with our society
Style of Life.
This encompasses many of Adler’s theories, and is his sense of our way of engaging with the world, how we cope with inferiority, what our overall goal is and how we strive towards it. He sees this as set early on in life, but it can be alterable later on in life. He sees that it is accessible by earliest memories and being whilst self chosen, also influenced by our position in our family order.
Family order
The order in the family is Adler saw significant in determining Style of Life. The first born being the initial centre of attention and then the dethroned king when the second arrives. Thus they can be either attention seekers or people who cope with loss of status, which can manifest itself in a variety of ways, resentment, or by deadening activities such as drink and drugs. The second born can be very competitive as they seek to reach the standards set by their elder sibling and the last child can be very pampered and thus rather self indulgent. The only child can be handled nervously as well as extravagantly by the parents, treasuring and protecting their only progeny. The outcome here is the child can be timid in the world or in complete distinction arrogant and demanding.
Summary of Adler’s thoughts
We are driven by a need to overcome our context, we have a drive for superiority, which is subsumed under an overall purpose, our final fictional goal. The shape of both of these aspects forms along with other aspects how we view life, how we engage with society, into what is known as a Style of Life. Whilst we choose our Style of Life and at a very young age, and it can be changed. This is a very strong determinant of our behaviour, and in therapy Adler saw its understanding as crucial to be able to work effectively with people.
The concept of Style of Life, held two crucial elements, the holistic understanding of a person and the understanding of them via their social interactions. Adler saw that a person would only be well balanced if they had successful social interactions and had social interest. The second aspect was that he didn’t put primacy of one part of the human over the other, so a symptom would always be understood in the rest of the person’s life, in effect into the reification of their style of life.
Adler and his relation to Freud
So how does Adler fit into the history of psychotherapy? Looking at his links his first movement is from Freud. Originally in partnership with him, he split with him on 3 essential aspects. Firstly that we are not determined but rather choose , secondly that it is through our purpose that we should be understood not just our past and present and thirdly that it is through social interest that we are to achieve health and not merely through adjusting our individual psyche.
His connection with Freud is understandably very strong. He still valued the talking cure and the interpretative stance of the therapist. Freud the therapist was king of the dreams, of the unconscious and unintentional movement, as interpreter, and some would say definer of all. Adler loosens his grip on the psyche of the patient restricting the interpretative dominance to the act of defining the client’s Style of Life. Freud and his followers completely dominated the psyche of their patients. Their theories provided a total structure of the psyche with the id,ego and super ego. Thus the patient could be understood in mechanistic terms. From and through the id drives, desires are received by the super ego which requires satisfaction, as the id operates on the pleasure principle. The super ego inspects them for suitability and if they pass this test then they are acted on in the world and satisfied, in consciousness. If not they are repressed to a greater or lesser extent. The therapist's job is then simple if not easy. A client presents symptoms which are part of a repression. The therapist then needs to get the patient to re-experience that which was repressed but with a strengthened ego. The re-experiencing usually happens through the mechanism of transference. The bolstering of the ego can either happen naturally, as in the instance of an adult re-experiencing their childhood repression or it can happen through therapist intervention.
Adler’s world is more difficult. Every human is unique and only understood through the entirety of their being and their engagement with their world. Adler doesn’t have a psychic master plan that allows a detached third party scientific truth, rather he just wants to help people. Adler’s clients have problems and these are a failure to react to problems and inadequacies of the client's definition, derived from their ultimate fictional goal.
The last sentence is however contradicted by what Adler says about life’s failures, e.g. neurotics, drunks and homosexuals. This state’s therefore there are problems that are independently definable. I do believe Adler is not internally coherent on this matter. For him the good life is overcoming your deficiencies to superiority in your move towards your ultimate goal and that you must have social interest which effectively reduces to the emergent ultimate goals of the They. As such there are no 3rd party, independently assessable problems, rather there are the problems that I have relating to my world. My life is understood in terms of my ultimate goal and the same for societies.
Adler’s assumptions and omissions
There are as I see it a few assumptions and a few problems for Adler apart from the failures one mentioned above. Firstly why is their only one fictional final goal? Secondly what advice would Adler give to someone who had achieved their final goal? Would they get another one or sit weeping that their purpose in life has now gone? As there is only one ultimate goal is there not a paradoxical relationship to it in that I want to be driven by it but I don’t want to achieve or my life would be meaningless, so don’t we as humans now have to cope with inalienable dissatisfaction as part of our structure of life? Unfortunately Adler said nothing about that.
The other difficulty Adler gets into is with social interest. Here things get awkward for the child born in Nazi Germany or in the epicentre of the Khmer Rouge, here I would guess Adler would want to talk about the right social interest but then that begs the question about what is right.
Whilst Adler undoubtedly moves Freud forward, the key thing he misses is value and its sense of self creation. We have a final fictional goal sure, we have many and we have them because we give them value. Value doesn’t exist in the world it is created by human. You can see this through both the evolution and difference of values found in our world. Likewise for social interest sure we need to value society as it is an essentially constitutive part of me, but which society, which part of society is the question. Thus we need to understand what people value , whether those values still work for them and why they value what they value. For those answers we need to turn to the existentialists.
Adler and me
How does Adler resonate with me? The sense of inferior or superior is a strong driver for me, at my worst I can either think I'm not good enough or you're not good enough. This attitude leaves a judging relationship connecting myself to myself and to others. At better times my relation to myself is one of enjoying experiences, having experiences be they good, or paradoxically bad.
I also identify with masculine protest. As a child I felt stifled by my conservative and staid upbringing, I rebelled against this as I have done against many other groups in my life, the undercurrent being looking to find my power through escaping the tyranny of the others. For me though I only have had half the equation I knew what to escape from but not where to go after, a true reactionary! Therefore masculine protest only makes sense when you are aware of your final fictional goal otherwise your protest will be your final fictional goal.
Bibliography
Adler,A (1927)Understanding Human Nature
Adler,A (1938) Social Interest
Adler,A (1956) The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler
Robert Lundin(1989) Alfred Adler’s Basic Concepts and Implications. Accelerated Development
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Epistemology and psychotherapy
So what i want to look at here is the relation between epistemology and psychotherapy, where there is a strong relationship between the two such that, if you have a strongly held epistemological view that would mean you would been drawn to and also drawn away certain psychotherapeutic models.
What then are these terms we use? Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, ie how do we know.psychotherapy, is treating the mind.
Freud, considered by many the father of psychotherapy, saw his as a scientific endeavour, and as such look for strong causal explanations of peoples actions. His theoretical model of the psyche was split into two major aspects, the conscious and the un conscious. The consciousness is our every day awareness, so when i see a table, the this is to have consciousness of it. The unconscience is an area we are not so well aware about, it is the area where the desires surface, freud calls the locus of this the id.many desires or drives well up through the unconscious, and if it is day time then they will seek to be discharged through satisfaction from the world. If the desires happen at night then they get satisfied by dreams. However the picture becomes muddier as there is choice in terms of which of the many desires given to the consciousness are acted on and this is the role of the super ego. The super ego is the locus of values, of shoulds, musts and cants. This then allows us to understand the final major piece of freudian architecture repression. Some of the desires are too terrible to act on, so the superego says, likewise some memories are too terrible to acknowledge says the conscious. These memories are then repressed. That is buried to a shallower or deeper extent in the unconscious. Here the repressed ideas are guarded by anxiety, in that any attempts to bring them to consciousness will evoke the same fearful feelings that put them their in the first place.
So now to the epistemelogical aspect. How does freud justify and construct his theories and what counts for truth in freudian analysis.
The origin of freuds theories i dont want to speculate on but rather i would highlight freudain justification of his theories. These are by observing human behaviour and very often in his consulting room. From these observations then he moved via inductive deduction to his theories. As with any scientist they are working hypothesis and should observations contradict them, then the hypothesis will be revised.
Freudian truth in the consulting room happens like this. A clients symptoms are caused by trying to keep the repressed, repressed. The reason that the items were repressed in the first place was either because the ego was too weak, or there was a striong contradiction between aspects of the super ego. The therapist then needs to ensure that the patient has the necessary ego strength or coherence of the super ego to accept the repressed item.once this is in place the repressed can be re experienced by the client and discharged in the normal way. There are four ways in which the repressed is accessed by the therapist through free association, through dreams, through general avoidance and through transference.
Transference is where a previous unresolved and significant relationship is acted out, where the therapist is given the part of the other in the clients relationship. As this relationship is unresolved it will be either repressed in itself or hold repressed aspects within it.
Freudian therapists are scientists with their who observe their clients, then interpret the clients behaviour in terms of their theory, and present the client back to themselves. As with scientists a causal explanation will be offered. So someone who compulsively washes their hands could be someone who has repressed a sexual desire that they considered dirty.
The key element here on an epistemological view is that you can gain truth of the human condition by 3rd party observation.
That third party observation can be equated to human experience can be challenged by the following example. A scientist would describe vision as light being reflected from objects , hitting the back of the retina, then being interpretted by the brain to form an image. The human experience is far different and irreducible to the scientific. Firstly i see objects of use to me, they come to the foreground as i make the background reced, i use them for my futural projects. To say there is worth in the scientific view is facile but necessay. To say that to understand the human condition from a third point of view by using causal explantion is impossible, whilst being horribly verbose is also necessary.
So if a 3rd party view from nowhere falls short what other possibilities are there? Well the phenomenological approach adopted by existentialists would be one. The one central theorist for existential psychotherapy is heidegger. Of the other sited as existentialists none had the influence that he did, as he was a consummate humanist and phenomenlogist. Nietzsche was not a humanist, his theories of will to power and ubermensch are testament, indeed man was for him something to be overcome. Nietzsche was also not a systematist and his fragmented and contradictory thoughts whislt can be used to many and varied purposes have not got the systemic basis that psychotherapy needs which still has its roots in science and not philosophy or art. The last person kierkegaard whilst a rabid humanist, again lacks a system to hold on and whilst through his subjective angle on theology gave ideas for the existentialist.
So the heidegerrean framework that is used by existential psychotherapy is as follows. Humans are those whose being, whose mode of life is a question to them . The possibilities of their being is enabled through their interpretation of facts of their lives such that they aim to future projects. The facts of their lives are the throwness of their lives things that they are not responsible for, eg that they were born to their parents, that they will die, and also the facts of their historical life, eg i chose a year ago to be a computer programmer. For heidegger there is no final truth all there is is hermeneutics, a continual and never ending interpretation. The other two key aspects of heidegger that are worth bringing out is that we are fundamentally connected pre ontologically by one of use and that it is only when an object fails our desires that we will be conscious of it,in the same way you are only aware of your back when it fails you and then it is all you can think about!
So how does heidegerrean epistemology influence impact existential psychotherapists. Well firstly as each humans life is their own, then they will look to use a phenomenological approach to bracket their own values to allow that of their client come through. The heideggarean world is one populated by objects that are valued that are used, that can be used to enable humans purposes, then a main drive in existential therapy is the endeavour to enable the client to view their current value system and to establish if it is relevant to their futural projects. Throwness is again a big aspect for heidegger as it is for existential therapists, so we are self constructed, we face death, there are no fundamental values are areas which we need to not hide from and are areas that the existentialist will look to explore with a client
So what i want to look at here is the relation between epistemology and psychotherapy, where there is a strong relationship between the two such that, if you have a strongly held epistemological view that would mean you would been drawn to and also drawn away certain psychotherapeutic models.
What then are these terms we use? Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, ie how do we know.psychotherapy, is treating the mind.
Freud, considered by many the father of psychotherapy, saw his as a scientific endeavour, and as such look for strong causal explanations of peoples actions. His theoretical model of the psyche was split into two major aspects, the conscious and the un conscious. The consciousness is our every day awareness, so when i see a table, the this is to have consciousness of it. The unconscience is an area we are not so well aware about, it is the area where the desires surface, freud calls the locus of this the id.many desires or drives well up through the unconscious, and if it is day time then they will seek to be discharged through satisfaction from the world. If the desires happen at night then they get satisfied by dreams. However the picture becomes muddier as there is choice in terms of which of the many desires given to the consciousness are acted on and this is the role of the super ego. The super ego is the locus of values, of shoulds, musts and cants. This then allows us to understand the final major piece of freudian architecture repression. Some of the desires are too terrible to act on, so the superego says, likewise some memories are too terrible to acknowledge says the conscious. These memories are then repressed. That is buried to a shallower or deeper extent in the unconscious. Here the repressed ideas are guarded by anxiety, in that any attempts to bring them to consciousness will evoke the same fearful feelings that put them their in the first place.
So now to the epistemelogical aspect. How does freud justify and construct his theories and what counts for truth in freudian analysis.
The origin of freuds theories i dont want to speculate on but rather i would highlight freudain justification of his theories. These are by observing human behaviour and very often in his consulting room. From these observations then he moved via inductive deduction to his theories. As with any scientist they are working hypothesis and should observations contradict them, then the hypothesis will be revised.
Freudian truth in the consulting room happens like this. A clients symptoms are caused by trying to keep the repressed, repressed. The reason that the items were repressed in the first place was either because the ego was too weak, or there was a striong contradiction between aspects of the super ego. The therapist then needs to ensure that the patient has the necessary ego strength or coherence of the super ego to accept the repressed item.once this is in place the repressed can be re experienced by the client and discharged in the normal way. There are four ways in which the repressed is accessed by the therapist through free association, through dreams, through general avoidance and through transference.
Transference is where a previous unresolved and significant relationship is acted out, where the therapist is given the part of the other in the clients relationship. As this relationship is unresolved it will be either repressed in itself or hold repressed aspects within it.
Freudian therapists are scientists with their who observe their clients, then interpret the clients behaviour in terms of their theory, and present the client back to themselves. As with scientists a causal explanation will be offered. So someone who compulsively washes their hands could be someone who has repressed a sexual desire that they considered dirty.
The key element here on an epistemological view is that you can gain truth of the human condition by 3rd party observation.
That third party observation can be equated to human experience can be challenged by the following example. A scientist would describe vision as light being reflected from objects , hitting the back of the retina, then being interpretted by the brain to form an image. The human experience is far different and irreducible to the scientific. Firstly i see objects of use to me, they come to the foreground as i make the background reced, i use them for my futural projects. To say there is worth in the scientific view is facile but necessay. To say that to understand the human condition from a third point of view by using causal explantion is impossible, whilst being horribly verbose is also necessary.
So if a 3rd party view from nowhere falls short what other possibilities are there? Well the phenomenological approach adopted by existentialists would be one. The one central theorist for existential psychotherapy is heidegger. Of the other sited as existentialists none had the influence that he did, as he was a consummate humanist and phenomenlogist. Nietzsche was not a humanist, his theories of will to power and ubermensch are testament, indeed man was for him something to be overcome. Nietzsche was also not a systematist and his fragmented and contradictory thoughts whislt can be used to many and varied purposes have not got the systemic basis that psychotherapy needs which still has its roots in science and not philosophy or art. The last person kierkegaard whilst a rabid humanist, again lacks a system to hold on and whilst through his subjective angle on theology gave ideas for the existentialist.
So the heidegerrean framework that is used by existential psychotherapy is as follows. Humans are those whose being, whose mode of life is a question to them . The possibilities of their being is enabled through their interpretation of facts of their lives such that they aim to future projects. The facts of their lives are the throwness of their lives things that they are not responsible for, eg that they were born to their parents, that they will die, and also the facts of their historical life, eg i chose a year ago to be a computer programmer. For heidegger there is no final truth all there is is hermeneutics, a continual and never ending interpretation. The other two key aspects of heidegger that are worth bringing out is that we are fundamentally connected pre ontologically by one of use and that it is only when an object fails our desires that we will be conscious of it,in the same way you are only aware of your back when it fails you and then it is all you can think about!
So how does heidegerrean epistemology influence impact existential psychotherapists. Well firstly as each humans life is their own, then they will look to use a phenomenological approach to bracket their own values to allow that of their client come through. The heideggarean world is one populated by objects that are valued that are used, that can be used to enable humans purposes, then a main drive in existential therapy is the endeavour to enable the client to view their current value system and to establish if it is relevant to their futural projects. Throwness is again a big aspect for heidegger as it is for existential therapists, so we are self constructed, we face death, there are no fundamental values are areas which we need to not hide from and are areas that the existentialist will look to explore with a client
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Addiction is your choice
Here’s the terrifying thought, you choose to be an addict, an alcoholic, a junkie. Why, because you have problems in living that you need to avoid.
Huge contentious statement that comes from Jeffrey Schaler and from me, as it makes a lot of sense in my experience.
The notion of addiction started in the 18th century and has now gripped the public imagination that you can be addicted to almost anything from Nicotine, Video games, through sex to shopping.
The popular view is that addiction is a disease, and follows the path of progressive use as you get desensitized to your addiction of choice, followed by being out of control and the only way to deal with this is total abstinence. As a disease which you suffer from there is a strong sense in which you are not responsible for your action. Such is the generally held view, and indeed evidenced in AA a major addiction treater.
A disease is categorised medically as having clinical evidence from a body. This would be where you can investigate the body and see the cause of the symptoms of the disease, such that you could get an asymptomatic disease. With addiction you cannot do this, whilst you can see the results of addiction, e.g. liver cirrhosis, you can never see the cause of it. Whilst some say there are genetic reasons that predispose us to addictions. Genetics cannot make something a disease, as otherwise ginger hair would be considered a disease.
An addict is a powerfully willed individual, who can quite ruthlessly manipulate the world and those around them to get what they want. They have a steely will that will not accept that any harm they may occur or those around them may suffer, will detract from their goal. Setbacks matter not, as they doggedly drive to their desire, their goal.
Try crossing out the word addict in the above paragraph, and put in entrepreneur.
Okay let’s play another game! What addiction is so powerful that when it leaves causes such bad withdrawal symptoms that it can cause suicide? Juliette would call it love I think, poor, loving, lonely girl.
So it would seem there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and non socially acceptable.
But which you choose benign or malign, a compulsion to own money or consume heroin, the issue is the same, there is a drive in you to use this behaviour to avoid having to deal with problems you have in your life.
The central point here in any addiction is that addicts have very strong wills, they choose very strongly. Heroin or money are inanimate, and cannot compel people to act. So why are people drawn to these thing, well they make them feel good. If you take heroin or alcohol, then both of them are anaesthetics, dull feelings and reduce pain. The acquisition of money can do the same sort of thing, to gain money is to win and many people will only feel loved or lovable if they are achieving, so the model is I feel bad about myself, I win I feel good.
So the addicts world model is I’m in pain, I must soothe the pain, I must take the drug. As time wears on the first two can get eroded, or replace by I’m in pain through missing the drug, I must soothe the pain.
Treatment of addicts is a question of doing 3 things. Firstly being with them in their worlds in a non judgemental fashion. Secondly showing them that they are choosing what they are doing and working out if this works for them. Thirdly dealing with issues that bring pain to them and work out ways to deal with it.
The part that I struggle with though, is why we choose addiction be it benign or malign in the first place. So many recovered addicts have replaced one addiction with another AA for booze, sport for drugs, politics for hedge funds.
I wonder if RD Laing’s sense of ontological insecurity has anything to do with it. That you need a constant stimulus as otherwise due to your fragile sense of yourself, you may well implode. So I must have an SMS, a drink, go to the gym, some stimulus just to keep myself alive.
There is also a very childish feeling about addiction. It says I must have something now or I just can’t bear it. Makes me think that being able to tolerate a little bit of discomfort is a good thing and that through delayed gratification you will not get hooked up in the cycle of addiction.
I guess the other thing about addiction is it gives identity, I’m a drunk. It absolves yourself of having to answer difficult questions, a workaholic doesn’t have to think about what to do next there is always a pre built answer.
Anyway I raise a glass from my addictions to yours
x
Huge contentious statement that comes from Jeffrey Schaler and from me, as it makes a lot of sense in my experience.
The notion of addiction started in the 18th century and has now gripped the public imagination that you can be addicted to almost anything from Nicotine, Video games, through sex to shopping.
The popular view is that addiction is a disease, and follows the path of progressive use as you get desensitized to your addiction of choice, followed by being out of control and the only way to deal with this is total abstinence. As a disease which you suffer from there is a strong sense in which you are not responsible for your action. Such is the generally held view, and indeed evidenced in AA a major addiction treater.
A disease is categorised medically as having clinical evidence from a body. This would be where you can investigate the body and see the cause of the symptoms of the disease, such that you could get an asymptomatic disease. With addiction you cannot do this, whilst you can see the results of addiction, e.g. liver cirrhosis, you can never see the cause of it. Whilst some say there are genetic reasons that predispose us to addictions. Genetics cannot make something a disease, as otherwise ginger hair would be considered a disease.
An addict is a powerfully willed individual, who can quite ruthlessly manipulate the world and those around them to get what they want. They have a steely will that will not accept that any harm they may occur or those around them may suffer, will detract from their goal. Setbacks matter not, as they doggedly drive to their desire, their goal.
Try crossing out the word addict in the above paragraph, and put in entrepreneur.
Okay let’s play another game! What addiction is so powerful that when it leaves causes such bad withdrawal symptoms that it can cause suicide? Juliette would call it love I think, poor, loving, lonely girl.
So it would seem there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and non socially acceptable.
But which you choose benign or malign, a compulsion to own money or consume heroin, the issue is the same, there is a drive in you to use this behaviour to avoid having to deal with problems you have in your life.
The central point here in any addiction is that addicts have very strong wills, they choose very strongly. Heroin or money are inanimate, and cannot compel people to act. So why are people drawn to these thing, well they make them feel good. If you take heroin or alcohol, then both of them are anaesthetics, dull feelings and reduce pain. The acquisition of money can do the same sort of thing, to gain money is to win and many people will only feel loved or lovable if they are achieving, so the model is I feel bad about myself, I win I feel good.
So the addicts world model is I’m in pain, I must soothe the pain, I must take the drug. As time wears on the first two can get eroded, or replace by I’m in pain through missing the drug, I must soothe the pain.
Treatment of addicts is a question of doing 3 things. Firstly being with them in their worlds in a non judgemental fashion. Secondly showing them that they are choosing what they are doing and working out if this works for them. Thirdly dealing with issues that bring pain to them and work out ways to deal with it.
The part that I struggle with though, is why we choose addiction be it benign or malign in the first place. So many recovered addicts have replaced one addiction with another AA for booze, sport for drugs, politics for hedge funds.
I wonder if RD Laing’s sense of ontological insecurity has anything to do with it. That you need a constant stimulus as otherwise due to your fragile sense of yourself, you may well implode. So I must have an SMS, a drink, go to the gym, some stimulus just to keep myself alive.
There is also a very childish feeling about addiction. It says I must have something now or I just can’t bear it. Makes me think that being able to tolerate a little bit of discomfort is a good thing and that through delayed gratification you will not get hooked up in the cycle of addiction.
I guess the other thing about addiction is it gives identity, I’m a drunk. It absolves yourself of having to answer difficult questions, a workaholic doesn’t have to think about what to do next there is always a pre built answer.
Anyway I raise a glass from my addictions to yours
x
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Unity of self
So the self what's that all about. The common conception is the self is the essence of human, something that has come through time in a form called human nature and is described in linguistics by the unity that is the word I, it is the unity that makes my life mine, after all whose else could it be.
So the contention here is that there is no unified self and the only reason that we might talk about it is out of a need for the narrative coherence unity brings. The only reason we talk about human nature is that we have a common interpretative framework.
This is obviously heresy to most people, but that's the stakes when you hold up light to the axioms that we use and see them to be useful sure, but just not true.
So we will notice that in experiencing the self as a notion is posed after the fact. So if I am sitting in the bar two things happen one I get the experience of this, its shapes and sounds and after the fact I describe it as mine. The self that is posited is derived from the intention that I have, so that the self that I posited is a relaxed, slightly tired one. If I drill down into this self there are a myriad of ways in which I can describe it.
The outcome of this is that the self posited is unique. So lets have a little look at this unique self, which is incredibly well known to us. Well I can remember one of the things I can do when needing to relax is to go to the pub. Thus it becomes a possibility for me in so far as it is part of my past. I give myself to this event in so far as I understand myself as a man who has worked hard is now relaxing with a beer. This is such a familiar story, having been told by countless people and in countless films and all it needs is a hard worker, a beer and a pub. Its a nice little story of someone rewarding themselves with a little escapism.
The trip to the bar only functions as it does as I have previous experience of doing this. To understand this a little better remember the first time you went to a pub you had none of the thoughts and feelings you currently do about a pub visit. It was only after having a past to choose this option from and to have a familiarity with the story that it works. Indeed when you first skulked into a pub significantly under the legal drinking age then it was a completely different story, one of rebellious youth.
So apart from a past experience of this, to make the story work we need an actor, a unity to make the narrative meaningful. This being the major driver for the unified notion of self. If we thought that we continually reconstruct the self, which is what I'm proposing, then we would be groundless and therefore meaninglessness. If we had no unified self we would have no actor and therefore no story and therefore be meaninglessness.
Meaninglessness is a huge fear for humans. When humans didn't understand and faced meaninglessness they invented explanations sun gods , humours that controlled the body and cameras that stole souls. We associate meaninglessness with depression, it is not something we can tolerate and will see us buying personalised number plates as being a meaningful preference to a random string of numbers.
The standard defences of a unity of self are, bodily ,memory, and a self knowledge approach. Lets start bottom up shall we, ok self knowledge. I know I'm a unity as I always act in the same way, okay I change over the years but at each point I have an enduring self image, so I might say of myself I am generous, kind and do not lie.
When then you act in ways that contravenes these values then either the self has to change or you have to see yourself as not responsible for the action.
Thus you might excuse yourself as being drunk or angry or in war time you might say you were just following orders. However as you can see you are interpreting your actions and attributing some to your unified self and others you are casting off as aberrations. If the latter is too pronounced split personalities can ensue that take over. So with this act of interpretation then we construct the self.
Okay maybe unity of character doesn't quite cut it.
What about the body it is a unity so why don't we say that the unity of self is coextensive with the unity of body, I am my body. Oh dear if that were the case then we would be in a very awkward place with things like phantom limbs, and the feeling that anorexics have with always feeling bigger than they are. I suppose as with any contradiction you could write it off as an aberration, but then once more you would be constructing the self out of bodily interpretations, these I consider part of my embodiment part, this part not.
So what about memory we appear to have a continual sequence of memories that I am the owner of. There are two parts of memory the factual content and what it means to me. whilst some would want to collapse these two to interpretation lets leave them as they are and talk about the facts as fixed. Take also the idea that we remember far more than we know and that we have what many claim to be unlimited storage but restricted recall. Evidence of this would be bringing back long since buried facts through hypnosis or therapy. There are also experiments where people undergoing brain surgery have had certain parts of their brain stimulated and they repeatedly had recall in full Technicolor a long forgotten memory. Point all these three make is we remember far more than we can recall and possibly everything.
So what makes us have the memories that we do. Well we need memory to support our lifestyle, I need to know about my house, my job and wife in a way that I don't need to know about any of their previous incarnations. We also remember things that have been significant, being given the bike when I was six or my first love when I was 7.
So how's about this what our memory is or rather what we recall are those things that provide us utility or what amounts to the same thing meaning.
Now what a person requires in terms of utility and meaning change and as such so will the memories that you select to support that and crucially so will the interpretation of the factual element of that memory. Therefore whilst we have a finite number of factual memories what we select and how we interpret them is determined by our current projects. The self that is provided from memory is one that can constantly reinvent itself.
People like to talk about a human nature about characteristics that exist through the ages that evolutionist can be proud of. Why is that? Indeed we can read Shakespeare and when he talks about love, vanity and pride why is it that we recognise these traits if not that there is a human nature that exists through time. Ok here's the thing, human memory is two fold one personal and two social. The same rules that I've mentioned above from the personal apply to the social. The reason why Shakespeare still talks to us is through sedimented interpretation, i.e. we continually go back to the same sources to give our lives meaning. Social memory is known better by the phrase history. There are enough fights between various political groups to show that history is about interpretation not fact
So there you have it there is no unity of self rather a continually interpreted one to suit ones current affairs in as far as they project into the future. Radical stuff but what does it mean, well it means you're free and this generally is both a good and a bad thing. As a bad thing there is no self that we can fall back on, we are groundless and this is going to feel scary we need both order and meaning to stave off anxiety. The good news and trust me people this is a hallelujah moment is you don't need to be a victim to your past. Within your faculties within all the possibilities that exist to you in your world you can and ought to be and that my friends is huge.
References
Ernesto Spinelli, The Interpreted world
So the contention here is that there is no unified self and the only reason that we might talk about it is out of a need for the narrative coherence unity brings. The only reason we talk about human nature is that we have a common interpretative framework.
This is obviously heresy to most people, but that's the stakes when you hold up light to the axioms that we use and see them to be useful sure, but just not true.
So we will notice that in experiencing the self as a notion is posed after the fact. So if I am sitting in the bar two things happen one I get the experience of this, its shapes and sounds and after the fact I describe it as mine. The self that is posited is derived from the intention that I have, so that the self that I posited is a relaxed, slightly tired one. If I drill down into this self there are a myriad of ways in which I can describe it.
The outcome of this is that the self posited is unique. So lets have a little look at this unique self, which is incredibly well known to us. Well I can remember one of the things I can do when needing to relax is to go to the pub. Thus it becomes a possibility for me in so far as it is part of my past. I give myself to this event in so far as I understand myself as a man who has worked hard is now relaxing with a beer. This is such a familiar story, having been told by countless people and in countless films and all it needs is a hard worker, a beer and a pub. Its a nice little story of someone rewarding themselves with a little escapism.
The trip to the bar only functions as it does as I have previous experience of doing this. To understand this a little better remember the first time you went to a pub you had none of the thoughts and feelings you currently do about a pub visit. It was only after having a past to choose this option from and to have a familiarity with the story that it works. Indeed when you first skulked into a pub significantly under the legal drinking age then it was a completely different story, one of rebellious youth.
So apart from a past experience of this, to make the story work we need an actor, a unity to make the narrative meaningful. This being the major driver for the unified notion of self. If we thought that we continually reconstruct the self, which is what I'm proposing, then we would be groundless and therefore meaninglessness. If we had no unified self we would have no actor and therefore no story and therefore be meaninglessness.
Meaninglessness is a huge fear for humans. When humans didn't understand and faced meaninglessness they invented explanations sun gods , humours that controlled the body and cameras that stole souls. We associate meaninglessness with depression, it is not something we can tolerate and will see us buying personalised number plates as being a meaningful preference to a random string of numbers.
The standard defences of a unity of self are, bodily ,memory, and a self knowledge approach. Lets start bottom up shall we, ok self knowledge. I know I'm a unity as I always act in the same way, okay I change over the years but at each point I have an enduring self image, so I might say of myself I am generous, kind and do not lie.
When then you act in ways that contravenes these values then either the self has to change or you have to see yourself as not responsible for the action.
Thus you might excuse yourself as being drunk or angry or in war time you might say you were just following orders. However as you can see you are interpreting your actions and attributing some to your unified self and others you are casting off as aberrations. If the latter is too pronounced split personalities can ensue that take over. So with this act of interpretation then we construct the self.
Okay maybe unity of character doesn't quite cut it.
What about the body it is a unity so why don't we say that the unity of self is coextensive with the unity of body, I am my body. Oh dear if that were the case then we would be in a very awkward place with things like phantom limbs, and the feeling that anorexics have with always feeling bigger than they are. I suppose as with any contradiction you could write it off as an aberration, but then once more you would be constructing the self out of bodily interpretations, these I consider part of my embodiment part, this part not.
So what about memory we appear to have a continual sequence of memories that I am the owner of. There are two parts of memory the factual content and what it means to me. whilst some would want to collapse these two to interpretation lets leave them as they are and talk about the facts as fixed. Take also the idea that we remember far more than we know and that we have what many claim to be unlimited storage but restricted recall. Evidence of this would be bringing back long since buried facts through hypnosis or therapy. There are also experiments where people undergoing brain surgery have had certain parts of their brain stimulated and they repeatedly had recall in full Technicolor a long forgotten memory. Point all these three make is we remember far more than we can recall and possibly everything.
So what makes us have the memories that we do. Well we need memory to support our lifestyle, I need to know about my house, my job and wife in a way that I don't need to know about any of their previous incarnations. We also remember things that have been significant, being given the bike when I was six or my first love when I was 7.
So how's about this what our memory is or rather what we recall are those things that provide us utility or what amounts to the same thing meaning.
Now what a person requires in terms of utility and meaning change and as such so will the memories that you select to support that and crucially so will the interpretation of the factual element of that memory. Therefore whilst we have a finite number of factual memories what we select and how we interpret them is determined by our current projects. The self that is provided from memory is one that can constantly reinvent itself.
People like to talk about a human nature about characteristics that exist through the ages that evolutionist can be proud of. Why is that? Indeed we can read Shakespeare and when he talks about love, vanity and pride why is it that we recognise these traits if not that there is a human nature that exists through time. Ok here's the thing, human memory is two fold one personal and two social. The same rules that I've mentioned above from the personal apply to the social. The reason why Shakespeare still talks to us is through sedimented interpretation, i.e. we continually go back to the same sources to give our lives meaning. Social memory is known better by the phrase history. There are enough fights between various political groups to show that history is about interpretation not fact
So there you have it there is no unity of self rather a continually interpreted one to suit ones current affairs in as far as they project into the future. Radical stuff but what does it mean, well it means you're free and this generally is both a good and a bad thing. As a bad thing there is no self that we can fall back on, we are groundless and this is going to feel scary we need both order and meaning to stave off anxiety. The good news and trust me people this is a hallelujah moment is you don't need to be a victim to your past. Within your faculties within all the possibilities that exist to you in your world you can and ought to be and that my friends is huge.
References
Ernesto Spinelli, The Interpreted world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
