By commenting on the difference between a competitive situation and one where purpose is shared, I opened the door to wondering about the differences between intimacy and competition on one hand and then competition and war or violence on the other. This thinking follows the rubric of moving from intimate situations where we feel close to someone else on to situations where we relate socially based on power and status or roles and then on to situations where we must decide whether those we must face are either included in our sense of the in-group and those who are excluded altogether.
If we reverse this continuum, we must first decide (or, instinctually react as to) whether to include anyone as equals (include/exclude, animal or basic relationships). If they can be considered as equally human instead of as less than us, we will interact based on perceived power and status roles (social relationships). If we become closer than interacting primarily through roles, if we feel able to be ourselves more openly and authentically, more heartfelt, then we can speak of a realm of intimacy (private relationships). [Sometimes people operate in supposedly intimate or private relationships primarily through role relationships and reactive emotions and instincts, so we could say that close human intimacy has not developed.]
In the best sorts of relationships, we can mix business and pleasure, business and private sorts of interactions, role responsibilities and intimacy. But to do so, those involved must develop some sense of professionalism, respect for privacy or "boundaries", and also some agreement on when to act professionally or intimately. When the people involved are not quite mature enough for this, we separate business from pleasure or suffer the consequences. The question becomes one of when, or if, it is possible to mix business (role/status/power types of relating) with pleasure (and intimate means of relating). Therapy certainly crosses those lines.
Let's work outside in--from that inclusion/exclusion response to status/power/role relationships to intimate/personal relationships. The exclusion response occurs when we feel that the other party or parties involved are less than human, or not part of our group, or a threat to survival. This allows for eating meat, cruelty to animals, genocide, slavery, and on an individual level, rape and physical assault. Essentially, at this level, we are dealing with basic instincts. If we include someone as human or like us, we relate based on status, competition for power, and roles. Other social animals do this, too. Other animals are relating somewhat on emotions and somewhat on instincts, but humans also include the possibility of relating based on explicit social roles (other animals have differentiated roles, but ants aren't as conscious of this differentiation or as flexible in their ability to change their roles, for example). We end up with a complex mix of basic instincts, the ways those instincts relate with emotions, and also the ways in which our roles relate with instincts and emotions. Things get more complex as we move towards intimacy which is why it can be helpful to distinguish between complexity and complications. When we feel free to interact as the complex individuals we are, this feels very freeing rather than feeling complicated. And at the level of intimacy, we can include all instincts (although usually moderated), emotions (moderated), thinking (moderated), etc. without feeling competitive and without needing to put on a "role-face" (and be primarily professional).
These distinctions should make it clear that it is possible to have competition (between roles and types of status) without being at war. In essence, we still compete, like for that next promotion, but we agree to "play nice" (compared to lions eating male cubs, anyway). Furthermore, it is possible--however unlikely--that we can incorporate business and pleasure or our professional role relationships with our personal relationships. The better we are at all of this, the closer we can feel. War and dehumaninzation (exclusion) make it impossible to feel close, and professionalism alone (role relating without personal intimacy) makes it impossible to feel close.
Therapy fascinates me because it is a professional role that usually is expected to incorporate intimacy. In other words, few people would want Mr. Spock as a therapist. As a professor, maybe, but not as a therapist. That role simply does not fit his manner of relating. One difficulty for therapists, then, is that they inevitably mix business and personal relationships and feelings. As opposed to business associates deciding to strike up a friendship or friends deciding to strike up a business relationship, therapists' business is the constant management of roles and intimacy, the constant crossing of lines between what is public and what is private.
In this dance, clients have the right (a professional-level concept) to certain expectations of what their therapist will do for them. Most therapists have a desire to feel personally intimate with their clients, and indeed, if this feeling is shared, it is a strong aid to progress. And this leaves us with the conundrum of when to respond from a role-position and when to respond more personally. The situation is complicated exponentially when therapists cannot or do not formulate clearly what their professional role is. Even without this complication, this type of relationship is complex. But my relationship with my girl is more interesting for being complex...only we try to keep that happy complexity as uncomplicated as possible.
If you've seen mixed martial arts fighting, it is not so hard to distinguish between competition and war or malevolence. Two people step into a UFC ring, agree not to bite one another, gouge eyes, or punch balls--but otherwise proceed to batter one another until there is a knockout, a submission, or time is called. Since many of these competitors respect each other and the game, people don't get killed, hatred doesn't have much place (well, maybe somewhat for the fans), and we get to enjoy intense competition that is not war. Pretty clear distinction as long as people mostly follow the rules. Competition, not war.
In therapy, clients have a right to expect the expert (hopefully, the therapist) to take the lead in a noncompetitive manner. This calls for a particular skill that many professionals clearly do not possess and do not need to possess. While salespeople can get away with feeling competitive with both other salespeople and their own clients, while salespeople can try to "win" against their peers and their clients, it doesn't work for therapists to try to "beat" their clients. And yet, the peculiar difficulty to this type of relationship is that therapists must respond to expectations while I have rarely or never heard anyone speak about a client's responsibility in the relationship. How do we treat clients as social equals while supposedly having a greater expertise on intimacy? What can we expect or ask for from them as our social equals?
It seems reasonable that a client expect a certain degree of expertise from a therapist. It seems equally reasonable to me that a therapist expect a certain degree of civility from clients. And in moments where civility and expertise come together, there is an opportunity for intimacy, personal growth, and gratification on both sides. In order to do that, we simply have to recognize that there is a difference between an instinctual/emotional reactivity that is based on one-up/one-down relationships and an unavoidable equality between civil equals. In other words, we carefully set the situation and choose our moments so as to invite intimacy into unequal role relationships (therapist/client) that are based on civil equality (client/professional). The customer is not always right, but common respect allows for diversity of opinions and experience and expertise. In other words, the customer is never wrong in expressing what they want.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Psychological Resistance as Opportunity
Perhaps in furtherance of what I picked up in an internship at the VA, I've been thinking about how an understanding of strategy and tactics could help therapists. I'm currently reading Liddell Hart's book STRATEGY, in which he recommends strongly what he calls "indirect strategy"--which we know of, loosely, as "reverse psychology" essentially. (This comment is mostly one on attitude, but can be taken to a point of developing better understanding and techniques as well.)
One of the more difficult tasks that therapists supposedly face is the number and complexity of symptoms with certain clients. But this is largely a false problem when rapport exists, if we can expect that a client will return for the next appointment. Short of that being present, we are dealing in crisis management, not therapy. I don't know all that much about crisis management. Situational crises are analogous to fragmented personalities as well, so I am not really addressing issues such as schizophrenia, but this perspective may help identify when and how a stout ego--even if applied in apparent resistance to progress--can be a good thing.
The attitude shift I'm getting at comes from the realization that multiple goals allows one to adjust focus and techniques in such a way that resistance can be avoided, so I guess this is mostly a comment on difficult clients or difficult issues. The beginning of this shift (in terms of therapy) comes from recognizing the individuality of the other person along with their sense of threat. When we feel vulnerable, we are likely to feel threatened or pressured, reducing our ability to think creatively and increasing the likelihood and often the intensity of emotional reactivity. In therapy, clients often alternate between feeling threatened and soothed--both of these engendering low-creativity mind states, reduced agency. From my angle, I tend to be dissatisfied with simply soothing anxiety rather than increasing resilience and agency, and I think that idea is generally accepted, but I think many methods contradict that agreement.
The beginning of this shift (in terms of strategy) is a shift from a focus on superior force alone to a superior concentration of force. (Stick with me a few steps here, this makes ready sense once we arrive.) In boxing or war, we know we need to be prepared for both attack and defense--usually simultaneously. The best offensive strikes most often follow putting our opponent off balance, dispersing their defense while concentrating our offense. Hart highlights the idea, here, that in order to do so, it is very important to have multiple objectives. (This is where complexity comes back in, but as something that can support therapeutic goals rather than stress out therapists.) Just as it takes boxers or armies time to adjust their defenses--and they are vulnerable while adjusting--it takes people time to adjust their defensive mechanisms or resistance as they shift from resisting one perceived aim to another. That gap is rich with potential. When we have only one objective, our opponent can readily see where we are headed and align their defenses accordingly. When therapists find themselves caught in a head-to-head struggle, then, it is evidence of their own shortcoming.
Motivational interviewing addresses resistance by explicitly putting the focus on the client's motivation and allowing them the space to redefine the relationship as nonthreatening. The stages of change model provides multiple goals and also alleviates therapists' fear by outlining the process of change (reducing the "offensive" pressure).
The same force of will that is "resistance" in a conflictual relationship is "agency" from an individual or noncompetitive viewpoint. In these terms, then, the very idea of resistance as resistance saps a relationship of rapport and wears out anyone involved, reducing the force available for progress. Since clients cannot reasonably be expected to have a thorough theoretical background, this is always a shortcoming of the therapist when two conditions are met. The first condition, again, is that the situation not be a full-on crisis. Therapy as therapy does not occur during crises. Crisis management is called for, even if crisis management done well has therapeutic effects. The second condition is a workable degree of ego integrity. In other words, the ego must first be somewhat stabilized. Therapy as a talking cure--at least as is most often taught in training programs--is ineffective by itself when dealing with significant brain trauma, psychoses, and extreme drug effects.
Therapists wear themselves out by dispersing their own psychological energy or force, and clients do, too. Rather than diminishing force, progress occurs through an adequate application of force. So I'll define a therapist's realm of expertise as expertise in the excellent application of psychological force towards progress. (Since progress is constituted differently in various situations, I will leave "progress" undefined for now.) Essentially then, moments of head-to-head competition are healthy when we are playing or "exercising" (testing our strength). But otherwise, unless we are actually in a wartime situation, this application of force is stupid, wasteful, and unpleasant.
In fact, supporting someone's strength of agency comes from making explicit the availability of force and it's multiplicity of applications. In other words, when someone is willing to show us where they want to apply force, they show themselves. When we have multiple goals in mind--whether those goals are shared or not--we are able to use that knowledge to advance our goals. In war, those goals will not be shared, but in therapy, we can direct that force in whichever direction will gain the greatest progress rather than trying to railroad clients towards one goal. Whenever we feel "resistance", we are trying to dominate an opponent, and they are right to perceive it as so. This is where it can be incredibly helpful to have multiple goals; it is better to make progress towards a secondary goal than to lose ground or waste energy going nowhere in a stalemate. Similarly, crushing a client's "resistance" (sense of agency) is inappropriate.
The same understanding applies to education. While there may be a time and a place for dominating opponents, should that occur, we might as well be honest that this is what is occurring--at least with ourselves. Maintaining deceit or avoidance of reality also diminishes our available psychological energy--will and attention.
One of the more difficult tasks that therapists supposedly face is the number and complexity of symptoms with certain clients. But this is largely a false problem when rapport exists, if we can expect that a client will return for the next appointment. Short of that being present, we are dealing in crisis management, not therapy. I don't know all that much about crisis management. Situational crises are analogous to fragmented personalities as well, so I am not really addressing issues such as schizophrenia, but this perspective may help identify when and how a stout ego--even if applied in apparent resistance to progress--can be a good thing.
The attitude shift I'm getting at comes from the realization that multiple goals allows one to adjust focus and techniques in such a way that resistance can be avoided, so I guess this is mostly a comment on difficult clients or difficult issues. The beginning of this shift (in terms of therapy) comes from recognizing the individuality of the other person along with their sense of threat. When we feel vulnerable, we are likely to feel threatened or pressured, reducing our ability to think creatively and increasing the likelihood and often the intensity of emotional reactivity. In therapy, clients often alternate between feeling threatened and soothed--both of these engendering low-creativity mind states, reduced agency. From my angle, I tend to be dissatisfied with simply soothing anxiety rather than increasing resilience and agency, and I think that idea is generally accepted, but I think many methods contradict that agreement.
The beginning of this shift (in terms of strategy) is a shift from a focus on superior force alone to a superior concentration of force. (Stick with me a few steps here, this makes ready sense once we arrive.) In boxing or war, we know we need to be prepared for both attack and defense--usually simultaneously. The best offensive strikes most often follow putting our opponent off balance, dispersing their defense while concentrating our offense. Hart highlights the idea, here, that in order to do so, it is very important to have multiple objectives. (This is where complexity comes back in, but as something that can support therapeutic goals rather than stress out therapists.) Just as it takes boxers or armies time to adjust their defenses--and they are vulnerable while adjusting--it takes people time to adjust their defensive mechanisms or resistance as they shift from resisting one perceived aim to another. That gap is rich with potential. When we have only one objective, our opponent can readily see where we are headed and align their defenses accordingly. When therapists find themselves caught in a head-to-head struggle, then, it is evidence of their own shortcoming.
Motivational interviewing addresses resistance by explicitly putting the focus on the client's motivation and allowing them the space to redefine the relationship as nonthreatening. The stages of change model provides multiple goals and also alleviates therapists' fear by outlining the process of change (reducing the "offensive" pressure).
The same force of will that is "resistance" in a conflictual relationship is "agency" from an individual or noncompetitive viewpoint. In these terms, then, the very idea of resistance as resistance saps a relationship of rapport and wears out anyone involved, reducing the force available for progress. Since clients cannot reasonably be expected to have a thorough theoretical background, this is always a shortcoming of the therapist when two conditions are met. The first condition, again, is that the situation not be a full-on crisis. Therapy as therapy does not occur during crises. Crisis management is called for, even if crisis management done well has therapeutic effects. The second condition is a workable degree of ego integrity. In other words, the ego must first be somewhat stabilized. Therapy as a talking cure--at least as is most often taught in training programs--is ineffective by itself when dealing with significant brain trauma, psychoses, and extreme drug effects.
Therapists wear themselves out by dispersing their own psychological energy or force, and clients do, too. Rather than diminishing force, progress occurs through an adequate application of force. So I'll define a therapist's realm of expertise as expertise in the excellent application of psychological force towards progress. (Since progress is constituted differently in various situations, I will leave "progress" undefined for now.) Essentially then, moments of head-to-head competition are healthy when we are playing or "exercising" (testing our strength). But otherwise, unless we are actually in a wartime situation, this application of force is stupid, wasteful, and unpleasant.
In fact, supporting someone's strength of agency comes from making explicit the availability of force and it's multiplicity of applications. In other words, when someone is willing to show us where they want to apply force, they show themselves. When we have multiple goals in mind--whether those goals are shared or not--we are able to use that knowledge to advance our goals. In war, those goals will not be shared, but in therapy, we can direct that force in whichever direction will gain the greatest progress rather than trying to railroad clients towards one goal. Whenever we feel "resistance", we are trying to dominate an opponent, and they are right to perceive it as so. This is where it can be incredibly helpful to have multiple goals; it is better to make progress towards a secondary goal than to lose ground or waste energy going nowhere in a stalemate. Similarly, crushing a client's "resistance" (sense of agency) is inappropriate.
The same understanding applies to education. While there may be a time and a place for dominating opponents, should that occur, we might as well be honest that this is what is occurring--at least with ourselves. Maintaining deceit or avoidance of reality also diminishes our available psychological energy--will and attention.
Updated Questionnaire
Here's an updated version of the questionnaire. I changed some of the questions in the hope of more directly addressing the topics I wanted to with each item.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Profile 4
These results are interesting for the similarity between (a) responses and (b) responses. Interpreting this set of results was a little different. Rather than trying to pick out what I thought to be most relevant from a large array of responses, this person chose which items there was a desired change for. Since it is relatively few, I don't have to do much sorting. We can get right to work.
E. Laughter, fun, curiosity.
1. 9,9
9. 4,7
16. 7,7
Rather than looking at straight scores, I focused on the differences mostly for this profile. Items 1 and 16 had no difference between (a) and (b). But within this set of three, that consistency is significant. This responder feels that they laugh more than most folks (rated as a 9) and are satisfied with how much they laugh (a:9, b:9). Looks like the picture of psychological health so far. But wait a minute. For the item on fun, there is a three-point difference. Is that a comment on oneself or the world? I can't answer that because my test item is not simple enough, but that needs to be addressed.
P. Avoidance, mental persistence, discipline.
7. 4,1
14. 7,4
17. 8,8
Well, it is rare to find people who are satisfied with their discipline. (As with most other profiles, I tend to begin interrogating sets of responses at this level.) This person finds their discipline to be satisfactory/perfect, but lists both other items at this level as differences of 3. On this set of results, there is only one difference of 4, so this is most likely significant (if my levels and items have any validity). For item 14, "Once I make up my mind, that's how it is," there is the desire to be less rigid. Maybe, then, discipline is working in a behavioral or action manner but it is harmful in a social, emotional, or motivational manner. Item 7, "I avoid thinking about anything that makes me uncomfortable," shows that there is more avoidance than desired. Certainly, these two responses (for items 7 and 14) are relevant to discipline. Are they relevant to changes in other areas that make this person uncomfortable? Is there a mental rigidity around desiring change in other areas or in admitting a desire for change in other areas? Probably.
U. Planning, intentional relaxation, complicated problems.
3. 8,8
11. 6,10
21. 6,8
Oh yeah. Here's our four-point difference. Number 11, "During work and at the end of the day, I am able to stay relaxed when I choose." Intentional relaxation is the single biggest desired difference listed in this score-set. While the numbers in this response set are unusual for what I've seen so far, this problem may be quite common. So far we know that this respondent is both more mentally avoidant and mentally rigid than preferred while seeing discipline as just right. Also, while laughing more than others, there is a desire for more fun in life. And the hang-up seems to be somewhere around intentional relaxation. This is different than distraction and all the bells and whistles our society provides, different than drugs and anything you can put into your body. This is about knowing how to relax when one chooses because one chooses. How much better would life be for all of us if we knew how to relax when we chose to? I know I don't have to mentally avoid (#7) anything I can be relaxed about. And I can also be mentally flexible (#14) when I can remain relaxed while paying attention to something.
Prognosis here is good. Diagnosis: lacking intentional relaxation. Here's the caveat, and it's a doozy. What happens to people who have been mentally rigid in a protective way for a long time? What happens when they do relax? Emotions come out. And since we don't need to protect ourselves and those around us from pleasant emotions, that means that unpleasant emotions are going to come out if this person learns intentional relaxation. The good news: you can handle it. The bad news: it probably won't be easy; most people don't avoid things they are already prepared to handle well. With as many responses where this respondent rates their self at where they would desire to be (10 of 21 times), it looks like the mental rigidity, when it begins to break down around self-identity, will unleash a...something. Maybe a drizzle, maybe a flood.
Three things need to happen.
1. Learn intentional relaxation techniques.
2. Expect unexpected sorrow, yearning, anger, blame, sense of betrayal, loss, shame, etc.
3. Recognize that this process may be old-school "cathartic" or it might be a walk in the park.
The comment written in for #14 was, "wish I was more willing to adapt". When people are able, they don't have to wish. In this situation, I would want two questions answered for me, "Why bother?" and then, "How?" My answer for why it is worth doing this is that it leads to greater appreciation and perhaps a greater sense of inspiration. The how part is more complex. Depending on the individual, there needs to be a mix of more or less social sharing, more or less relaxation and equanimity, probably exercise, increased communication skills (and effort concerning communication skills, I'd guess), and an adequate understanding of emotions--probably something more in the line of increased awareness and control of emotions rather than "sensitivity training". It's a type of control more like being on a sailboat than driving a tank. You can't control the wind and the waves, but if you have a sense of what you're doing, you can probably get where you want to go.
A real strength in this profile is #13: 10,10. Depending on the degree of emotional integration and mindfulness, these scores are usually a sign of inspired activity or good focus (with maybe only hints of inspiration or flow). Take this ability to concentrate and enjoyment of being immersed in difficult tasks and apply it to learning intentional relaxation and emotional awareness as the next difficult task. Make it something "to do". But it must be done in a new way. Since you've always felt able to be disciplined and follow through but you've also been able to avoid whatever you find too uncomfortable, you might end up learning a lot about relaxation and take the emotional stuff only for what is pleasant or relatively superficial/easy/comfortable. The real question here is one of how to do the personal introspection in one's own space while also opening up to other people to a greater degree and opening to one's own emotions to a greater degree. Emotions, from an evolutionary perspective, are ways for social animals to communicate and act in accord. When we close off certain emotions, we close off certain connections. When we open to those emotions and address them well, we embrace our potential for deeper, more loving, more interesting types of accord. Eventually, mindfulness helps, but for now--relaxation.
E. Laughter, fun, curiosity.
1. 9,9
9. 4,7
16. 7,7
Rather than looking at straight scores, I focused on the differences mostly for this profile. Items 1 and 16 had no difference between (a) and (b). But within this set of three, that consistency is significant. This responder feels that they laugh more than most folks (rated as a 9) and are satisfied with how much they laugh (a:9, b:9). Looks like the picture of psychological health so far. But wait a minute. For the item on fun, there is a three-point difference. Is that a comment on oneself or the world? I can't answer that because my test item is not simple enough, but that needs to be addressed.
P. Avoidance, mental persistence, discipline.
7. 4,1
14. 7,4
17. 8,8
Well, it is rare to find people who are satisfied with their discipline. (As with most other profiles, I tend to begin interrogating sets of responses at this level.) This person finds their discipline to be satisfactory/perfect, but lists both other items at this level as differences of 3. On this set of results, there is only one difference of 4, so this is most likely significant (if my levels and items have any validity). For item 14, "Once I make up my mind, that's how it is," there is the desire to be less rigid. Maybe, then, discipline is working in a behavioral or action manner but it is harmful in a social, emotional, or motivational manner. Item 7, "I avoid thinking about anything that makes me uncomfortable," shows that there is more avoidance than desired. Certainly, these two responses (for items 7 and 14) are relevant to discipline. Are they relevant to changes in other areas that make this person uncomfortable? Is there a mental rigidity around desiring change in other areas or in admitting a desire for change in other areas? Probably.
U. Planning, intentional relaxation, complicated problems.
3. 8,8
11. 6,10
21. 6,8
Oh yeah. Here's our four-point difference. Number 11, "During work and at the end of the day, I am able to stay relaxed when I choose." Intentional relaxation is the single biggest desired difference listed in this score-set. While the numbers in this response set are unusual for what I've seen so far, this problem may be quite common. So far we know that this respondent is both more mentally avoidant and mentally rigid than preferred while seeing discipline as just right. Also, while laughing more than others, there is a desire for more fun in life. And the hang-up seems to be somewhere around intentional relaxation. This is different than distraction and all the bells and whistles our society provides, different than drugs and anything you can put into your body. This is about knowing how to relax when one chooses because one chooses. How much better would life be for all of us if we knew how to relax when we chose to? I know I don't have to mentally avoid (#7) anything I can be relaxed about. And I can also be mentally flexible (#14) when I can remain relaxed while paying attention to something.
Prognosis here is good. Diagnosis: lacking intentional relaxation. Here's the caveat, and it's a doozy. What happens to people who have been mentally rigid in a protective way for a long time? What happens when they do relax? Emotions come out. And since we don't need to protect ourselves and those around us from pleasant emotions, that means that unpleasant emotions are going to come out if this person learns intentional relaxation. The good news: you can handle it. The bad news: it probably won't be easy; most people don't avoid things they are already prepared to handle well. With as many responses where this respondent rates their self at where they would desire to be (10 of 21 times), it looks like the mental rigidity, when it begins to break down around self-identity, will unleash a...something. Maybe a drizzle, maybe a flood.
Three things need to happen.
1. Learn intentional relaxation techniques.
2. Expect unexpected sorrow, yearning, anger, blame, sense of betrayal, loss, shame, etc.
3. Recognize that this process may be old-school "cathartic" or it might be a walk in the park.
The comment written in for #14 was, "wish I was more willing to adapt". When people are able, they don't have to wish. In this situation, I would want two questions answered for me, "Why bother?" and then, "How?" My answer for why it is worth doing this is that it leads to greater appreciation and perhaps a greater sense of inspiration. The how part is more complex. Depending on the individual, there needs to be a mix of more or less social sharing, more or less relaxation and equanimity, probably exercise, increased communication skills (and effort concerning communication skills, I'd guess), and an adequate understanding of emotions--probably something more in the line of increased awareness and control of emotions rather than "sensitivity training". It's a type of control more like being on a sailboat than driving a tank. You can't control the wind and the waves, but if you have a sense of what you're doing, you can probably get where you want to go.
A real strength in this profile is #13: 10,10. Depending on the degree of emotional integration and mindfulness, these scores are usually a sign of inspired activity or good focus (with maybe only hints of inspiration or flow). Take this ability to concentrate and enjoyment of being immersed in difficult tasks and apply it to learning intentional relaxation and emotional awareness as the next difficult task. Make it something "to do". But it must be done in a new way. Since you've always felt able to be disciplined and follow through but you've also been able to avoid whatever you find too uncomfortable, you might end up learning a lot about relaxation and take the emotional stuff only for what is pleasant or relatively superficial/easy/comfortable. The real question here is one of how to do the personal introspection in one's own space while also opening up to other people to a greater degree and opening to one's own emotions to a greater degree. Emotions, from an evolutionary perspective, are ways for social animals to communicate and act in accord. When we close off certain emotions, we close off certain connections. When we open to those emotions and address them well, we embrace our potential for deeper, more loving, more interesting types of accord. Eventually, mindfulness helps, but for now--relaxation.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Profile 2: Second Verse
E: Overall, what if a person conceptualized their spirituality or summarized their spiritual path in a paragraph to complement the survey?
T:That's one way of going at it. I am considering giving people a few options to choose from so that there is a write-in section where people get to fill in the blanks. I was thinking about asking for two stories that show something you want to change about yourself, three that add to that picture that show what you are proud of, and two more that round things out. I think I'll have to ask about who gets more out of reading and writing versus who gets more out of actually telling their story in conversation.
E: In your commentary on part one, I'll confirm that it’s the comparative phrasing that I was aversive to. But that would give us something to talk about if we were in a follow up session. Or you could tweak the phrasing.
T:One of the things that really stands out with aspirations is idealization (you give an example below). I think there has to be both room for disagreement--which will involve some unpopular bubble-bursting on all sides--as well as actual grit, for traction. I'm wondering whether it is good to keep this phrasing because when respondents go so far as to remark on it, that's worth noting. It could mean a few different things, but it might be worth having that comparative phrasing. I have to think about it and get more comments from more people.
E: Given your commentary for the second section, are you saying that my lower Part “b” answers can be accounted for because I’m female? I would like to work on discipline; I feel I’ve declined from the level of intensity that I maintained two years ago; I see the effects in my career progress and my body.
T:I'd not go so far as to say "accounted for", concerning those Purpose level responses. "Affected by" fits--just as my responses are affected by my experience as a male/man. I think that women are more likely, based on social upbringing and probably neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving at that level if they choose to. And they might be more likely to undervalue that level. Men seem more likely, based on social upbringing and neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving appreciation and emotional integration (which can be significantly supported by mindfulness practice). Of course, your own experience is more relevant to you than any theorizing, supported by evidence or otherwise. Being on the fanatical side of intensity (for you) a couple years back gives you direct experience in where the center, the balance is...for you. To check on whether I might be right about the gender stuff, see if you can empathize and relate with guys you have difficulty connecting with by recognizing that they are simply sometimes operating from a reliance on discipline and drive rather than relying on intentional relaxation (that they probably have not developed) and mindfulness along with emotional integration. You might already be better at emotional awareness and speaking about emotions than they are; the midway point is shared understanding and intentional relaxation. There's a lot more to say on this subject.
E: With a smile, I can confirm that your commentary for section three is an accurate interpretation of where I’m at-- the forefront as an example is with my career path. I’m seeing a career counselor (tonight was our fourth session), and I’m allowing the ambiguity of whether or not it’s helpful or producing "results" and just doing the work. In general, spontaneity thinly veils my being arrested or procrastinating (but not due to laziness but fear) in “career” planning. Planning and stick-to-itiveness are skills I want to develop in this area. I am aware of possibility.
T:Yeah, the Purpose and Understanding stuff go hand in hand. Although, at the further level of Appreciation, mindfulness and being able to maintain equanimity in the face of ambiguity is really important, if it has a weak base, it will be weak or off-target. Plenty of people miss what spontaneity actually is by distracting themselves (okay, ourselves). That's a Purpose-level, immature defense mechanism. When my purported "spontaneity" involves mental avoidance, it's probably closer to impulsivity than authentic spontaneity. The planning needs to be built on healthy discipline if you want it to be consistent rather than simply intense.
E: Commentary for Section four is also accurate. I’ll confirm that rather than unaware, I am aware and easily overwhelmed (though leaps and bounds more balanced and equinimous than, say, five years ago). So rather than full-blown panic attacks and pulling out my hair, I can, even after freak out, try to direct my attention back to tracking anxiety in my body and thoughts. After 20 minutes of focusing on tracking, they start to disappear.
T:Yup. This is also where having a strong career path lends to a strong social identity--very foundational for one's self identity. And since we are talking about the maturation of self-identity (since actual self may already be whatever it needs to be), a strong self-identity allows for backbone and flexibility. Having a strong self identity and being able to communicate that to others without double messaging lets us figure out what we can and cannot do for others. So it looks like you're putting the pieces together. Actually getting a little more of the Purpose level and Understanding level stuff together will set up your mindfulness/openness to let you sort of unfold into inspiration. For many people, inspiration is like happiness in that, if you work for it directly, you won't get it; but, if you work for the things that support it, it seems natural, maybe even unavoidable.
E: Your commentary in Section five makes sense and is agreeable. In the past I would have disagreed and pushed (and probably did). I went through a 2 year period of mostly consuming/reading than doing. Now I’m doing and with some consistency. A lot of the reading is falling away, not as unimportant but not relevant or necessary. A lot of what felt mystical falls away and consistent skills and strategies remain. Consistent tools of mindfulness. So it makes sense that growing into/ exploring mindful appreciation would be a focus.
T:One of the biggest differences between me and most people I've heard talk about mindfulness is that I emphasize that mindfulness is the basis for consistent inspiration when it is applied as mindful appreciation. That mindful appreciation allows attention to easily flow into a sense of unhindered-if-still-directed inspiration. Social identity is very important. Monks and professional athletes, surgeons, etc., all have very strong roles on which to base relatively stable social identities--roles that encourage the sort of focus that leads to flow states. For the rest of us, we will have to decide whether our professional roles are strong enough to allow that sort of focus...or we might look for that sort of focus in other areas of our lives. The sufi saint, Rabia said, "I gave up teaching because it is easier to fly peeling potatoes." For her, the activity of peeling potatoes gave her that pinpoint focus. For others, teaching is really their thing. Once we experience flow enough, especially if we experience it in different situations, we can begin to accurately identify (not completely, but authentically) as flow. It is very inspiring to know this is in me, in potential at least in every moment. This inspiration is our human birthright and we all feel, if having a hard time admitting to ourselves, that settling for less than inspiration is demeaning to ourselves and a diminishment of the human spirit.
Now, that's a hard pill to swallow. If you're not consistently inspired, you are neither accepting your "natural" birthright nor furthering human culture. As my good friend Steven says, though, "Take your medicine." Most of us have some sort of ideal self, a sense of who we'd like to be. When we don't live up to that ideal, we kick ourselves for it. We can be brutal. Being consistently aware of just how often and how far we are from that ideal can be crushing, so most people find ways of hiding or smudging that awareness. So what do we need in order to be able to swallow this pill? Well, I've already said it but it bears repeating. In order to handle what otherwise would be the mental strain of that awareness, some people deny their ideals and others become workaholics or religious fanatics or whatever. Instead of those methods, I recommend incorporating: the playful exuberance we are born with; the confidence that comes with concentration, discipline, and a sense of purpose (our purpose as humans is to become inspired); the basis--not fortress or prison--of a solid understanding along with the ability to relax when our minds spin nearly out of control; the mindful appreciation of our situation as human beings with unlimited potential that comes with personal integration and acceptance of emotionality and mortality; and the clarity and inspiration that come of identifying oneself with flow, openness, freedom.
There is another Sufi question/story that I always remember. One guy asks another, "Why is it that God makes his saints to look like everyday people?" And the answer is something like, "So that you will learn to treat every one you meet as one of God's saints." The integration of these aspects of human potential into our everyday lives allows us to do that. Even without the integration, we sometimes stumble upon it anyway. Your pushing for more than mindful appreciation was both the sign that you have the drive that is necessary for "spiritual" progress and the "spiritual" desire for what is yours. Claim it. It has been wonderful to work with you and learn with you.
T:That's one way of going at it. I am considering giving people a few options to choose from so that there is a write-in section where people get to fill in the blanks. I was thinking about asking for two stories that show something you want to change about yourself, three that add to that picture that show what you are proud of, and two more that round things out. I think I'll have to ask about who gets more out of reading and writing versus who gets more out of actually telling their story in conversation.
E: In your commentary on part one, I'll confirm that it’s the comparative phrasing that I was aversive to. But that would give us something to talk about if we were in a follow up session. Or you could tweak the phrasing.
T:One of the things that really stands out with aspirations is idealization (you give an example below). I think there has to be both room for disagreement--which will involve some unpopular bubble-bursting on all sides--as well as actual grit, for traction. I'm wondering whether it is good to keep this phrasing because when respondents go so far as to remark on it, that's worth noting. It could mean a few different things, but it might be worth having that comparative phrasing. I have to think about it and get more comments from more people.
E: Given your commentary for the second section, are you saying that my lower Part “b” answers can be accounted for because I’m female? I would like to work on discipline; I feel I’ve declined from the level of intensity that I maintained two years ago; I see the effects in my career progress and my body.
T:I'd not go so far as to say "accounted for", concerning those Purpose level responses. "Affected by" fits--just as my responses are affected by my experience as a male/man. I think that women are more likely, based on social upbringing and probably neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving at that level if they choose to. And they might be more likely to undervalue that level. Men seem more likely, based on social upbringing and neurophysiology, to need to make more of a point (on average) to work at improving appreciation and emotional integration (which can be significantly supported by mindfulness practice). Of course, your own experience is more relevant to you than any theorizing, supported by evidence or otherwise. Being on the fanatical side of intensity (for you) a couple years back gives you direct experience in where the center, the balance is...for you. To check on whether I might be right about the gender stuff, see if you can empathize and relate with guys you have difficulty connecting with by recognizing that they are simply sometimes operating from a reliance on discipline and drive rather than relying on intentional relaxation (that they probably have not developed) and mindfulness along with emotional integration. You might already be better at emotional awareness and speaking about emotions than they are; the midway point is shared understanding and intentional relaxation. There's a lot more to say on this subject.
E: With a smile, I can confirm that your commentary for section three is an accurate interpretation of where I’m at-- the forefront as an example is with my career path. I’m seeing a career counselor (tonight was our fourth session), and I’m allowing the ambiguity of whether or not it’s helpful or producing "results" and just doing the work. In general, spontaneity thinly veils my being arrested or procrastinating (but not due to laziness but fear) in “career” planning. Planning and stick-to-itiveness are skills I want to develop in this area. I am aware of possibility.
T:Yeah, the Purpose and Understanding stuff go hand in hand. Although, at the further level of Appreciation, mindfulness and being able to maintain equanimity in the face of ambiguity is really important, if it has a weak base, it will be weak or off-target. Plenty of people miss what spontaneity actually is by distracting themselves (okay, ourselves). That's a Purpose-level, immature defense mechanism. When my purported "spontaneity" involves mental avoidance, it's probably closer to impulsivity than authentic spontaneity. The planning needs to be built on healthy discipline if you want it to be consistent rather than simply intense.
E: Commentary for Section four is also accurate. I’ll confirm that rather than unaware, I am aware and easily overwhelmed (though leaps and bounds more balanced and equinimous than, say, five years ago). So rather than full-blown panic attacks and pulling out my hair, I can, even after freak out, try to direct my attention back to tracking anxiety in my body and thoughts. After 20 minutes of focusing on tracking, they start to disappear.
T:Yup. This is also where having a strong career path lends to a strong social identity--very foundational for one's self identity. And since we are talking about the maturation of self-identity (since actual self may already be whatever it needs to be), a strong self-identity allows for backbone and flexibility. Having a strong self identity and being able to communicate that to others without double messaging lets us figure out what we can and cannot do for others. So it looks like you're putting the pieces together. Actually getting a little more of the Purpose level and Understanding level stuff together will set up your mindfulness/openness to let you sort of unfold into inspiration. For many people, inspiration is like happiness in that, if you work for it directly, you won't get it; but, if you work for the things that support it, it seems natural, maybe even unavoidable.
E: Your commentary in Section five makes sense and is agreeable. In the past I would have disagreed and pushed (and probably did). I went through a 2 year period of mostly consuming/reading than doing. Now I’m doing and with some consistency. A lot of the reading is falling away, not as unimportant but not relevant or necessary. A lot of what felt mystical falls away and consistent skills and strategies remain. Consistent tools of mindfulness. So it makes sense that growing into/ exploring mindful appreciation would be a focus.
T:One of the biggest differences between me and most people I've heard talk about mindfulness is that I emphasize that mindfulness is the basis for consistent inspiration when it is applied as mindful appreciation. That mindful appreciation allows attention to easily flow into a sense of unhindered-if-still-directed inspiration. Social identity is very important. Monks and professional athletes, surgeons, etc., all have very strong roles on which to base relatively stable social identities--roles that encourage the sort of focus that leads to flow states. For the rest of us, we will have to decide whether our professional roles are strong enough to allow that sort of focus...or we might look for that sort of focus in other areas of our lives. The sufi saint, Rabia said, "I gave up teaching because it is easier to fly peeling potatoes." For her, the activity of peeling potatoes gave her that pinpoint focus. For others, teaching is really their thing. Once we experience flow enough, especially if we experience it in different situations, we can begin to accurately identify (not completely, but authentically) as flow. It is very inspiring to know this is in me, in potential at least in every moment. This inspiration is our human birthright and we all feel, if having a hard time admitting to ourselves, that settling for less than inspiration is demeaning to ourselves and a diminishment of the human spirit.
Now, that's a hard pill to swallow. If you're not consistently inspired, you are neither accepting your "natural" birthright nor furthering human culture. As my good friend Steven says, though, "Take your medicine." Most of us have some sort of ideal self, a sense of who we'd like to be. When we don't live up to that ideal, we kick ourselves for it. We can be brutal. Being consistently aware of just how often and how far we are from that ideal can be crushing, so most people find ways of hiding or smudging that awareness. So what do we need in order to be able to swallow this pill? Well, I've already said it but it bears repeating. In order to handle what otherwise would be the mental strain of that awareness, some people deny their ideals and others become workaholics or religious fanatics or whatever. Instead of those methods, I recommend incorporating: the playful exuberance we are born with; the confidence that comes with concentration, discipline, and a sense of purpose (our purpose as humans is to become inspired); the basis--not fortress or prison--of a solid understanding along with the ability to relax when our minds spin nearly out of control; the mindful appreciation of our situation as human beings with unlimited potential that comes with personal integration and acceptance of emotionality and mortality; and the clarity and inspiration that come of identifying oneself with flow, openness, freedom.
There is another Sufi question/story that I always remember. One guy asks another, "Why is it that God makes his saints to look like everyday people?" And the answer is something like, "So that you will learn to treat every one you meet as one of God's saints." The integration of these aspects of human potential into our everyday lives allows us to do that. Even without the integration, we sometimes stumble upon it anyway. Your pushing for more than mindful appreciation was both the sign that you have the drive that is necessary for "spiritual" progress and the "spiritual" desire for what is yours. Claim it. It has been wonderful to work with you and learn with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)