The solution to the modern human being

This is purely hypothetical; and a little bit tongue-in-cheek. But I feel like if I would’ve done life all over with the knowledge that I have now, my number one priority would’ve been to make as much money as possible As quickly as possible.

Let me say right off, I don’t think that most people should do this. Greed is not good. Let me just leave it at that until the end of this post. 

So let me qualify this.

As a person in this modern world, a philosopher and a counselor, I am more concerned with what actually is as opposed to what ought to be. I cannot be sure what someone else is supposed to do. As well, I’m not really sure what the world is supposed to do either. I have very little comprehension of what the universe is supposed to do.

I think the basic and fundamental problem of all mental issues, the foundation of modern mental health, is the inability to see things as they are. Mental health, just as a loose definition of working definition right here, has to do with the discrepancy between what a person thinks, and feels and behaves, compared to what they ought to, which is to say in comparison to what they think the world appears as.  and most often what a person thinks the world actually is is really shaded and distorted by what they think it ought to be.

My philosopher joins up with my counselor by saying before we even get to that kind of formula, before I even begin to try and figure out what this person in front of me thinks that ought to occur or how they be, or how the world is supposed to be, one of the first priorities is to begin to get them to notice what is actually occurring, Be aware of things how they actually are before We start making judgments upon them.

Now I weight my philosopher by my counselor. I do not think that philosophy by itself gets very far. That’s just my personal solution to the problem of philosophy. And if you want to try and understand how I see philosophy as indeed an identifiable object of the universe, you can start looking back at the posts I’ve been writingfor the past, I don’t know how long it’s been, six years eight years? or maybe you could look at a couple books I wrote and maybe. Or maybe a few of the papers that I’ve put on academia EDU and stuff.

Anyways. I don’t mean to get into all the ins and outs of mental health. Here.

I mean to give context to why I say if I could begin my life all over again Knowing what I know now, I would have made it my number one priority to make as much money as possible. Of course the close second would be human compassion. But I wouldn’t let my individual relationships with people interfere in me making as much money as possible as quickly as possible. But neither would I let the act of making money, nor the glamour that money tends to enslave people through, dictate my sense of self in the world. and I mean this in the way that would I would instruct my past self to do would be to make as much money as possible, invest that money. And then stop worrying about making money and then concern myself with Being and giving back to the world. if you have enough money, you can do anything that you want to do, whether it is water ski for the rest your life, become a successful academic, run for president, or just travel the world being homeless.

Like I said this is a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek hypothetical simulation. But I believe it has some merits.

Because the fact of the matter is that if you have enough money then 70% of your problems are eliminated, at least as much as they Can be. What we don’t realize when we’re children, most of us, is that old Hebrew kind of saying, “if you don’t have your health, what have you got?”

One only realize this as they get older. Because it’s been my personal experience that my mind really doesn’t change very much. The person that I feel that I am and think that I am and believe that I am really hasn’t changed very much since probably my late 20s. yes, life experiences has caused me to alter perhaps how I view the world, and how I view the situation in various situations, but who I inherently feel that I am and how I think how I approach the world really has not changed hardly at all.

But what has changed is my body stops functioning the way that it used to, the way that my mind think it should the way it Ott. So, the people that are very wealthy have that one in the pocket. For sure we don’t know everything, but money is the golden door to whatever sort of healthcare, the best healthcare that, literally, money can buy. Even if it’s some sort of holistic healthcare that doesn’t require any money. At least you have the money if you need it!

Also if you have enough money you don’t ever have to worry about a place to live, you don’t have to worry about what you’re going to eat.

The only thing left after having plenty of money is whether or not I feel comfortable with myself in The world.

And I would argue that this is the preoccupation with most people, and is the reason why most people don’t make money their main interest, because there’s like 80% of what else is going on Hass to do with how they feel about themselves in the world. And then this preoccupation with self just makes people kind of make whatever money that they think they should and we have the basically 90% of the worlds population right there, weather poverty stricken or upper class.

And I do not think it is proper to resort to modern statistics topointto the majority of say poverty stricken people who can’t get out of poverty. Because that view is an “ought” view.

Reality and truth of the matter is that some people do indeed see poverty as something that they are attempting to get out of and then they do.

Now I’m not making judgments to say that the people who don’t, like, somethings wrong with them. Because again that is an ought, that is a judgment. I’m not making judgments here. Of course there’s a huge problem with poverty and power in the world. Of course. I’m not making an argument that that is not the case or that somethings wrong with them.

*

I like to bring up something that Bono from the band U2 said Back in the 1990s.

Now, people probably don’t understand it nowadays, but if you were there back in the 90s, you would understand.

I think it was an interview with MTV or Rolling Stone magazine or something, and he said that Americans are the only ones who play rock ‘n’ roll and then don’t wanna make money from it or don’t want to be famous, Have some issue about being popular.. I forget the exact quote. But what he was saying for the time was very true. Because punk rock and what had become popular then known as “grunge”, which was really punk rock starting to make money, somehow the American culture –at least on the one side you have the hippie Grateful Dead culture revival, and then on the other side you have the grunge punk rock starting to make money –both of the sides had issues with capitalism. Both sides had issues between what is authentic art and then making money from it.

Innoway, I think that pervades our sense of modern identity even today. Because somehow we feel guilty if I point out the exception of people in poverty who actually make it their life’s goal to get out of poverty, whereas I don’t so much in this case, in this post right here, rely on the fact that the overwhelming number of people in poverty have no way of getting out of it .

So it seems to me that money really has nothing to do with how one feels about oneself in the world because ultimately everyone is concerned about how they feel about themselves in the world regardless of their situation. Most people are preoccupied with feeling OK. We can bring in Maslow hierarchy of needs if you want to kind of measure this up, but I would figure in our actual current society, aside from what “should be ethically”, all of those needs have do with money, except maybe the highest one of self-actualization, which really then doesn’t matter how much money you make. But the rest of the needs can be solved by having enough money. That’s just a fact of our modern day.

The caveat is that I would not recommend this to most people in the world. I would not say that everyone just needs to concentrate on making as much money as possible, For the fact that most people generally live their lives unaware and are motivated and guided by this unawareness. And it is this unawareness of self and the world for what it is, which allows greed and the power fetish of money to overcome peoples activity.

So what do you guys think? 

And as I will say at the end, again, most people should not do this. Yeah idea that everyone should pursue as much money as possible is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever imagIne.

Lol 😝

The Crisis of Modernity

A very good essay-reading. It’s only like a half hour so it’s very accessible and easy to listen to. And does an excellent job as explaining the situation.

Then, you might wish to segue into an essay published in the Journal of counseling and family therapy:

An Essay Concerning the Possibility of a Unitive Theory of Counseling

@

https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/vol3/iss1/4/

One might notice the parallels yet allow for a distinction in what the purpose of the philosophical discussion is in the video compared to the purpose involved in the proposal for a unitive theory of counseling.

Are they both drawing from the same resource, yet manifesting each to their particular domain?

While it may appear as though the video is saying some thing, or coming to a different conclusion than what the essay is saying, what in actuality they are they really presenting in application?

What is occurring in the juxtaposition?

Why the Coronavirus does not ‘Want’ to Change Our Lives

On Covid-19 and the Actor-Network Theory.

How the Coronavirus ‘Wants’ to Change Our Lives

———- “of course the virus doesnt want anything…”

The tack I now take is towards people not being miserable; I am not really anymore trying to explain some grand sense of the universe into which everyone must fit. But of course those two kinds of approaches on sensibility can overlap.

Image copyright here

I am falling away from the belief and intention that there is a noble and knowable unity to which knowledge is attached. I lean towards what has been being told to us for a while, that whatever knowledge is, it is ultimately human knowledge and nothing else, Yet, and so much as it is “human knowledge and nothing else” these two facets necessarily inscribe a world that is not being recognized. 

This is to say that I’m pretty sure there is some grand noble big truth to which knowledge must be attached AND There is not. The truth is is that both of these situations exist simultaneously without having to fall or reduce into the other for another big T unity of truth. The truth is uncomfortable. The truth of the world is uncomfortable and uncertain.

The plain facts of the matter is that most human beings are not so open minded and flexible. Most human beings want to find a concept that Makes them comfortable. yet at the same time, Most human beings are rigid in their concept of self other, and world. And this is OK, but my job as a counselor is not necessarily to have a rigid formulation of truth into which these people seeking comfort must for themselves to be comfortable.

It feels and is becoming more apparent to me that it is this rigidness that is the source of most “amicable to the couch” mental disturbance or issues. It is not necessarily that the structure of one’s mind is incorrect or that the way that they are thinking about things is incorrect, or that there is some “illness” that is attacking them. But, it is possible that such formulations will help them to get over their mental situation that they find problematic.

Nevertheless we might say that mental issues arise from the inflexible ideal of self attempting to impart upon that in flexibility a certain flexibility in approaching that particular problem. This is extremely difficult enactment, and yet, if one could be just a little more flexible in their self-concept, the application would become rather simple.



Within this flexible notion of world in which we are not able to Become separated, by this flexibility, we should see that there are different types of human beings. Just as a human being is not the same as a child, is not the same as an adolescent, is not the same as a young adult, is not the same as an adult, nor an older adult, nor aged, nor near death. There is not one comprehensive human mental state or approach that works successfully to accommodate the human being from birth until death, just as there is not one manner by which we designate a human being must live, must think, the foods they must eat, the way they must dance, what they find funny…

AND There Are indeed systems toward helping human beings with mental issues that will work with different types and situations of human beings. For example, since my recent post had to do with psychoanalysis and particularly Lacan, there will be people for whom psychoanalysis will be effective, but it does not mean that the people  for whom psychoanalysis is not effective require them to work harder or something, or requires that the psychoanalytic theory needs to be better worked. 

The effort of counseling, seems to me, requires that the counselor be humble in their estimation of theory and practice, be amicable to the reality that their particular theory of what mental issues are and how they are treated is not true, that is, in so much as there may be another theory which will be effective for that individual person.

Now, this flies in the face of not only what and the majority of human beings think, how they think of themselves and their own thoughts and the world and universe and how they do for those various cosmological narrations to grand narratives, but also I’m sure very offensive to the counselors themselves.  The reason for this is people in general but practitioners of any sort of doing must believe that what they believe is true. And because of this self centrality socially speaking we have the idea of “opinion” and relativity as a grand narrative which coincidentally coincides with the physical contingency of 20th century physics as a colloquial explanation.

We know that even many counselors (but particularly psychiatrists and psychologists) for the most part are rigid in their ideals of what mental health is what mental illness is because hardly none (most likely) Will even take the 30 seconds to think about what relativity and opinion means for that pet theory, but will rather stick to their guns about “personal truths”; this is to say that Everyone gets to have their own personal truth as long as that personal truth coheres in and correlates with a grande system which tells us about the “big truth, the “actual truth” of what mental health is within the actually true universe that has been bestowed upon the big idea of humanity in general as we move through this big picture of history.

The point I’m making here is not that everything is not relative, but that we do not have a sensible and coherent philosophy of how relativity actually functions in application. Rather, we have a bunch of self centralized ideals attempting to assert upon one another and argue with each other which one has the better contact with the great transcendent big T truth. 

OK!

Now to the reason why I reposted that post on actor network theory.

The disclaimer in that post that I quoted above, “of course coronavirus doesn’t want anything”, is a blatant statement of how actor network theory is being commandeered toward the faith in the big truth, and not conveying a proper understanding what actor network theory is actually saying about the condition of the human being of knowledge.

For my question would be: why is not the coronavirus wanting anything?

And I’m going to leave you readers with that, that is you readers who are actually trying to think…

…I’ll also leave you with the strange idea that what I’m talking about above does not mean that counseling has to do with “whatever works”.

🌈 have an excellent corona day. 🌏



x

The Local Psyche Global. (Lacan part 2)

Ok.

The question on the table is two parts:

  1. If The modern world is really the unrecognized embodiment of the reflection of one’s self, which is the the factual state of individual alienation, then what does it even mean that the alienated self-reflection is looking at cars, trees, space, planets, stars, deers, etc….?
  2.  What does this have to do with ego development, modernity, and philosophy

 

Of Firsts.

Philosophy can be said to be involved with a reduction which has already occurred.  What I call conventional philosophy sees the effort of philosophy to be the uncovering or discovering of the original reduction.  The word we use for this original reduction is ontology.

Philosophers love Lacan and psychoanalysis in general more than the psychologists. I asked my Theories instructor once about Lacan, and she said that she had never even heard of any psychotherapist who uses him, that his theory is very complex.  But in fact, Freudian psychotherapists in general are a minority now days, and I suspect mainly on the East Coast of the U.S and in Europe. (There is a comment to be made on this but it will have to appear elsewhere.)

I don’t prescribe to the Freudian lineage for psychotherapy.  But I do enjoy Lacan and often via. Zizek’s use of Lacan’s theory.  The question above that I pose really concerns how these two worlds might meet, or, how they interact or come together.

The reader should understand that it is always possible to come up with a theory about what the material is we deal with in mental health and how we treat it which will work or produce good mental health outcomes. Though Freud was the first popular psychotherapist in the sense we think of it now, very quickly his theory about ‘what and how’ stopped holding water for the treatment of patients and clients (medical doctors, neurologists and psychologists usually treat patients, while counselors more often treat clients). Freud, and the psychodynamic psychologists who followed him, believe in a very elaborate structure of the mind which functions primarily through various polemical psychic situations and motions involving an invisible energy.  Psychic energy was posed without any actual evidence of such energy. We are able to produce electricity, measure it, and put it to use in predictable ways, and Freud was speculating that we would be able to find the same things with psychic energy, but he could not, nor anyone since then.  But the system sounded really good; when you get into it, it does appear to have some sensibility to it.  But, like Freud, when we take that idea too far and attempt to use the model to fill in more and more evident holes, the more elaborate structural interactions required to account for the new issues simply become so vague and involved that what ever at one time appeared like some sensible dynamic of structure, fails. That is, unless you are really sold on the beauty of the simple beginning theoretical structure.

I would say then that the reason why philosophy like psychoanalysis but Lacan so much is that it begins pretty good.  Freud’s theory appears really nice in the beginning and seems to make sense.  So without having to actually observe anything beyond the initial evidence, Freudian psychoanalysis is fabulous, and philosophy that likes Lacan is usually about first or reduced things: Ontology is about what things truly are, how they are first;  epistemology is about how thought must first be in order for everything else to be able to be thought. So, the Freudian structure of the mind The Super-Ego is the rules or norms; the ID,  involves the ‘unbound’ instinctual drive which produces libidinal energy, and the Ego is that which harness both  extremities: the philosophical ratio, or the Rational Mind, so to speak; this fits very well into methods that involve first things: 1,2,3…presto!  It is simple and it makes a lot of very easy sense without having to think about it too much.  It also, quite coincidentally, reflects the philosophy which was arising around the same time as industrial science of the 19th century: Hegel, Marx, Freuerbach and many Enlightenment others basically were already philosophizing around these very same ideas.  But as I have said a few times already, when we apply them to any world that we actually encounter, this ‘philosophical mind’ falls quickly short of accounting. And this is to say, like I said above, unless you are really sold on the theory.

The philosophical question here, then, becomes whether or not we are fitting reality into the theory, or developing theory from what is being observed?

Enter modern capitalism.

I submit, that most conventional Western philosophy suffers from the attempt of fitting what is observed into the theory.  Hence, the reason(s) why philosophy often enjoys a psychoanalytical involvement with philosophy.

So it is that I came across our question above: Why should alienation have anything do with the world we are coming upon? In what way does the “mirror stage” of Lacan have anything to do with modernity beyond the theorizing?

I submit, that the reason is because if indeed we make an ontological theory of what is observed, actually form or develop a theory upon what is being presented to sense, then the Self no longer appears alienated from the world.

Some may know that Lacan said something like “the mind is structured like a language”.  This is because he was making a comment upon what is inherently problematic about modern subjectivity.  This is, the subject is always in context, but the nature of the operating psyche is that is does not function as though it arises in context, but rather as though it arises indeed from nothing.  This is to say that the modern subject understands and thus operates itself as not a true subject (arising always in context) but as indeed a subject only in a thoughtful reflection of itself, as though the thinker itself exists outside of the world and as indeed the essential nature of Being is dichotomy: object and subject.

So, the next question (#1), is what this has to do with the presence of the parents for the development of the ego, and why does this have anything to do with actually being in the world?

1655-ego-depletion-an-influential-theory-in-psychology-640

A common and modern belief is that the ego is not a modern ideal but a human one.

Experiments in Human Kindness, part 2

In the first post, we sought the imperative which is determining a persons behavior as a means to be able to be considerate of them and to show them kindness. And, as well, ourselves.

We might then step next into understanding that what we see simply as the human being doing or behaving, as they might have careers or attitudes, enjoy certain things and not others, such as sports instead of Fantasy movies, or buying things, and even living certain lifestyles or having intention toward life goals such as retirement or not, or making lots of money, or helping people, or doing drugs, as well as belief and style of dress —

All these cohere to exhibit different kinds of humans being, different kinds of Beings that are human.

We might begin to see in a different light the meaning of the Eastern sentiment namaste.

x

Revealing the Substance of the Gap: Is the Tragedy of Peterson the Irony of Zizek ?

The Tragedy of JBP

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2020/02/22/the-tragedy-of-jbp/
— Read on evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2020/02/22/the-tragedy-of-jbp/

“Come down, you distanced travelers, from your great intellectual heights, down to where we humans can meet, again, eye to eye.” –c.n.

Wow. Makes one think.

…and kinda makes one sad as well.

I decided that I’m just gonna post the comment that I put on the original post:

“Damn. Makes one wonder about celebrity. You know, I thought he had a pretty good point, I think Peterson has a pretty good point to make so far as psychology and mental health, and then some of his philosophical support I think it’s pretty good but it just goes to show that the kind of continental intellectual left… I mean, if I can say “we“, we’re kind of mean sometimes.

But I always thought Peterson was making a good point from a mental health standpoint. But it seems nowadays especially since Zizek. That a whole intellectualized group of people are really unthinking when it comes to their assertion of theory and what should make a proper argument and things like that.

When you look at the debate between Z and P. I really think that Zizek saw this of Peterson and was kind of giving him a break. People saw this is kind of like a sucky debate, but I think it was a really good debate because Zizek had the good sense to be able to see there was no point in him unloading all his theoretical BS upon someone who could give a shit about it; which is to say, and I have made this argument too and some of my posts — and I even sent Peterson a letter of what is this debate about really, but I didn’t insult him in it — that Peterson really doesn’t understand what Zizek And the generalized Continental force is really saying Nor what it’s really doing. And I have made arguments other places in my blog that I’m not really sure that the Continental’s, and the generalized group of people that support that kind of intellectualism, I.e. the Fans, really know what they’re talking about either, but they’re vicious, they really don’t think about humanity as this thing that they are a part of as a group. It appears sometimes that the Continental Intellectual Fans behave as though everyone needs to be ultra rational and that this rationality supersedes any sort of compassion or considerations of what the being of human actually is.”

…And honestly, I wonder if that is the present Continental philosophical conundrum aggravated and expressed as phenomenalist correlationalism: the frustration  involved in not being able to breach what is correlational in their existence thus being forced out, or projected, upon the object of their frustration: Peterson and his ‘weak’ philosophical-intellectualism. Yet, ironically, when you take away his Christian motif, what is left so far as a psychological approach is really the problem of ideological correlationalism,  so it would seem that Continental Philosophy. is exactly the problem Peterson psychology is aiming at. 

Peterson asks how can we use reason to make these large jumps to great ideological structures in which we are encompassed if we don’t first come to terms with who we are as being, who we are as essentially a human entity, so to speak?. He suggests that the kind of philosophy that finds the subject within these ideological structures and then attempts to solve the problem of subjects interacting according to these ideological structures, are itself the manifestation of a psychological mental health problem.

Then he further suggests that the solution of this problem is to be found within oneself, to look and see what people (we, me, I) are doing when they are using these ideas, these ideologies, to situate people in structures of power. That the solutions to our current world problems are not to be found in trying to manipulate ideological structures that influence what the subject is within this ideological space. That the ideological space is indeed the problematic space. Rather, if we want to find a solution to the problems of our world we need to get honest with ourselves and start with ourselves as the fundamental philosophical problem.

And indeed, while everyone loves to read Zizek as talking about politics only, Zizek really is indicating nearly the same thing when you begin to understand and take ownership of what is occurring as discourse, within the material world, so far as we are subjects within it. But Zizek tries to imply this kind of situation, Attempts to show the problem involved in ideological situations such that the only way to solve this problem is come back to the original source, the Hegalian-Lacanian historical consciousness, so to speak.

The “parallax gap” is that fundamental space that is left out of political focus: the subject. The Lacan angle thus shows how ideological posture function through a basic historical trope that is the ‘other end’ of the Master Signifier; the ‘petite subject a’ and the ‘barred subject’ are aspects of the discursive symbols for what is imagined to be substantial, or the ‘big other’.

Lacan says that consciousness behaves like discourse, but this is to say that the problem begins in the psychoanalytical mirror stage where the child identifies with the image and thus becomes ‘castrated’ to him or herself to become indeed the ideological subject, the basic and fundamental mistake as the heart of all political struggle.

But no one desires to realize the truth of what we are dealing with, hence what is Real is always held at bay, so the subject of this initial trauma (of constantly being confronted with a truth of the reflection it has identified with) replays the event through this post-traumatic fantasy which keeps the subject limited by a freedom of the image. Emancipation is thus always recouped by the political ideology to manifest as the mechanisms for capitalism.

Recalling the Zizek/Peterson debate, we can see how both were centered upon the same problem, working together in a dialectical manner in the effort of revealing the oppressed subject which lay at the center of the ‘mistaken’ views upon the ‘material’. One one hand Zizek playing from the ‘negative’ , and on the other Peterson playing from the ‘positive’ iterations of the emancipated subject.

Wow. Thanks for your little research on Peterson because actually just the other day I was wondering what he was doing. I figured he just kind of settled back into his academic career and was kind a like a, well that was interesting. But it kind of seems like it really affected him, and not in a good way.”

Counseling and Philosophy

Counselors are not the scientists. The scientists are the psychologists, neurologists, social workers and psychiatrists. These latter tend to defer to the numbers into the Givens with Little question.

The counselors are the ones that acknowledge science can at best account for only a small portion of the human experience and why anyone may behave in the way that they do. 

It is plain despite the faith in science that psychiatry and such would invest in the scientific/medical model of mental health, that while the bones and organs can fit into such a organ->problem->symptom scheme of disease, the mind and mental issues do not fit simply into such a model of brain. That anything which has to do with the psyche, mind and health must necessarily concern philosophical foundations of knowledge, and not merely scientific appearances.

How Can We Overcome Our Fear Of Death? The Approach of The Psychotherapist Yalom. (Part 1)

How Can We Overcome Our Fear Of Death? The Approach of The Psychotherapist Yalom. (Part 1)

How Can We Overcome Our Fear Of Death? The Approach of The Psychotherapist Yalom. (Part 1) written by Dr Linda Berman.
— Read on waysofthinking.co.uk/2020/01/21/overcoming-our-fear-of-death-the-approach-of-the-psychotherapist-yalom/