"Truth is a liar's invention." A Reading for happy Skepticism.

in #philosophy5 years ago (edited)

Many years ago, in a counselling situation with a client,

I listened to the explanation attempts of the woman who, on the one hand, believed herself to be safe in the assumption that she had been sexually abused in some way as a young child, but who, on the other hand, could not evoke any tangible memory of it. I noticed how she wrestled with this subject and how it seemed to be of great importance to her. But she came to the other sessions with again very important topics, which made the previous one seem like something completely meaningless. So we moved from meeting to meeting and in all of this I felt that the client was trying to pick out different pathologies that she gave meaning to and wanted to mix it with her personal life experiences. She listed various physical limitations and illnesses and yet she seemed to me far too healthy and mentally alert for that and I said to her at some point: "I think that you take care of all your shortcomings and illnesses like a loving nurse."

I felt a cheerful humour in this statement because it gave me a very funny inner image, almost like a drawing cartoon, which I might have seen at some point. We both laughed.


By Souter, David Henry, 1862-1935, artist - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs divisionunder the digital ID cph.3g12161. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4213601)

I did not express any direct doubt about her attempts at explanation,

since I do not know what concrete experiences this client had when she was a child; nor did she know. However, I did sense a doubt that these problems, usually negative or difficult or impossible to deal with, seemed to me to be a hindrance to achieving what the client said she was striving for. I asked questions like: "What even worse would it take for you not to be happy and healthy? And also: "What would happen if, by magic, from tomorrow onward, you were healthy and happy"? Since she said these things... But she had come for a completely different thing, which, because she had given herself a certain diagnosis - procrastination - would prevent her from doing the other thing.

I basically thought: "It seems to give her a certain joy and satisfaction to deal with her shortcomings so intensively ..." and I quested that instead of the reality she had assumed up to that point that one "has to suffer" from a certain diagnosis, could it not be otherwise? So I offered her to want to feel her reality, which she felt as "just so and so", also as "different".

I worked as an advocate of paradox:

"If distraction is so much more beautiful for you than the thing you supposedly want to work on, then choose distraction. Who is telling you it has to be otherwise?"


Probably one fundamental distinction - in terms of interrelationships - between the Buddhist worldview and the Western worldview is for me the following:

While the thirsty for knowledge seeks constant explanations for something that happened in the past and to which it tries to establish a causal relationship in the present, Buddhist teaching radically shortens this path.

This past can mean the recent past - just the last minute - up to the passed past - the moment you were born.


Another client, who gave me a very vivid and positively impressive account of her escape from Afghanistan at the age of 15, I asked her what she enjoyed most about her escape from this life-threatening situation when she finally arrived here safely. And she said: "a warm bed and good food."

Since I supported her about her professional intentions (she was 18 at the time) and I wanted to know if she was afraid of something before an upcoming job interview, she said "No. I am not afraid." I wasn't sure if she would give that answer, but I suspected she would because of her history. Why had I asked this question? I suppose it was because three years had passed since her successful escape and she might have had accepted a warm bed and good food as a matter of course and could now develop similar fears to those who no longer have cozy beds and good food as a subject of their considerations.

What I mean by this is not to diminish the traumatic experiences that everyone can imagine (and most, if not all of us, have had them), but rather, precisely because of these experiences, to bring to light the resources that helped them to see things in a different relationship, other than through the glasses of pain or inadequacy.

Any causal relationship that we consider as such is only significant because we lead it.

We could also use countless other causes for consideration, but we have chosen this particular one. Anyone who tries to accurately reflect a particular event that occurred in the past is likely to have experienced how difficult it is. Not only that, if one were to ask how others involved in the event might have seen the event from their perspective, one would come up with many different answers. For a disgruntlement between two people there is no unambiguousness in the cause, it can be completely unconscious, non-verbal and culturally conditioned physical signals that actually cause this disgruntlement and yet we often look for conscious answers.

Becoming lost in reasoning of the reasoning

The Buddhist teachings could be interpreted something like this:
The search for a concrete cause - through outward communication first - is futile, ...
... what counts is rather the perception of "disgruntlement". You can, without knowing the reason, hence without reasoning, influence this mood for your part by getting yourself to stop being disgruntled. But as long as you remain stuck in the research of causes, countless reasons and speculations will present themselves to you and you will want to check them for their correctness. Since you force it to compare one thesis after the other with the other person and he cannot confirm one thesis like the other, since the memory causing cause lies buried under the cloak of the unconscious of the two of you, this form of wanting to agree again is a superfluous act of "outside" communication.

You could shorten the path and say to yourself: "I am not sure where this sudden disagreement comes from and since I assume that the other person cannot say this with absolute certainty either, there is no need to want to establish this certainty absolutely. Instead, I can accept my sense of resentment." I say, "I feel discouraged. - Pause - All right. - Pause - That feeling shall pass."

What is achieved is that whoever you are with at that moment will notice/sense the change. But whether he, in turn, feels relief or insists on making the displeasure a subject of discussion needs not becoming your problem.

You can see now for yourself what you have been involved with before the distinct feeling of displeasure arose and start again from there. It is as if you were distracted while reading a book and now decide to just keep reading. You will find that it is very easy to regain concentration on what you are currently reading. In the vast majority of cases, your counterpart will also engage in this attitude of letting go of the disgruntlement and find himself in a similarly found attitude. If not, you can and will find a spontaneous way to ease the situation with your new found attitude. Usually without frantically looking for it.

There is no communal in communication

Agreement is therefore not an outward matter of persuasion, not of negotiation, not an open offer of peace, not a justification, not a strategy. It's not even communication but appears to be.
It is the (inward) act of agreement with oneself of a feeling of discomfort for which one takes full responsibility and therefore, as a natural consequence, does not try to get a response from the other. The perception of reality of a moment can be so different that the effort to come to a common coherent reality can be counterproductive rather than productive.

The example of Paul Watzlawik, which he cites in two of his books in this regard, is the diversity of people in terms of their cultural imprints, which occur unconsciously.

When the Americans were stationed in Great Britain in their role as allies after the Second World War, ...

... they began to make contact with English women. It was striking that the opposite sex was negatively accused of crossing certain sexual boundaries. The reason for this was that in American men the kiss in a fresh initiation happens quite early in the order of approaching each other, whereas in English women the kiss happens quite late and was therefore considered a very intimate affair. Now, if the man has kissed the woman and she has rejected him in indignation and horror, she must be regarded as hysterical. However, if she agreed to it, this meant allowing the complete sexual act, which in turn felt much too hasty for the American man and the woman therefore had to be classified as a nymphomaniac.

If these two, in their embarrassing situation - possibly suffering from quite confused and confusing reactions - were now to seek a conscious explanation for these unexpected reactions, it is quite conceivable that this would not have occurred to them as a possible cause. We all know such situations, in which we become rather insecure by rejecting sexual advances and therefore hardly keep a cool head.

This is where the individual as an artist of his or her feelings is called for - the art of suspecting the cause of a possible explanation in one's subjective life view and experience, without really knowing it in detail. When in doubt, not to commit oneself to anything. Allowing to follow the sense of "something doesn't feel right" with confidence in one's intuition.

By John H. Boyd - This image is available from the City of Toronto Archives, listed under the archival citation Fonds 1266, Item 96241., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5163399

No-Googling the brain

Since one does not find a conclusive answer so quickly in oneself - after all, you are not a library where you can simply look up within seconds what you are looking for - one commits the mistake of "asking" the other person for a conclusive explanation, which, however, is rarely expressed as a question, but rather as an irritating reaction, as an accusation through looks and gestures. We snap at each other. Yet we expect a response, and that is giving up the responsibility for the situation to the outside world.

Being responsible for your observations

What can that mean? All what you observe represents the picture of reality which you make of it.
One could describe it in exactly the opposite way to how we would commonly describe it.

The scene that I observe "doesn't happen to me", but "I'm happening to the scene". A game on the beach that I watch from the viewers' perspective is not the same game that other viewers watch. It is "a game that reminds me of another game". The noise that my neighbour makes does not happen to me (is forced upon me), but I happen to the noise.

If I were to ask you, what you think your mother thinks about your father's recent behavior (?), I would, of course, not expect a precise, one hundred percent correct answer that is exactly what she thinks.

This question is much more interesting when asked in the context of family therapy. Imagine the gathered family. The son or daughter, not expecting this question, would intuitively invent an answer, because she does not want to look stupid, so she answers. Of course, the easier it is for her to answer, the more interested she is in solving a conflict in the family.

Inventing reality as a self organizing system

And it is basically this interest and not the correct answer that makes a speculative dialogue in the family come about and gives you the hope that you can solve a problem. In this question and answer setting, the family invents its reality and is creative. When the question is then also asked how the brother answers this question, everyone involved becomes more or less aware that it is they who invent their family reality and either become directors who make a horror film, a tearjerker, a never-ending story, a comedy, a drama and so on.

You are happening to your family.

The Adams Family - ABC Television - eBay itemphoto frontphoto back, commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19464844

Now, to turn this around and say that your family is happening to you, would not be wrong, but it would shift the responsibility for a reality you perceive from you to them. But how is this supposed to work, if - as I have described above - you can know the reality of others even less than your own? For, if they start from a different premise, which they themselves do not even know they do, you can hardly ask them about it as long as you are stuck in your own premise. You can ask, of course, but this questioning can only be taken as a serious interest if you do not pretend to be an inquisitor. Instead, you will be seized by a light-hearted form of curiosity that makes no effort to anticipate the answer.

The art of Asking

Basically, from my point of view it is much easier to ask a question anyway, if I do not already anticipate the answer inwardly. But as long as I ask a question only supposedly and already have an answer all ready which I think is correct, it is a pseudo-question. Not the creation of an openness of result. Insofar as I do not want to let go of the conviction that my speculation about my counterpart's answer is correct and he gives me an explanation that differs from it, I will want to persuade him to pick my answer which I consider to be more valid. These are the moments when we speak of disagreement.

The radical thing about this attitude is that one could say that any explanation for the emergence of a particular emotion or thought is obsolete in the living experience with another (or the world).
What is important is that the moment arises, but not that the explanation for the emotion or thought in such a moment is significant. It is rather that it is about a spontaneous and artistic way of being in contact with a situation and a person, which is called "presence".

The difference

The desire to urgently analyse a disturbance in this contact in this moment basically prevents the moment from staying alive - the living experience then becomes annoyance and misunderstanding. Ir results in suffering.

It is like trying to get out of a fast moving car and want to look under it because you heard something unpleasantly rattling. Or like trying to turn back from jumping off the diving board of a swimming pool in the middle of the jumping movement and wanting to have a look to see if the board was not too slippery.

I see similarities in scientific attempts to explain reality, especially in what is known as constructivism:

Radical constructivism is particularly so

because it breaks with convention and develops an epistemology in which realization no longer concerns an "objective" ontological reality, but exclusively the ordering and organization of experiences in the world of our experience.

Seen in this light, I can say: there is no problem of misunderstanding at all. I think (construct) it is only a problem because I habitually try to bring the view and experience of another person (or the world) into absolute unison with mine.

Unification becomes then the problem, ...

not difference.

I turn the view around again and say for example "My husband and I argue because we can't get rid of the idea of unification."

We usually say that we are fighting because we "cannot unify". In German, it is a little easier because the word 'Einverstandensein' is used more often (it literally means: "one understanding being" but is used as a single noun). In English, from my experience, the word "disagreement" is not quite as accurate in transporting what I want to emphasize.

But what would be necessary to achieve "absolute unification" when two people are in dispute?

Let us invent the following small scenario:

In such a case we would have to achieve a fusion, namely that the spirit of one person flies into the other, i.e. drives itself into the brain, if you like. From there into the whole organism, and then the person who is thus driven into the other one experiences in a matter of seconds the complete past life, i.e. birth, childhood and so on up to the present moment. He also experiences all sensory and psychic sensations as the original experienced and interpreted them. Then the disputants swap back again, so that both drive into their original body. After that one would not really need to say anything more: Everything would be clarified, no?

But it is exactly this fantasy and idea that one can shorten a bit more trivially by saying that one could put oneself in the shoes of the other one. The idea I have just described should suffice to lead to the insight that there is a very high probability of misunderstanding the other person.

Killing the moment

Having perceived a disruption of the moment and - as a reaction - disturb the moment even further does kill the moment in its attempt to stay fluid. Two people speaking, receiving a disruption of the moment and - as a reaction - disturb their togetherness by immediately trying to analyze the causes - actually kill the lively moment.

So that raises the question: In order not to be unfoundedly at the mercy of the unconscious, not to automatically impulsively take the bait of every psychological or physical trauma suffered in previous encounters, the only thing that remains is to be present every second (of the present situation) in such a way that an emotion in its emergence requires awareness. One could also ask differently, that is, how can one be able to perceive what one does not perceive?

The logical answer to this seems to me to be that we have a knowledge of this not-knowing. This in itself is an astonishing achievement, because after all we invented a language that expresses such things.

As it appears, we cannot perceive what we do not perceive, ...

but we can assume that a blind spot blocks our view whenever there emerges a disturbance of the living moment - as a result of the unconscious.

This is why Buddhism talks about the difficulty of forcing something past or something future into the present moment, because in this simultaneity it disturbs the flow of the situation. If we force the past (trauma) into the present moment, we grieve or are angry, if we force the future into the present moment, we feel fear and uncertainty. Since we understand our human life as a temporal sequence, one could say that this is always only the moment of the second in which we decide to allow the flow to flow.

Good bye to two value logic

Furthermore, one could say that it is not necessary to decide between disturbance and flow, because such a problem does not exist within this observation!
Also the disturbance, because it is unavoidable, can then be integrated back into the flow, because it expresses human vitality and therefore does not need to be fought. It is therefore also possible to welcome the disturbance whenever it happens, as it always happens anyway. So in this way a disturbance serves as a directional sign and is again a good opportunity to perceive the flow as such, because if everything is just flowing, how could we even recognize a flow, how its disturbance?

Does this mean that we shall no longer analyze, reflect, contemplate, investigate?

No, of course not. After all, what I am saying here will not come to be suddenly practiced by everyone - not even by myself - chop-chop.

The failed attempts of this practice will tempt us to think about it afterwards - and in private. Not to act it out in the moment of the failed attempt at the other, not even to discuss it with the other person, because that is where the seduction lives, to know that the responsibility for the disturbance is caused by the other person. Since, as we have read above, nobody really knows exactly who and why this disturbance was caused. It's rather conditioned through the involved.

The difficult thing is to find out with oneself. But since one is confronted with one's own questions in this privacy, the question arises: Who can I talk to afterwards? Who offers this form of community, where it is not a matter of being right, but rather of dealing with the practical questions of everyday life.

I think that this could be placed under the concept of ethical or spiritual practice, without it being attached to a mythical or extravagant character.

Generally speaking, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable (or whatever we want to call the positive side of the rating scale) if it stands up to the world of experience and enables us to make predictions and to carry out or prevent certain phenomena (i.e. occurrences, experiences). If it does not do this service, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless and finally devalued as superstition.

Paul Watzlawik


"To have proved a hypothesis wrong is the height of knowledge."
Warren McCulloch


The paradoxical task, and thus an anchor, could be: "Postpone an impulsive attempt to explain the "why" of a current discontent until later".

Here, I'll give you a glass marble that you swear in with this paradox and then always carry it in your pocket. Whenever you disagree with a moment, let your hand slide into the pocket and feel the marble.
(let this gag run:)


The first headline of this text is a book title from Heinz von Förster.

Sort:  

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Forgive me asking. But the first client you mention, did you explore the oedipal complex with her? I imagine that it could be connected with her procrastination.

Nothing to forgive :)

No, I did not explore the oedipal complex with her.

It was more that I saw the obstacles that the client saw as negative for her conceived plan, not as fateful or falling from the sky, but as ones chosen by herself. I merely confirmed to her that she preferred everything else - procrastinated - to what she wanted my support for. It was as if someone wanted help cleaning his apartment and instead put wine and cheese on the table to have a nice conversation. My statement could be read as something like, "Okay. Let's have wine and cheese, because cleaning really doesn't seem like something you want to do." If she objected and said, "But I do want to clean," I'd say, "Really? But where are the bucket and the rags?" Whereupon she tried to convince me that what she had in mind was more important than what she was actually doing. Which led to the question: "But why do you insist on cleaning when everything else seems so much more meaningful to you?"

Thanks for stopping by.

While the thirsty for knowledge seeks constant explanations for something that happened in the past and to which it tries to establish a causal relationship in the present, Buddhist teaching radically shortens this path.

Do you mean that it short-circuits "this path"?

I'm reminded of the Tao Te Ching passage,

Pursue knowledge, daily gain.

Pursue Tao, daily loss.

Loss, and more loss.

Do you mean that it short-circuits "this path"?

I guess so.

Pursue knowledge, daily gain.
Pursue Tao, daily loss.
Loss, and more loss.

LOL :D - that's a good one.

I think what I meant was that if someone believed an injustice that had been done to him, what would he do if it were proven watertight? And whether he would stick to providing incorruptible proof, since in him is only a hunch which direction he can determine. He can torture himself with never knowing and turn it into a rope of his own. Or he can become present in every present situation so as not to miss it and then again experience an uncertain echo. This is how someone runs after the past and fears for the future.

You've just described the plot of "Wormwood" (2017).

lol :D
did you already watch it? Is it worth watching from what you think?

Yes, I watched it. I'm a big fan of Errol Morris, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001554/

image.png
IMAGE SOURCE

These 3 movies are near the top of my all-time-faves-list.

"Wormwood" is a bit slow and methodical, and might seem a little tedious for some, but it makes some very worthwhile points.

I can "spoil-the-ending" for you if you'd like.

because it breaks with convention and develops an epistemology in which realization no longer concerns an "objective" ontological reality, but exclusively the ordering and organization of experiences in the world of our experience.

Right, humans have no access to "objective" data (all data is sample-biased).

Seen in this light, I can say: there is no problem of misunderstanding at all. I think (construct) it is only a problem because I habitually try to bring the view and experience of another person (or the world) into absolute unison with mine.

Unification becomes then the problem, ...

Well stated.

This is the problem of Qualia.

Your experience is personal, private, qualitative, experiential, and deeply meaningful (gnosis).

Nothing drives me up the wall faster than someone who tries to tell me what I know or what I'm thinking, or what I like, or why I'm doing something, or what I meant when I said "such-and-such" (the-mind-reader-fallacy).

I make quite an effort to not make the same error.

Incidentally, I've found recently that if I explain that I'm an INTP, it often clears things up to some degree and helps persuade some people that they can't reliably project their own thoughts and motives onto me (unless they also happen to be an INTP).

Qualia doesn't have a problem, I'd say :)

Your experience is personal, private, qualitative, experiential, and deeply meaningful (gnosis).

Yes, I need it to stay flexible in the world I live in. Otherwise I would not be able to switch from the role - for example - of a teacher into the role of a student - all in one encounter! I could not follow the different characters and their expressed emotions in a movie or book. I'd get stuck with the scenes and could not watch the ongoing stories. I would have problems to feel with animals etc.

Nothing drives me up the wall faster than someone who tries to tell me what I know or what I'm thinking, or what I like, or why I'm doing something, or what I meant when I said "such-and-such" (the-mind-reader-fallacy).

HaHa! :D Yeah, I guess everybody knows that. Can you take it as a somewhat twisted attempt that this person basically wants to know what you know, do or mean and is a bit overzealous in his interpretation because he doesn't want to look like a jerk? If someone gives you their interpretation without being asked, your reaction could be: "Is this a question of yours?"

I have sometimes the opposite problem with my son (drives me up the wall). He gives me minimal information. The rest, he expects me to be a mind reader. It's now a running gag of mine when he overdoes it:)

I make quite an effort to not make the same error.

How many times out of ten do you think you can avoid making the same mistake? Does it change anything about a dialogue?

... What is an INTP?

Qualia doesn't have a problem, I'd say :)

I agree, the "problem" is trying to know (how do you know) someone else's qualia/gnosis (It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits).

What is an INTP?

https://www.16personalities.com/de/intp-personlichkeit

https://www.16personalities.com/de/kostenloser-personlichkeitstest

"Each problem that I solved became a rule, which served afterwards to solve other problems."

Also, just a note, INTP's don't "hate rules" they just find it difficult to tolerate obviously counter-productive rules. Perfectly logical rules are fantastic.

Click to watch 5 minutes,

:) Thanks, that was fun. I did the test and read your result as well as mine. It's inspiring to do those things and I like to play with the presented ideas. Though ...

I would suggest it differently: depending on the company, the professional environment, the private sphere, the public sphere, and the current quality and expertise of the person I meet, I can assume any character that I think has the best potential for the situation, depending on the person or persons with whom I am currently in contact.

Insofar as I have committed myself to a certain role (for example, because I hope for something from it), I am perceived by my fellow world in a situational way. Self-perception and the perception of others fluctuates because it changes when I meet friends, my family or colleagues or strangers in public.

My so-called character is perceived differently by children than by my peers, differently by animals than by people, differently by older people than myself, etc. For some I am inexperienced and naive in some areas, for others I am competent and self-confident.

It is different again when I am alone or in the forest, by the sea or on a mountain. For those who want to see a certain character in me, I have a particularly clear character, and a less clear character for those who do not fixate on it. For those I myself want to appear as a certain character, it is the same as just mentioned.

I can be introverted, just like extroverted, quiet, like loud, iridescent and reserved, gripping or lame.
The society I live in influences what people perceive of me as a character. If the spirit of the times places particular emphasis on communicative skills, this is ascribed to me as an ability, whereas if I had been born in a different time or on a different continent, something else would have been ascribed to me, which would have been en vogue. And so on.

I'm not even sure anymore if there is a strong tendency for this or that quality, because I've reached an age where I'm going through the proverbial change: menopause.

I think what I could say: there is a tendency. Those tendencies in humans can be quite fascinating.

In the End I like to say: I am Erika from Hamburg ;-)

My so-called character is perceived differently by children than by my peers, differently by animals than by people, differently by older people than myself, etc. For some I am inexperienced and naive in some areas, for others I am competent and self-confident.

Well stated.

Perhaps try taking the quiz while imagining yourself at a new job, then take the test imagining yourself surrounded by your closest friends. And compare the results.

I find that often, when I'm with friends, I turn into an ENTP.

Yes, I can confirm that. I like to drive it even further :)

I agree that the art of asking questions should be as open minded as possible. Specifically, people can fail to really listen to the responses to said questions. Not to say we should not have pseudo question with answers within our mind.

I will come back to your comments probably within the next days. Right now I am too tired to involve myself sincerely.

Hope you find rest.

"If distraction is so much more beautiful for you than the thing you supposedly want to work on, then choose distraction. Who is telling you it has to be otherwise?"

Your words remind me of this (3 minutes, in german),

What a trailer! I haven't seen the movie yet. So I must find out myself why my words reminded you of it? :)

Thanks for the visit.

I'm not sure if you want me to give away the ending?

oh ... hm ... I don't know. Maybe I will forget the spoiler when I wait long enough? lol :))

then ... it must sadly end here and remain a secret until I watch that movie. :)

You can probably find it in a bargain bin somewhere.

Interesting post. I see it as follows, instead of talking about causes and effects, which refer to the past and the future par excellence, talk about reasons, which refer to the eternal present. Thus, instead of asking ourselves why a problem arises, we ask ourselves why this problem is necessary in the present, what role does it play in the present for which it exists.

But as you say, a "why" is not always necessary, only one solution is needed, and that solution may simply be there is no problem.

Nor do I think that a unilateral vision of things is necessary, it is only necessary to learn to speak the language that everyone speaks, so to speak, to learn to reach a consensus in a multilateral way. Because everyone speaks with their own personal language that they learned in their daily lives, and for which many times in appearance there is disagreement when in fact they are only touching the same elephant for different parts (if you understand the reference).

I will take the glass marble by the way. Very thanks!

Excellent writing. Regards!

Thank you for accepting my invitation:)

Interesting post. I see it as follows, instead of talking about causes and effects, which refer to the past and the future par excellence, talk about reasons, which refer to the eternal present. Thus, instead of asking ourselves why a problem arises, we ask ourselves why this problem is necessary in the present, what role does it play in the present for which it exists.

Very good point, thanks for the addition. That reflects what I mean by "disturbance" when it occurs.

Yes, often enough there is indeed no problem.

I am familiar with the elephant reference. :)

For those, who are not I gave the link.

I am most delighted that you took the marble in the end.

Dear Erika,
I haven't overlooked your post. I read 3/4 of it, and then stopped to read about cybernetics. I had it confused with dianetics (!) Now that I've read a bit, I'm beginning to understand (more) your approach to experience, and issues. I'm beginning to understand systemics.

However, I've been doing a lot of research on a blog--crazy in the middle of it--so I took a pause. I don't want to discuss your blog until I have a better grasp of systemics, in relation to your discussion. So...I'll be back.

Great job here. Very interesting.

Your busy New York friend,
AG

No loyalty required towards me when it comes to my blog. It's a time consuming thing, that is for sure :) I, of course always am delighted by your interest, that is also certain.

I hope you'll get the grips on cybernetics - if so, you'll be my new guru as it took me years and years and still I am not at all safe how to describe it best in the shortest form. So I need all this lines.

Have fun with your research. I know it can be such a forest of possibilities that one can get lost.

Thanks for telling me to be back again.

Your twinkling friend :)

Dear twinkling friend :))
Loyalty is enough to encourage reading of your blog (I am fiercely) loyal. However, cybernetics is truly interesting. Can't believe I didn't know about it before. So, when I've finished with my obsessive research, I will learn about this. Not a lot, but enough for it to help me understand your dynamic approach toward interaction.
I'll be back :)))
Love,
AG

Dear Erika,
Finally I feel confident to respond to your article. (My research is at rest and so I move on !)

Last night, when I was reading about systemics/cybernetics, I thought of the little machine called a Roomba. This cleaning tool starts its journey with no idea of where it is going. It responds to the environment as it goes along. It is designed to be entirely responsive, not to impose itself but to alter its course depending on what it encounters. This is my impression (perhaps wrong) of systemics/cybernetics. This is an entirely dynamic way of relating to experience. I neither allow another to impose upon me, nor do I impose upon another, but we constantly go forward as time evolves and in a way change each other.

I don't know if I have entirely grasped the concepts you are presenting, but this is an interesting journey, as is always the case with you.

Have the most wonderful day. Hope to see more blogs from you in the future.
Your friend,
AG

Thank you, my friend.

From how I would describe Cybernetics and Systemics it's not epistemologically but more of an attitude. It's from a point of view and perspective that asks unusual questions by using the methods and formalities drawn from science and the origin of scientific approach: a quest.

Not industry but curiosity. Not politics but the topic of which it wants to speak indeed. Not from am academic point of view but from a learners point of view, which can be both the scholar and the student at the same time. The dynamic you speak of, yes, it's not imposing but more of an offer to see things differently and not universally or "unificationally". It's the difference(s) what unites living systems (humans, animals, plants, bacteria, etc.) not the idea of unity.

Systemics, Cybernetics and with it the construct of "Emergence" all include in them the probability of constructive elements; not only for the human realm but also for other forms of systems. A human being, as Heinz von Förster once beautifully pointed out, could be called a "human becoming" which in his view was a more appropriate term. Not in the sense of "better" but in the sense of irritating the receiver of a term he is not used to. An irritation (disturbance) is perceived - by its very difference - as useful not harmful.

Which, by its irritating quality makes one wonder about the perspectives one usually falls for. All the offerings of those who investigated Cybernetics, Systemics and the like to this day want to question whether bivalent logic could be left behind us, for in all faculties we can see that this logic leads to enmity and hostility. We get stuck in the eternal discussion of who is right and who wrong.

Getting disturbed by unused terms is actually a very interesting use of language. For what we have heard a million times we do not pay our care and attention to. If the term "human becoming" would establish itself in the course of time its meaning would again become superficial. So someone has to shake us up to point to it's depth.

I have numerous blogs prepared. Only this one made it into public so far :)

Sincerely,

yours.

Thank you for that discussion--
It seems to me that cybernetics/systemics is basically an acknowledgment of life's nature. Nothing is static. We are (everything is) constantly in a state of flux. We are influenced at every moment by a variety of factors, some perceived and some not perceived. Cybernetics I think encourages us to be aware of that complexity, of the interaction between seen and unseen influences, not to be trapped into a 'yes' 'no' perspective.
Looking forward to those other blogs....should be interesting :)

hey dear @erh.germany, this is a beautiful post! I like to read examples of what people bring to therapy ;-)) it will be that I have been there, to find some truth, of course, but without good results. I tried to stop looking for truth and "start reading again where I left off", but I was not able to, as if I had thrown the book away ;-)) it is as if I were anesthetized, in reality I don't care about the reason, but I would like to understand how to get out of it. but I still haven't found the way. congratulations on your work

Thank you very much.
Though I am not a therapist but a social worker with an education on "systemics" (a resource based training combined with an attitude called "cybernetics 1. and 2. order).

You express yourself in an interesting way. And you picked up the book metaphor, right?

I smile while I answer you, because you say you don't care about the reason for feeling anesthetized. That's quite a statement. Sure? ;-)

What do you prefer in your current life? Talking to someone, or reading quietly or both? Or listening to someone? Are you digging into the spiritual realm or more into scientific papers or both? I could recommend you tons of works if you are interested.

If it is not too personal, I would like to ask you:
What feels good about Anesthesia? What is the benefit of feeling anesthetized? How long do you want to keep this feeling?

Thank you for visiting and reading the text. Greetings!

thanks for telling me that I express myself in an interesting way !! about why I feel anesthetized (or depressed, however I can't grasp the carpe diem, I can't feel joy and I am looking for strong emotions to try to wake up from the numbness) I can tell you that I would also be happy to identify it, but I say that it is more important for me to find a way to fight it. the only objective facts that I can tell you about were two big disappointments, one in love and one in work, and the fact that my self-esteem is far below zero, although I have done many beautiful things. I don't like living in this limbo at all, I don't see any advantage and I would like to get out of it as soon as possible. I really like listening to people and if I feel comfortable talking too, communication and relationship are fundamental for me.
if you have any suggestions for me I will be grateful ;-D

Hard to say without asking you too many personal questions here. From my own and others' experience I can say that something like depression (if it should be one) wants to be lived through.

How is your sleep? Can you sleep, that is, all night long? And is your eating behaviour normal compared to what you consider normal? Are you on any medication? Do you have a reasonably regular daily rhythm, something that gives you structure?
What media are you attracted to? Do you watch things that make you brood?

On a scale of 1-10 (1= very distant, 10 = very close/warm), how is your contact with your family? Has someone from your circle of friends or family died?

You said you lost a love relationship and accepted losses at work. Those are painful experiences. Is it possible that the deafness occurs because you have not yet really explored these experiences in depth or started researching what you want to learn from these experiences?

You don't have to answer these questions here, they are just for checking. This is the kind of thing a family doctor would ask, at least here in Germany. Or maybe, my doc would.

Although this article points out the futility of reasoning in the present moment, I think you can look at the painful experiences when the time is right.

If it is a crisis or a depression, there is a very good chance that you will get better. These things take time, it's good to make you a friend of your crisis, not to fight it. I had my lowest point fourteen years ago, it was a hard work at first, which then became easier and easier, until I found much joy in devoting myself to subjects of personal maturity.

Local support groups are also a very good idea. They are always and everywhere underestimated.

Last question: If you look at the numbness as something which protects you. What form, shape, character, color would it have? In what dose would you allow yourself to wake up, in percentage?

I wish you from my heart all the best with this.

Do you live in Germany where? I'm in Berlin right now !!
Damn, my story is a bit long but also very banal. I can tell you that I have suffered from chronic headache for a very long time and this clearly did not help, I took a lot of drugs for this, I was often tired, I was disturbed by light and noise, and doing a lot of physical activity and efforts of various kinds made my condition worse state. Then there were pains in the shoulder and back (probably due to sports injuries such as volleyball and boxing !!). So I stopped doing sports and I started trying to heal myself, I say "try" because no doctor or physiotherapist managed to help me, but everyone told me I was depressed ... of course I was depressed: I could no longer do what I wanted! I went to different psychologists at different times, but none made me feel better. And I still take anti depressants and anxiolytics to sleep !!
The structure you are talking about, I broke it on purpose: my partner and I have been traveling, as digital nomads for almost three years and this has given me many emotions and above all the physical pains have diminished.
I am alone, I don't have a family, certainly some dear uncle, but mom and dad are dead and I have no brothers or sisters. But I've had this partner since 10 years and a lot of friends that I love. Despite this I feel very alone and I suffer from abandonment syndrome (everyone tells me this!).
I don't understand when you say that depression often wants to be experienced.... I don't feel numbness as something that protects me, I hate it, I seem to be in a deep hole and nobody feels me.
Nice to write you, do you mind?

I live in Hamburg :)
You say that you are currently taking medication. Hence my question. You probably know that the antidepressants - I don't know the other drug - can lead to numbness. Did you already have the numbing feeling before taking the drug? As far as this numbness is caused by the medication, but you are taking it because you feel better with it than without it, this is, in my view and experience, a protection against what you will feel if you do not take it. You may also be familiar with the theory that the drug relieves the symptom, right? I am in no way educated to judge or evaluate the medication, you should discuss this with a doctor qualified to do so or read a lot of literature about it from different sources. What I do know from experience reports, however, is that balancing the inner emotional world - to avoid extreme feelings - has this effect of damping and this causes suffering in some people. So the question would be: How long do you take the medication without an accompanying therapy (whatever form that would be)? In my counselling sessions I have met people who have been taking pills for several or even ten years, but unfortunately have not taken advantage of a support group, therapists or other help. They were not well off.

From this point of view the anaesthetic can be seen as a protection, don't you think? I am asking you intentionally about your will, because it has a lot to do with how you can look at your medication and its effects, in a different way, as I tried to convey in my text above. Does that make sense to you?

My personal view and experience with depression is the following: The things that seem so terrible in an acute phase are ephemeral. I can't really name a moment, it's more of a process that can be seen as a kind of theatre play, which in my case started with a dramatic scene and then, after this introduction, extended over a main part that took a lot of energy to a finale that was more of a quiet ending. I have worked very, very hard on myself and basically still do it all the time, but now in a state of more calmness, serenity and confidence. What I thought I had already realised five years ago reappears and I laugh and think: oh, I thought I already knew that. I believe that this is how I will always feel.

By structure, I don't mean a nine to five job, but simply a reliable way to go about your normal everyday life. If you can do this better on your travels than in a permanent job, better than in your country of origin, then that is your current structure.

Crises can be seen as opportunities. I definitely see them as such.

P.S. this loneliness. I think it's quite normal. I believe all people do feel alone. Maybe that could be something you could track.

well, first of all I would like to reassure you that I am regularly followed by a neurologist and psychiatrist, and therefore the medicines I take are under control and I absolutely stopped making changes on my own initiative (once I tended to do it). I started taking antidepressants I was sad, I lived in a bubble and cried for no visible reason. I'm better with the drug, we made attempts by lowering the dosage but there is no good reaction on my part, that is, I go back to the hole, maybe you say that I should stay in the hole and face it? but that's what I tried to do before I was prescribed drugs. and I was in a terrible mood and it lasted not a short time.. psychological therapy I tried to do it, I changed 4 psychologists, but I didn't find any benefit.
thanks for listening so much

Loading...

Hi erh.germany,

This post has been upvoted by the Curie community curation project and associated vote trail as exceptional content (human curated and reviewed). Have a great day :)

Visit curiesteem.com or join the Curie Discord community to learn more.

Appreciated, thank you!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.33
JST 0.054
BTC 94992.25
ETH 3762.06
SBD 4.08