Search This Blog

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Trust 3b: ... into Faith and Love

PSYCHOLOGY AND -GREEK- PHILOSPHY

Rudolf Steiner's 4-fold classification helped me shape the 'two level' idea of acting at either an animal level or a spiritual level. There are some types of behaviour that Steiner classifies as part of the 'animal kingdom' (the third class), while other types of behaviour are typical for the highest class: the kingdom of man (the fourth class).
The third class, the astral body is the seat of the soul, and the repository of human desires, emotions, and feelings.  
Primitive feelings like anger, fear and lust belong to this class
The fourth class, the Spiritual Self is the true spiritual essence of each human being.  
For instance art, man's creativity, is said to reside at this level.

The ideas of Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God) and Barry Neil Kaufman (Option and Sonrise) fit well in this scheme. If you look closely at what they say, you read the message:
you may feel that your reactions to any situation, are limited, implied by a mechanism, but they are not. You choose your own reactions.


Bears Kaufman points out how easily we tell ourselves that our feelings are determined by others. “You make me so angry!” Nonsense, anger is a choice, because you may believe that anger puts you in the winning position. No one can make you angry, you do it to yourself. Alas, it can be such a habit that it happens subconsciously. Making it hard to quit, but not impossible.
It becomes a habit when anger has paid off in the past. Then we easily tend to go for this reaction to get our way. But we can examine ourselves and decide that somehow anger to get what we want is not necessary. Or not the best way. Staying friendly and going your own way often is more effective than anger or even blackmail by using tears. Alas we just didn't learn that in our early years, when we were just starting to experiment with groupdynamics at kindergarten or at home.

Is it just a coincidence that I feel for both Steiner's and Kaufman's models? Steiner's theory is based on the ideas of Aristotle, who was Plato's student, who was Socrates' student. Bruce M. Di Marsico 's 'Option Dialog' which is refined by Kaufman and integrated in his Sonrise playtherapy, is based on the Socratic Dialog !

Neale Walsh argues that we either act out of fear (= animalistic level: survival) or love (= spiritual level: altruism). Ask yourself 'What would Love do now?' when pressured to make a difficult choice. I did and I chose to act out of love. Putting myself in big trouble with some law enforcers and other authoritive figures -who were used to people blindly following their instructions- but in the end it worked out wonderfully for my son and me.

Let's hang on to Love, it comes closer to our Faith and Trust Journey than you think.



THERAPY: DIRECTIVE & CONDITIONING or UNCONDITIONAL LOVE?

Some of our most used psychological therapies function at the animalistic level. I hate that. Any therapy that involves either punishments or rewards, makes the hairs in my neck stand up!! Like behaviorism and some popular forms of cognitive therapy.
It means the therapist is not just conditioning the clients behaviour, he is teaching the client that motivation lies outside of him or her. This creates a dependency of the client on his environment, or worse the therapist. That's not healing, that's disempowerment!
Apart from that, rewards and punishments reinforce our feelings at animal level: lust for rewards and fear for punishments. This is not the level at which you want to live.

I prefer the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers:
Rogers rejected the deterministic nature of both psychoanalysis and behaviourism and maintained that we behave as we do because of the way we perceive our situation. [Grand opening for SPD and autism treatment!]
"As no one else can know how we perceive, we are the best experts on ourselves."
Carl Rogers believed that humans have one basic motive, that is the tendency to self-actualize - i.e. to fulfill one's potential and achieve the highest level of 'human-beingness' we can@.
From his theories, Virginia Axline developed a form of playtherapy based on unconditional acceptance of the child in therapy. Because the therapist has FAITH in the healing powers of the client, even if it is a child.
The child chooses the way a therapy session is filled in. Since the child alone knows what it needs. And it will generally choose a game that will help him develop himself. 'All' the therapist does is be present and be empathic with the child. Unconditionally.
The unconditional love helps the child to strengthen his self esteem and he becomes able to overcome his problems by himself. And this way the client, the child, becomes independent of its environment! What a beautiful effect of unconditional love. And faith#.

Bears Kaufman's Sonrise works with the same principles. Only the frequency, duration and intensity of the sessions is higher, He developed this playtherapy for his son. To help the boy find his way out of his autistic 'enclosure'. And it works.


CLOSING THE CIRCLE

There is something about love, being either conditional or unconditional, that is parallel to trust and faith, to animal versus spiritual … I quote an article on Carl Rogers, by Leighna Shmidt

"Carl Rogers was an American Psychologist who largely contributed during his life, theories and practices on how unconditional love can change us. Unconditional love can heal us from the inside out. Rogers most important work was with the "love" referred to by Greek philosophy as agape. Greek Philosophy distinguished between two kinds of love. Ero and agape. Ero is characterized by the desire for something that will fulfill the lover. It includes the wish to possess the beloved object or person. Agape , on the other hand, is characterized by the desire to fulfill the beloved"

Ero obviously corresponds to my animal level, whereas Agape fits in at the spiritual level. 

 
THe relation between Rogers' theory and my exploration in Trust, has more connections than Ero and Agape. Watch: there are 3 elements to Carl Rogers therapy of love:
  • genuineness,
  • empathy
  • unconditional positive regard
Please let me continue quoting the article. It's about genuineness. The bold script is put in by me:
It is important to be truthful, honest, to be aware of thought processes that occur while in the presence of another. The more fully self is understood, the more genuine (honest) someone can be with self and those who are loved. A genuine person shares his/her thoughts and feelings without pretense. In the presence of a genuine person there is trust. With trust comes the willingness to "expose ourselves" . A genuine person serves to invite one to let their self be known for who they really are.


It is not just about trust. It is about people who know themselves. It isn't hard to understand that a genuine person (Rogers') is a person with high self esteem. Clearly self esteem, trust and love go hand in hand.

Trust and love both can be practised at two levels. At a level where two people have to reward and reassure each other regularly. Where control and possession play a role.
Or you may rise to a level where faith and love are given unconditionally.

If you manage to lift your life to a higher, spiritual level, your trust will become pure. It will turn into faith. You will be free from the need to be reassured, free of the need for proof and satisfaction.
Your love will be unconditional, with all its healing powers.
And you can act freely, undisturbed by the judgements of those who still are at the other level.   Of course we, mere mortals, can hardly live at this level continuously. But that's no reason not to try, right?


Where does self esteem stand in the two level theory? That's a nice one to think about on sleepless nights or in crowded trains.  I think the conclusion will be that at a higher level there is no room for a negative self image. Could low self esteem keep you from moving from the animal level to the spiritual one? I don't think so. I think stepping up the ladder may help you get rid of low self esteem.

Anyone disagreeing? Please speak up!



# Was it faith? Yes the therapist firmly believed in the childs capability; even if it was a child in need of therapy. A child that not yet had proven what he is capable of...

Trust3a: A Leap of Trust ...

For starters let's make it clear that in exploring trust I talk of a Giver and a Receiver. In a normal  relationship, these roles are alternating. Sometimes you give trust, sometimes you receive it.

When the Receiver is present, or at least communicating or 'delivering' [sounds horrible, but OK] ,trust can be reinforced easily. Especially when both parties prove to be trustworthy whenever they play the role of receiver. Their mutual trust will grow stronger and stronger, like becoming a diamond.

What happens in a relationship where there is little or no physical presence or communication? To name some very different situations:
- Trusting in a person who works far away from home and who cannot communicatie often?
- Trusting ... in your own life's fulfillment, your own worthiness, your ... name it. Your future being the thing that you believe in.
- Trusting in a God

That's where Trust has to be like Blind Faith. I'm not the only one who sees faith like that: from Collins reverso online dictionary: 
FAITH: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence.
Faith is a leap in the dark. Or, if your belief IS unshakeable , a leap into a cloudy world? A walk on water.

What lacks is the feedback, the reinforcement. You don't rely on the others for current feedback, you rely on your previous experience with the other, counting on her constancy. Or on your own worthiness, being worth the loyalty of the other. -Yes: high self esteem is handy, even in faith.-

Now where have I heard about feedback mechanisms and reinforcement before?  I remember! During my study. I have studied medical biology and population biology (application of evolutionary models on plant or animal populations). Both disciplines work with models in which feedback is crucial for finetuning. Starting something is easy, but how do you make the action, the release of energy,  fit to its original prompt? By taking in the new signals from the one who gave uttered your cue... after you started your action.  With a positvie reaction, a stimulus, you continu what you were doing.  After a negative, inhibiting, message you'll decrease your activity, or cease it all together.

But how does one keep on having faith? There is no feedback to determine the wisdom of what you're undertaking... (or is taking under?). Without finetuning feedback it might stop or run out of hand?
Yet it exists and doesn't always cease or go out of control.



ACADEMIC DETOUR

Trust can be fitted nicely in a biological model, whereas faith does not. This reminds me of a parallel that I ran into, when I was a student. The statement, the assumption: “Altruism does not exist.”
Or at least, altruism defined as “unselfish concern for the welfare of others” does not exist.

In evolutionary models the individual with the most fit genes [best adapted to its environment] gets the highest number of healthy, reproducing, desendants. Over the course of time, this genetic variant becomes the dominant fenotype [the outer form by which we recognise a species] within a population. This process is called selection.
Behaviour, which also has a genetic base, is under the same selective pressure. The female grasshopper that eats her mate after copulation, builds up reserves to produce strong healthy eggs. This increases the chances of survival of the offspring. Any male that 'sacrifices' himself, will have more offspring than the quick men* that escape from being the 'bridal cake'. Serving as a meal is not altruism, it is fitness!

Pure altruism does not fit into this model, hence biologists deny its existence. Altruism in biology is often reserved for kin selection: behaviour that at first glance may seem altruistic, since there is no clear relation to the survival of one's own direct descendants.
Helpful behaviour, from a natural selection viewpoint, should lead to survival of the own gene-variant.  (Genes are 'selfish'). Helping your children (50% of your own genes) is not altruistic behaviour, its selfishness of the genes. But your nieces and nephews still have a 25% share of your genes.  So do your grandchildren... helping them is not altruism either. That's what Haldane meant when he said  "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". It is the kin selection theory.
I'm not behaving altruistic if I give food and clothes to my nephews or maybe one day to my grandchildren.

It is altruisim, when I walk out of the front door doubled up, so I won't harm the spider's web that occupies half the doorway. Altruism does exist, but it has no place in biological models.



HUMAN VIEWPOINT

As it happens we, living creatures, are not just machines, functioning as described by some flow chart. We are bodies immersed with a soul. Or, as I feel at times, a soul stuck in a rather crummy body. (Not the one I would have picked myself).

Our bodies are subject to natural laws, including those of natural selection, and our behaviour is influenced by that. If you feel threatened you either flee or fight, to make your genes survive and give them a chance to propagate. That is behaviour at the animal level: a primitive, selfish way of coping with difficult situations. No one will blame you for that.
But if you feel threatened and look at your adversary with a forgiving look, trying to find out what makes him behave like that, wanting to help him, your behaviour rises above the animal level: you become altruistic. Not fleeing or fighting, but helping. At your own risk, pure altruism.
At such a moment your behaviour has reached a higher, spiritual, level.
This level is not acknowledged in academic, biological circles. That doesn't mean it's not there. Have faith in me!

-to be continued ….


*Finally, I have proven that physical fitness does not guarantee fitness for life! Away with all fitness machines and workouts ...

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Focus

I can never keep it straight. 
Does my camera have Autofocus or Outoffocus ?


Focus means dedication. Channeling your love -attention, energy-  to one or a
few important parts of your life.
The surrounding world is still there, as a vital part of your composition.  But your
location, lenses, diaphragm and shutter speed are all in concert for the subject of your focus.

How frustrating. The deeper the darkness, the longer the mirror will block your
view.Taking the orchestration out of your hands.
Take heart, for after sufficient exposure time, the light will flow back to you again. From focal point to finder.



Jo
.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Odd Friends and Other Non-Sequiturs

   It's definitely not spring time, it's freezing. And yet I'm thinking of follies, feel like playing pranks.
But then again, I never needed spring for that. Autumn is my favoured season.
   I'm not going to disclose all my premises that lead to this post. The fact that they were the 'driving' force behind it, is credit enough. You don't understand me? That can't be helped, there's a pleasure sure in being mad, which none but madmen know... [John Dryden,The Spanish Friar; 1681]

*****

I have tried and concluded that a datingsite is not the place where I make friends. It's like going to the beach. I do like the sea, but there's just too many people around. Too much exultation.

Friendship is energy, flowing between two persons. I make friends at small but headstrong brooks. I'm attrackted to their rippling laughter, their clashing and whirling. Am even prepared to break the ice that might still reside over them at the end of another winter.

Yet some of my friendships grew slowly, like a leak in a dyke, water seeping through sluice-gates.
Like it happened between Winston and me. I didn't even want to be his friend.
I was afraid of him. He could stare at me without conveying his annoyance. With me. So I did what I once heard was a great help against fear: just greet the person you're afraid of, calling him by his name. So every time I passed by, I said “Hello Winston” and greeted his friend as well. Hiding my fear.
Since Winston lived near the town center, where I do my shopping, I had to pass his house quite often.
And every time when he was is in his yard I repeated “Hello Winston.” That went on for a long time. Winston never said a word.
After two years, Winston's friend walked over to the gate. The friend had a much friendlier air about him, so I halted. The moment I stretched out my hand to him … his dinky little tail almost flew off from wagging it so enthousiasticly. How he loved being petted. In spite of all the mock chases he and his big black friend had been performing. Now Winston was really angry. With his most Rotweiler like stance, he stood over the old English Bulldog and sunk his teeth in him. I withdrew, casting worried glances over my shoulder to the smallest one, whom I had been calling 'Churchill' for two years now.
The next day a fit and healthy Churchill came running to the gate again, followed closely by Winston.
No sooner then that Churchill poked his snout through the gate, Winston stood over him, glaring at me.
If I wanted to pet the smaller dog, -which I did- I had to pet his leader first. My stomach tightened. In just a few seconds it would be determined. Whether I would go through life as the handless maiden or not. I raised my hand over the black head, Winston turned up his nose to sniff my palm, bringing his mouth closer into the bargain. Then it happened. He was wagging his tail too.
The problem with Winston is that he's possessive and jealous. I can still pet him, but I only do it when alone. With his front paws on the gate, he growls and bites at anyone who is with me or even close to me. He's not my 'easiest' friend.
So what, friendship comes in all shapes and sizes.




Forgive me , Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone, for adapting your prayer a little, but I think it's a befitting way to finish this seemingly non-sequiturial post.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I rather seek
to console as to be consoled;
to understand, as to be understood;
to cherish, as to be cherished.
For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.
It is through our fellow creatures
that we can honour and receive Your Love
Amen.