Gone... Vegetarian? (Part I)

     First, nobody freak out or get too excited!  To my vegetarian and vegan readers I can assure you that I have no political or ethical interests associated with this kind of practice.  To my carnivorous readers, relax, I live in the south and there is no denying that "soul food" still smells and tastes delicious.  Now onto the "meat and potatoes" of this post...
     Lets start with a little background.  A little over a year ago I became a regular at my school's rock climbing gym.  One of the more obvious matter of facts was that heavier people required stronger fingers to climb rocks and thus there was a significant advantage to be had for the lighter climber.  However, most of the world's top climbers aren't exactly built like they'll be competing in strongman competitions.  Clearly more fat-weight was a bad thing, but I soon began contemplating the same of excess muscle weight.  Modern pop-culture has imbued this kind of bodybuilding mindset where there is an emphasis on gaining "lean mass."  I won't rant on this too much, but the bottom line is that excess muscle mass is still more weight you have to haul up a vertical (or steeper) face.  Anyway, about a year ago I read Eric Horst's training for climbing and wanted to start a carbohydrate centered diet to try my hand at shedding the predominantly protein-based "athlete" diets.  In one of my old dieting posts I considered this effort to be an utter failure for a variety of reasons.  Some of those reasons had a bit of "scientific" principle behind them, but ultimately I think I was trying to comfort a bruised ego.  Looking back and reanalyzing things, I think that I had some good procedures in place, but also some very bad ones.  I went against my own grain and took the recommended dieting procedures straight out of Horst's book rather than apply his principles to the years of data I've collected about what my body requires for energy.  Long story short, I had a great diet plan then, but the problem was that (while the daily caloric intake was adequate) I was still allowing an all out binge-eating day once per week.  After doing some more recent calculations and analysis I think I had a great plan and measurement except for the fact that I didn't need that ridiculous binge day weighing in at a whopping 5000 calories or so.
     That wasn't an explicitly "vegetarian" diet, just a carbohydrate centered diet rather than protein.  I actually started this vegetarian kick in mid August for the strength-to-weight-ratio reasons above.  As abhorring as it may be to pop-fitness, I wanted to lose some mass.  Keep in mind, however, that a reduction in BMI (Body Mass Index) would require me to not "get fat" while losing muscle; else I would only have a lower volume of muscle and a higher volume of fat while retaining the same "mass."  In August I started a "flexetarian" diet though I didn't know it was called that then.  I was still eating meat once per week and allowing myself eggs and dairy.  After a couple weeks I ex'd the eggs, then, a few weeks later, dropped the schedule meet-eat.  I am by no means "anti-meat", I still eat it once in a while, but without a scheduled frequency.  I keep the dairy in my diet because I get a lot of protein from whey protein and cheese (I don't drink milk.)
     The next thing that I found was that my school, work, and training schedules became a lot more dense about a month into the process.  What I found was that I had estimated my daily caloric intake accurately, but only for a more sedentary lifestyle.  As a result I was "cheating" way more than once per week.  Granted, these weren't all out binges, but they were certainly stifling to any progress.  I mentioned "re-analysis" in the first paragraph, and this is where that comes in.  My best physique (weight wise) was when I was boxing.  Fortunately I have blogs on blogs and spreadsheets of spreadsheets logging my diet and training procedures.  I looked back on my records to see what I was eating (calories) then.  I then imagined a what I might eat on a typical "cheat day" on that diet.  I added it all up (cheats included) and re-calibrated my estimated average daily caloric need.  As far as "cheating" goes on diets, I'm a believer that sustainability is paramount.  What I've found in my personal experiences is that that weekly cheat (whether its all day or a few hours or a single buffet) still leaves you craving that re-load period.  Consequently, if you find yourself not being able to stick to your diet prescription for a single week, something is wrong.  I won't lie, garbage food still tastes good though.  What I'm predicting here is that a more stable, once daily, minimal allotment of "junk food" (say < 300 calories) budgeted into my diet will be a more sustainable procedure than earlier practices.


That's the theory behind this, Part II will house the number crunching portion.

Damaged Life: The Crisis of the Modern Psyche (Part 1)

*See reference at bottom of post.

My initial impression of Tod Sloan’s Damaged Life is that in the first half of the book he presents a very detailed picture of the all the different facets that feed into what it means to say “modern” and refer to “modernization.”  I did not find that, in this portion of the book, there were too many of Sloan’s own arguments and opinions, but mostly commentary on previous research and writings within the field.  What I think I liked most about this particular portion of the book is that Sloan draws from a variety of fields that are all part of the topics he’s writing about (e.g.:  psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy).

In the early stages of the book (p.6-7) Sloan discusses a series of seemingly unrelated persons and their rather “normal” circumstances from various locations around the globe.  Sloan points out that they are only “seemingly” unrelated.  Yet he writes (p.7) that all of the people in the given examples are struggling through a process of self-creation and self-definition.  I think that Sloan is spot on with this.  The one thing I’ve found that all people, regardless of time or place, age, race, or gender have in common is that they suffer.  Everybody is struggling with something.  Call it small, call it big, whatever “it” is, all people have something that troubles and tries them.  Further, Sloan continues (p.9) with a list of responses people gave to the question, “What do you see as the main problem of modern life?”  The top five responses were:  the pace of change, the decline of certainty and belief, unfulfilled expectations, the decay of morality, and meaninglessness.  Seeing these entries gave me an strange jolly feeling because much of my own research (especially in recent semesters) has localized itself around these kind of issues (i.e.:  post-modern and existential trauma).

“The solution commonly proposed is, again, a return to traditional morality, often to a set of moral values associated with a given creed” (p.13).  I don’t recall Sloan’s specific response, but my own interpretation is that it is exceedingly pretentious and superfluous.  I have heard this type of argument many times, particularly from more “conservative-minded” persons of my parent’s generation and older.  However, there is a problem.  Resetting our moral development (maldevelopment) to the proverbial zero only implies that the same numerical course of action(s) will take place and the resulting sum incurred again.  Bluntly put, it didn’t work the first time, why would it now?  Clearly, I believe Sloan alluded to this as well, those moral schemas and socio-paradigms left its participants lacking and ceased to fulfill the needs (spiritual, psychological, or metaphysical).

Sloan also discusses neo-colonization (p.21) which I didn’t take a particular interest in but I did find it to be a quite humorous political pundit.  Indeed it would appear that the socialization of other countries of the world by “modern” societies has been masked with a clever guise of “affording other the same liberties, freedoms, and opportunities.”  Call it what you will.  It’s colonizing.

“In the case of most North American researchers of the period, however, the social projects of modernization - capitalism, democratization, individualism, secularization, and so on - were so intrinsic to the constitution of their research questions and methods, not to mention their personal belief systems, that what now appears as ideologically-motivated work in the service of capitalist modernization was able to pass as value-free, objective social science” (p.30).  In many ways this summarizes the above paragraph, but it also points to a larger issue that persists across time.  Researchers and social service workers alike must be mindful of their own personal biases, preferences, and ideologies.  All too often, I find this in myself as well, researchers set out to prove something that is “near and dear to their heart” or to disprove something that they find abrasive to their worldview.  Nothing is truly ever “fair and balanced” or objective.  It is, if nothing else, always filtered through a socio-personally provoked perspective.

“The objectified relationships of capitalist society, money becomes the purpose of work” (p.43).  In this area of the book Sloan is referencing Habermas and the idea that the “desirability” of goods is no longer equated with “usefulness” but monetary value.  I believe DeLuze and Guattari hammered this point in Anti-Oedipus as well; stating that value and worth have become synonymous with (explicitly) monetary value.  Sloan and Habermas take this from the realm of material goods to persons and social systems.  I also believe it was in Tim Ferriss’s The Four Hour Work Week where the Ferriss stated that people do not want the money that rich people have, they want to do the things that rich people do.  It just so happens that money is the (assumed) currency of achieving doing those things.  The take-home point though is that many of the “main problems in your life” referenced above come from this assumption.  The purpose of work has become solely to earn money, rather than giving and creating something you want to contribute to the world, or hell, to yourself.

“Nevertheless, a certain cleavage between system and lifeworld seems to have occurred” (p.51).  The systems of our American culture today are often referenced in terms of end-users and developers.  You have the CEOs and the janitors.  The issue here is not the distance between these spectrum ends, but the resistance that is encounter along the line while transferring “wealth”, information, services, etc…  There is “cleavage” between many of the “end-users” of products and the corporate executives handing down the commands to developers who produce them.  Occam’s Razor seems important here, or rather the inverse.  More parts yield more complications, more complications increase the probability of system breakage.  However, nothing about people or their social systems is ever simple, I doubt it has ever been so.  But, they are certainly not going to get any less complicated (I don’t know that they should either).  What would be an appropriate response or countermeasure?  Perhaps the delicate smoothing of the interfaces of our social transactions.

Reference:

Sloan, T. (1996).  Damaged life: The crisis of the modern psyche.  New York, New York.  Routledge.  p.1-66.

The Social Construction of Reality (Part 2)

In general I thought that this second half of Berger’s book flowed much more smoothly in its arguments.  Interestingly enough I found that I was not as clear cut about a “likes” and “dislikes” section.  However, what I did find is that I began strongly agreeing with the base principles of Berger’s arguments but strongly disagreeing with concluding developments.

Firstly, Berger writes; “What remains sociologically essential is the recognition that all symbolic universes and all legitimations are human products; their existence has its base in the lives of concrete individuals, and has no empirical status apart from these lives” (p.128).  This statement runs a deep truth with me, particularly when taken into the context of mental health.  What you would call in your universe or “world” and consider legitimate may result in considering a patient’s legitimizations to be absurd.  However, the fact of the matter is that they are symbolically and subjectively real to them and all the more to the point, have their roots set deeply into the individual themselves.

“What is most important for our considerations here is the fact that the individual not only takes on the roles and attitudes of others, but in the same process takes on their world” (p.132).  I find this passage to resonate on a personal note with myself.  I often have the revelation that I am acting out another person’s mannerisms.  However, these are usually not just some random acquaintance.  I can think of two (in my opinion equally likely) explanations.  The first (would fit Berger’s liking) is that these people that have “rubbed off” on me are people that I have spent a great deal of time with and become socialized to the “culture” constructed between the group of people interacting with each other.  The second is much more deeply seeded.  I think that the first case may have some resonance in the short term while the members of that sub-group are still engaged with each other.  However, I think that more longer lasting effects can be found by stating that these socialized mannerisms have been imparted to the individual by other persons whom the individual found to be admirable in some way or another.  In short, the subconscious is paying a homage to the persons that the entity of the self has dubbed “influential” (most likely framed in the positive).

Moving in a linear fashion through the book, I also thought it was interesting that Berger makes mention of the ways in which different cultures view children.  He mentions (p.136) that Western cultures often view children as “sweet” and “innocent” whereas some other cultures view them as “by nature sinful and unclean.”  I have no opinion one way or another other than being able to confirm (from my viewpoint) the Western stance Berger presents.  However, I did think it was worth some reflection and investigation.

Berger writes (p.141) that primary socialization cannot take place without an emotionally charged identification.  On the other hand, secondary socialization does not require this.  Berger uses the example that one is “required” to love one’s mother but not his teacher.  Perhaps it is due to the time in which the book was written, but I certainly don’t think that this is an adequate example.  One is not “required” (required by whom?)  to “love” anyone… in fact, that seemingly defeats the entire purpose of a “gift” of love.  At any rate, given the examples at hand I would have to disagree with Berger and say that his “primary” and “secondary” socializations may need to be reframed as “positive” and “negative” socializations; both influential societal auras that contribute to the development of a person’s “social-self.”

Berger states that the reality of our childhood is always regarded by the psyche as “home” (p.143) and that all other, later, realities are, by comparison, “artificial.”  I find this to be hauntingly true.  As Sartre put it, introspection is always in retrospect.  Any self analysis of the “present” is always filtered through the lens of the past.  We can’t help but compare our present situation to the days of old, particularly if we are fond of our former state/place.  Berger later (p.160) discusses that what is required is a “radical reinterpretation of the meaning of these past events or persons in one’s biography.”  I love stories, anthologies, and am a well known fan of postmodern-narrative therapy/psychology.  So this rubbed a good vein with me.  True enough, we may not be able to change the aforementioned “lens” but we can change where our focus lies, or add additional “lenses”, or recall that there are many pages left to be written in the metaphorical “biography.”

When Berger discusses “maximal success in socialization” (p.164) he seems to be advocating for his descriptions of “simple division of labor” and “minimal distribution of knowledge.”  However, I must disagree.  There is a reason Mayberry (The Andy Griffith Show) is a fictional place, and anyone not living under a rock for the last sixty years knows how socialism and communism have panned out on live scales.  Yet, Berger states that men have committed treason to the self once they've been socialized (p.170).  I agree with this part, at least when the socialization process becomes such that “the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts.”  Such a proposition insists that there is nothing singularly significant about the individual and that it’s only purpose lies in being a function of the “whole.”

Nearing the conclusion of the book Berger writes; “Put simply, psychology always presupposes cosmology” (p.175).  I feel as though I can’t quite bring myself to get on board with this assumption.  Certainly, in some regards it is quite apparent.  Extreme behaviorists and cognitivists may apply here with a reduction to neurology and nature, but I don’t think its quite the case of other models of psychology.  Even more philosophical psychologies that are more concern themselves more with space, time, and freedom can’t all be cap-stoned with the causality aspect of cosmology.  Particularly if a psychologist were to truly emphasize and embody a “here and now” or “future oriented” mindset all the rules of cosmology are little more than filler in an prologue.

Lastly, there are Berger’s concluding statements.  “Man is biologically predestined to construct and to inhabit a world with others.  This world becomes for him the dominant and definitive reality.  Its limits are set by nature, but once constructed, this world acts back upon nature.  In the dialectic between nature and the socially constructed world the human organism itself is transformed.  In this same dialectic man produces reality and thereby produces himself” (p.183).  The first part is crudely true.  We are born, other people are born, we and other people inhabit the physical planet Earth.  Berger gets a bit off track in the next statement because everything in the preceding chapters implies that hermeneutics are more quintessential than sociology and that “that world” “becomes reality” in very different ways.  Indeed, man acts back against the world (Camus:  There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn) and a transformation takes place discursive (rather than dialectic) living of life.  Lastly, man does not “produce” himself by means of producing his reality, only manifests the embodiment of him(her)self.  My ever existential side feels the need to advocate that existence precedes essence.

Reference:

Berger, P., Luckmann, T. (1966).  The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge.  New York, New York.  Anchor Books. p.116-183.

The Social Construction of Reality (Part 1)

     Finally, as the a semester of a full course load starts up again I'm gaining plenty of fodder to write on and publish here.  To kick things off, I'm taking a class titled "Social and Cultural Foundations of Psychotherapy."  The first book I am reading for the course is "The Social Construction of Reality" (follow the link for more info).  The reading assignments for the book are split into two sections.  Other texts read for the course and requiring a "Response Essay" or something similar will also be posted here.  I am also keeping journals for many of my courses.  That content is largely private, however, the inevitable reflection paper culminating from the journals may find their way here as well.  Below you will find my submitted response paper for the first half of Berger and Luckmann's book.

This essay is written in response to the first half (pages 1 - 15) of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality.  The formatting will consist of two sections, firstly, the points on which I would tend to agree with the authors (more or less “like”) and secondly, the points on which I would disagree with the authors and/or feel the more explanation or development is needed. My initial interpretation upon reading this book is that it has been quite some time since I’ve studied philosophy in the formal sense.  Perhaps there is good reasons for that.  Nevertheless, the debating spirit and love for wisdom persist.

Firstly, I like the initial premise that the book is written around a “sociology of knowledge.”  Essentially I interpreted this to mean the (sociology) development, functioning, organization, and classification of (knowledge) certainty that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics.  Given the aforementioned definition of “knowledge” set forth by the authors (p.1).  I also concur with the authors’ sentiments towards language; “... language marks the co-ordinates of my life in society and fills that life with meaningful objects” (p.22).

The authors state that “language also typifies experiences, allowing me to subsume them under broad categories in terms of which they have meaning not only to myself but also to my fellowmen” (p.39).  What I like about this statement is that the symbolism of language allows for the development of sociological expectations and archetype development.  Schemas (Jung) are also developed in conjunction with these archetypes by the vehicle of attributed meanings ala language.  “Language possesses an inherent quality of reciprocity that distinguishes it from any other sign system” (p.37).  Furthermore, language develops (within a society) a coherent means of communication and conveyance of information (eg:  knowledge).

“Deviance from the institutionally ‘programmed’ courses of action become likely once the institutions have become realities divorced from their original relevance in the concrete social processes from which they arose” (p.62).  When a society begins to base their resilience on symbolic apperceptions, a distortion takes place.  What we then find is that dysfunction and deviance from social expectations occur more commonly because the “institutional programming” no longer serves the same functions as before.  Essentially the guest-perception of a romanticized social schema becomes the prefered perceptive filter.  However, this is in error because it ignores the host-perceptive mechanism that allowed the socio-fantasy of that romanticization to develop in the first place.

Stemming from these ideas, the authors write that “mythology as a conceptual machinery is closest to the naive  level of the symbolic universe - the level l on which there is the least necessity for theoretical universe-maintenance beyond the actual positioning of the universe in question as an objective reality” (p.110).  Of course, no matter how concrete or “close to the source” a preferred constructed mythos is, it will always be the victim of apperception, thus leaving something further to be desired.  “Mythological thought operates within the continuity between the human world and the world of the gods.  Theological thought serves to mediate between these two worlds, precisely because their original continuity now appears broken” (p. 111).

“Commonsense knowledge is the knowledge I share with others in the normal, self-evident routines of everyday life” (p. 23).  I found this definition to be somewhat irritating.  A certain bit of knowledge may be evident to one person and not to another, yet it still holds the title of “common sense.”  In an ironic twist we can easily find countless examples of persons within (our) society who (as we might say) without common sense; yet per the authors this bit of knowledge is still allegedly “self-evident” to them.  Furthermore on this note, the authors talk extensively about reciprocal typification.  I would suggest that the only social constant (reciprocal typification) is that change will occur.  Questions of when and how are subject to circumstantial conditions, however, the only potential certainty is that nothing will stay the same.  The authors do state that there is no apriori consistency (p.71) but linkage between symbols and functions is just that, symbolic (at best).  Archetypes carry significant weight in our expectations of self, others, groups, and the world, yet they are extremephied abstractions open for interpretation.  Symbolizations are subjectively variable, may not even be pragmatically accurate, or consistent in their representation.

The authors do make a valid point that persons objectify themselves (when referencing the self) when representing the self vis-a-vis socially defined roles (p.73).  For example; I am a student-philosopher and a therapist-in-training.  Thought the representation of myself via language (a symbolic interpretation) is not truly encompassing of “I.”  They may ascribe and describe my representation of “me” but they are not adequate predicates to formal sense of “I.”  The vehicles of socio-typical characteristics miss something.  They are lacking something very integral.  If social construction is “legitimate”, as the authors suggest, then they relationship is also mutually reciprocal.  That is, I contribute as much to the mechanisms of social construction as social construction attributes to “me”.

I was in some agreement with the authors’ sentiments that social constructs are constantly being reified (p.90-91).  However, in debates of logic, reification is known as a fallacy.  More to the point, resetting our social adaptations and archetypes to the proverbial 0 still leaves traces of and odes to its predecessors.  It owes something to them.  A complete re-birth of these constructions is only possible by imparting a completely new system.  However, doing so denies the constructed system of “0-” and its typifications any value.  This is not true, a given system is in fact the best matter of process for the time and circumstances that it was embodied in.  But adaptations of socially constructed realities do not take place in real time.  The manner of introspection is, by default, in retrospection.

Reference:

Berger, P., Luckmann, T. (1966).  The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge.  New York, New York.  Anchor Books. p.1 - 115.

The Day That Never Comes

          I have been meaning to write this post for quite some time.  The revelation came to me one night while I was thinking about aspirations of "finally catching a break"  and the kind of mindset that accompanies such thoughts.  For starters I'll reference the Metallica song "The Day That Never Comes".

          I'll not dwell on the song and it's meaning too much as I cannot speak for the band.  Nevertheless, the title of the song and a few lyrics serve as a nice punch-line and prompt for this post.

Waiting for the one

The day that never comes

When you stand up and feel the warmth

But the sunshine never comes, no...

          I am quite certain that a great many people have had the experience, at some time or another, of thinking "If I can just... then I'll be good."  Of course entering some verbiage and / or a time frame to the statement.  What I've found is that these experiences just correlate a chain reaction from one If-Then to another.  For example, for me, two years ago it was "If I can just get accepted to graduate school...", then "If I can make it through this semester to the break...", then "Once classes start again...", etc, etc.

          What I'm starting to realize is that we've somehow allowed Hollywood, Television, and Novels to so impact our lives that we've begun to re-imagine our lives like a series of capstone endings.  That is, a picture perfect, sentimental, (more or less) happy ending.  And that's it, the story ends with closure and comfort.  The unfortunate part is that that is not the way life works.  There will always be another day, to rejoice, and another struggle to (potentially) conquer.  In this sense then we are all waiting for the day when we can say to ourselves, "At last, the worst is behind me."  But life is complicated, we all know that.  And there is a reason fiction is dubbed such and fantasy is not reality.  The very subsistence of "life" is that it is indicative of a verb... living.  Phrased in the present tense and demanding active participation, however passive or pro-active those actions are is largely up to the individual.  Don't pester me with opposition about time being linear or cyclic because the matter of fact is that "time lapsed" is always linear.  It moves in one direction, consumption.

          But that fabled, romanticized, and beloved day of relief will (in effect) never come.  It may manifest itself before our very eyes, but its presence will be of short note before the next tragedy or next struggle takes center stage.  I'm not very politically oriented, but just look, for example at how fast our world moves from one tragedy to another.  Katrina -> Tsunami in Japan -> Hurricane Sandy -> Sandy Hook Elementary.  In all of these cases there are people still suffering with the traumatic fallout of those events as our media and our attention shifts away from "Yesterday's News."

          We are longing for the "warmth of the sunshine" for our hearts to be filled and our lives to be consummated.  We are dredging thorough time and space on a quest to overcome fate and searching for closure to our struggle.  But as life goes on, so do its pains.  The sunshine may never come, or it may be the silver lining behind clouds we're failing to recognize.  Either way, that doesn't stop us from continuing onward.  The new struggles, the challenge of a new pursuit, the tragedy of Trauma-X or Incident-Y provide resistance to strive against.

          Before anyone gets too uptight let me just say that I'm not trying to diminish the severity of anyone's suffering or belittle their hardships.  What I am saying is that with time and attention to open wounds (personal, cultural, and global) we begin to realize how tedious a process it is to keep our good-faith from slipping to charms of malevolence.  We will never get to see how our story ends, we don't get to write a back cover or appendix.  All we are guaranteed is the proverbial "page" we're on.  Chapters end and pages turn (thanks, Bob Seger).  The story continues and new struggles begin as quickly as old ones are (at least perceptually) closed.  Perhaps it is more apt then not say "the day that never comes" but "the day we'll never see."  The point of inquiry and interest then becomes; "What will I do in the meantime?"

"The struggle itself towards the height is enough to fill a man's heart.  One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
- Albert Camus

Freud, Adler, Charlie Sheen, and Masturbation

          Yes, you read that title right.  After little break from the academy and writing world this is what I have to offer.  I have one class this summer, Counseling Theories, and thus far we've covered some ethic considerations, introductory stuff, and as far as actual theories we've discussed Psychoanalytic and Adlerian.  For the time being, I'll spare you a rant on each.  Maybe I'll save that for a later date.
          The first point of discussion was Psychoanalysis.  Welcome to the early 1900s and Sigmund Freud.  In the most basic sense, I'd say that what I like about psychoanalysis is that there are so many "gems" of information to be uncovered.  Certainly, I do not support Psychoanalysis or Psychodynamic theory in full (just my personal preference), but that does not mean that there isn't anything valuable in the theories.  Psychoanalysis offers a great deal of insight into the realm of the unconscious, or what is working behind the scenes that we are not pro-actively aware of.  Of course, Freud was not 100% correct, no one ever is, but he certainly gave us a lot of possibilities to consider for the past 100 years and counting.  On a comical note, my colleague who gave a presentation on the topic, described the Id (part of the psyche) as a tiger.  I could barely control my laughter because I have always thought of the impulsive ans reckless Id as being epitomized by Charlie Sheen.  If you the blanks filled in, let youtube take you back a couple years:

Perhaps my most adamant critique against this model is (please, correct me if I'm wrong) the denial of responsibility.  Allow me to elaborate.  Nevermind the nonesense that our psyche is entirely developed during childhood; but even if it were, suppose that all of our present adult issue can be traced back to something that happened during our childhood... a deficit or surplus somewhere or another.  I take no alliance with this inherent "blame game."  Blame my parents, or blame this series of random events to which I've attributed the meaning of causation of my current phobia... pick your poison, I'm not buying any.  This seems lazy in my opinion.  It is lacking responsibility and ownership.  Not that we can control every aspect of our lives, but this theory inherently denies responsible ownership of our present state and thereby demands that we succumb to the whim of our past.  Perhaps an early childhood trauma did contribute to your irrational fear of X, indeed that is insightful, but I doubt its helpfulness.  What do you plan on doing about it now?  I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that insight without action is useless, but it doesn't seem to help having a flashlight in the dark if you don't know how to turn it on.  Nevertheless, I stumbled upon a Freud quote the other day that was very much to my liking:  "No one who... conjures up... those half-tamed demons that inhabit the human beast, and seeks to wrestle with them, can expect to come through the struggle unscathed"  Think about that for a good long while...  Here are some links for more information on psychoanalysis, psychodynamic theory, Freud, and Jung.  

          On to the Adlerian theory.  Again, this will be just a brief commentary, for more information about Adler, have a look here.  I have never thought of myself as an Adlerian, but what I was quite surprised and impressed with during this class lecture was how much more "contemporary" styles of therapy owe to Adler.  For example, the notion of the therapist not being an expert, therapy being a collaborative arrangement based on mutual respect, emphasis on choice and responsibility, emphasis on meaning making, and interests in family constellations.  If you've read any of my writing before, some of that should sound pretty familiar.  The one bone I have to pick with Adler is his optimism that people will be willing to change.  His theories seem to assume that people will desire a stance of activism.  For my personal interests and opinions, this is true.  However, it is certainly not a blanket effect.  It is pretty safe to say that a large number of people are perfectly content with... well... being content.  Which, then, kind of puts a buger in the whole "superiority striving" notion.  (And yes, I am aware that that phrase does not necessarily mean being better than everyone else, but closer to being your 'best self' - Maslow and Self-Actualization?).

          That brings me to the last tag in the title.  When contemplating parts of the psyche, various terms are used by Freud and Jung, but I've also heard comparisons with terms such as "should-self", "ought-self", and "actual-self".  Similarities exist, for example, the "should-self" closely resembles Freud's Superego in the sense that social-moral-cultural standards suggest you "should" do/be this.  The "ought-self" (if my memory is correct) is somewhat of an expectation of the Ego, I "ought to" do this or be this way.  We can see, then, some correlation starting to develop from Adler's notion of superiority-striving.  Once this was mentioned in class and the connections made in my memory, I couldn't help but continuously think of one thing.... "Is that what a man looks like?"

          

First Year of Graduate School Summary

          My second semester and first year (out of three) at the University of West Georgia ended two weeks ago.  As following form with the first semester, I wanted to write a little something to sum up my experiences this semester.
          Firstly, I must say that this semester has been exhausting.  Particularly the last three weeks or so.  I thoroughly enjoyed my classes this semester.  I thought that they had helped me to dive excruciatingly deep into this wonder we call "the human experience."  Of course, it is impossible for me to express all that I have learned over the past semester in this simple post, but that is what all the entries along the way have been for.  I also felt like there was great synergy between most of my classes.  Particularly the connection between "Psychology of Suffering and Disorders" and "Brief and Narrative Therapy."  The same instructor taught my "Suffering" course as my "Theory and Practice of Clinical Assessment" course, so naturally there was some methedological and philosophical crossover.  The topics covered in these courses most certainly influenced the topics I discussed and researched for my "Research Methods" course.
          In terms of exhausting, I have never felt so "out of gas." as the closing weeks of this semester.  For starters, my Spring "Break" consisted of me working over 60 hours at my Mental Health Tech job.  The following week, there was a stint where I was awake (not just vegged out infront of a TV or computer screen) for about 41 hours.  That consisted of a 12 hour shift at work, presenting our Psychology Department's annual conference, providing supportive attendance to my colleagues' presentations, and returning to work for another 6 hour stint... then it was time to begin working on my final papers.  From what I can recall, I think I wrote somewhere between 80 and 100 pages in a matter of 4 days.  Truth be told, I was sad to see the semester end.  My feelings of running out of fuel were not due to "uninvested sacrifice", rather, quite the opposite.  I feel as if I had contributed all that I possibly could to the courses ... to the point where the grades I "earned" were irrelevant.  My spirit may have been running out of fuel but I can hardly think of I time when my heart had felt so full.  That, has made the journey worth it all the while.
          I finally watched "The Dark Knight Rises" (yes, I'm a bit late in getting to this) but I think that the timing was just right considering the philosophical implications of the film.  There were two parts of the movie that I felt really spoke to my personal life.  First, Bain says to Batman; "You fight like a younger man, with nothing held back... admirable, but mistaken."  When I look back at my career as an athlete, I think this is very symbolic   When I first started practicing martial arts and combat sports, you could say, I was full of piss and vinegar, seething with anger at the world, and searching for an outlet.  I found that outlet in fighting.  One of the reasons I have not returned to fight in "the octagon" is because I am afraid that I could not recreate the experience of my first fight.  I was driven by a raw grotesque rotting in my guts, as if they were filled with gravel, my eyes sharp and hardened stones.  For better or worse, I don't know that I feel that way anymore.  Similarly, in the film, the parallel is that "Victory has defeated you."  Bain says this as he's pummeling Batman and the idea behind it is that Bain is still fueled by an animalistic rage whereas Batman has become soft or weakened, that he has "mereley adopted the darkness" rather than being "born in it, raised by it."
          The second connection I made to the film lies in an exchange between Bruce Wayne and Alfred.  Bruce tells Alfred, "You're afraid that I'll fail."  Alfred replies, "No, I'm afraid that you want to."  In my class discussions on Suffering, we talked about Vicarious Trauma, or Counselor's Guilt (similar in my mind to Survivor's Guilt), Burnout, and Compassion Fatigue.  The more interesting part of the discussion was about the unavailability of resources for counselors to help themselves manage their existential pains.  Indeed, a colleague said to me at the conference (mentioned above), "Wow... I hope you're taking time to take care of yourself."  I wrote in one of my journal entries that that was my "sickness unto death"; that I didn't want to or have forgotten how to "take care of myself."  In a similar sense to the film, and the more interesting part of my inquiry into these topics, is why I don't want the help in dealing with these vicarious and guilty sufferings.  I don't think it is a matter of individual egoism  by more a fundamental principle of mine.  "Suffering builds character" (from the film).  In absolute honesty, I am mortified by the thought that attempts at soothing my own personal sufferings and traumas would only antagonize the "existential" guilt.  Indeed, there is something pure, simple, and beautiful about the "9-5 grind" and carrying on your personal life in segregation.  But that concept misses something powerful, "admirable but mistaken", there is wonder and awe to be found in the depths of our suffering when we peer up (if only for an instant) from the quagmire and (perhaps only imagine) see(ing) a faint peep of sunlight.
          I have become increasingly convinced of the truth in Camus' statement that "The struggle towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart" and of course, then, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."  But I suppose that depends on the punchline of another favorite film of mine (Vanilla Sky), "What is happiness to you..."  For me, I have to think it is the feeling of being burried but brilliant, depth charging a rabbit hole, owing nothing to the filth of this planet and its contents, but giving everything anyway.