https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=68tFnjkIZ1Q
Music Alright So, we’re going to leap out of the psychoanalytic domain Now, and start talking about a form of approach to personality and its transformations that’s predicated on a different, a set of different philosophical assumptions and it’s a bit tricky to navigate this because it requires the adoption of a different frame of mind and of course that’s the case with all the theorists that we’re going to be discussing Phenomenology probably had its most thorough explication in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and Heidegger was actually trying to reconstruct western philosophy from the bottom up He thought that we had been pursuing an improper pathway conceptually really ever since the time of the ancient Greeks Back around the turn of the century, the previous century, from the 19th to the 20th century a new form of geometry was invented and that geometry was predicated on different axioms than Euclidean geometry Now, people had thought for thousands of years that the world was properly described by Euclidean geometry and you know, when you employ a system like Euclidean geometry, you have, there’s axioms that you have to accept and they’re like the rules of the game, and once you accept the axioms, then you can go ahead and play the game but there are other forms of geometry invented in the later part of the 19th century and it turned out that those forms with different axioms actually described the world better than the Euclidean forms sort of like the transformation from Newton to Einstein this was the transformation from Euclid to say, I think I’ve got his name right, Riemann, I-E-M-A-N-N who developed a new form of geometry, and it turned out to be just the geometry that Einstein needed when he was putting his theories forward and the reason I’m telling you that is because you can think of systems that have different axioms as different tools same idea that Piaget was trying to express when he talked about how children’s cognitive representations underwent stage transformations so that they were starting to apply new principles, not only a new way of looking at the world but they were fundamentally retooling their presumptions about how the world operated and Heidegger tried to do the same thing with philosophy and so, and it’s tricky to figure out exactly what he was talking about, but I’ll give it a shot and then we can move forward with Rogers so, since the dawn of the scientific world, and likely before that, we have tended to believe that we are subjects in a world of objects and that’s obviously a very useful way to view the world, and you can tell that because formalizing that in the form of science has enabled us to extend control over the world in ways that we were not able to before to formulate the idea of an objective truth has been an extraordinary useful maneuver and so, the idea roughly is that everyone’s perceptions can be contaminated by their own biases and their own fantasies the subjective biases and fantasies, and you can overcome that by stringently specifying the conditions under which an observation takes place so that would be an experimental method having multiple people view the consequences separately, have them detail out what the consequences are, and then look for commonalities across them and you think, well, the commonalities across the set of observations constituted description of the objective world and that’s been insanely powerful, crazily powerful I mean, that’s not all there is to the scientific method, but it’s a big part of it now, there’s an emergent problem with that, perhaps it’s complicated, but one of the emergent problems with that is maybe a consequence of stripping the subjectivity out of the world so, what science does is consider anything subjective, a form of bias or error in the observation, and then get rid of it and so, what you’re left with when you formulate the scientific world is a world that’s stripped of subjectivity now, the problem with that is that you’re a subject, and so, when you strip the world of its subjectivity, that sort of leaves you isolated like an isolated being with no necessary connection to objective reality in the midst of a set of impersonal facts and that seems to have psychological consequences and the psychological consequences are that, well, for example, I think it’s easier to develop a nihilistic sense of being, for example if you believe that the world is nothing but objects, and that you’re fundamentally an object among many, and not a particularly important one at that so, there are psychological consequences to adopting the scientific world view prior to the emergence of the scientific world view, people were more embedded in what you might think about as a mythological landscape where every element of being had its place in something that approximated a master plan, or at least a meaningful plan and so, the idea of the meaningfulness of life was not necessarily such a pressing intellectual concern and then, well, and so we don’t know the full extent of that I mean, I’ve talked to you a little bit about Nietzsche’s idea, expressed at the end of the 19th century, about the death of God and his prognostication that the collapse of classic systems of meaning would open up people to possession by nihilism and also by potentially totalitarian political systems, and that seems to have been what happened now, Heidegger was very concerned about that, among other things and so, he decided to reconsider reality from the bottom up and so, what he did was generate an alternative set of axioms, he said something like well, what if we decide to make reality everything that we experience forget about the subject-object divide one of the other problems with the subject-object divide, for example, is accounting for consciousness because it’s a problem that science really hasn’t got any distance with at all, as far as I can tell I mean, people have been trying to crack the secret of consciousness, obviously for a very long time but they’ve been trying to do it formally, and using scientific methods, at least for the last 50 years and my sense of that is that they’ve got absolutely nowhere maybe that’s a bit unfair we’re better at representing how conscious experiences manifest themselves in the brain but we’re certainly no better at understanding how it is that we experience things and that’s the problem of qualia that’s how the philosophers describe it, and qualia is the quality of your experience like the fact of pain, for example the pain you feel is by no means identical, at least as far as you’re concerned to some pattern of neurological activity it’s pain, it seems to be a fundamental reality of some in fact, I think pain is the fundamental reality, I think it’s the only thing that people will never deny but… so there are these aspects of your existence that are subjective like your experience of colour, and your experience of beauty, and just your experience of things or maybe just your experience and your experience plays an indeterminate role in the structure of being itself because you might ask, well, what would there be if there was nothing conscious? and you could say, well… what would there be if there was nothing conscious of being? well, it’s a tricky question, because it depends on your a priori axioms, but it’s not obvious what there would be in the absence of a conscious observer there wouldn’t obviously be any duration between things it would be very difficult to specify things in terms of size there wouldn’t be any of the qualities that we experience that we experience our being as having because colour doesn’t seem to be an intrinsic part of the world smell doesn’t seem to be an intrinsic part of the world it’s very difficult the more you think about it, you’d find the more difficult it is to determine exactly what there would be if there was no one to observe it and that’s not the tree in the forest idea, precisely it’s not so much if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one to hear it, does it make a sound? because that’s more a matter of the definition of sound than anything else this is more like, if there’s a tree in the forest and there isn’t anyone is there a tree? and that’s a whole different question anyway, so what Heidegger did partly because he was not pleased, I suppose with the metaphysical consequences of the scientific worldview and also, perhaps, because he wasn’t very happy about our ability to account for consciousness he decided to see what would happen if he played a different kind of game and you can do that in an intellectual discussion you can say, well, here’s a set of axioms out of which a system will emerge here’s a set of rules out of which a game would emerge same idea what if we start with a different set of rules? let’s see what we can do if we do that you kind of do that when you play one video game rather than another there are little worlds that pop out there’s a different underlying structure and then you can go inside that world and experiment with it and see what comes out of it so Heidegger decided to say okay, what we’re going to do instead is we’re going to assume that everything we experience is real we’re going to make our field of experience itself reality and so that would mean, from Heidegger’s point of view that everything about the being that manifests itself to you is to be regarded as equally real so then you think, well, that makes pain a fundamental reality that makes anxiety a fundamental reality it makes beauty and color fundamental realities they’re not self-evidently reducible to anything else which they would be which they are from the scientific perspective because you have to think about them as manifestations of some more fundamental underlying material reality and I guess that’s another problem with the subject-object model and the material model when you aggregate atoms when you arrange them in certain forms when they manifest themselves as certain molecules and then in more complex structures they seem to take on all sorts of qualities that you couldn’t predict if you just knew about the subatomic particles and the atoms themselves and so of course, those are called emergent properties and you say, well, you can observe hydrogen and you can observe oxygen but that doesn’t make it self-evident for you to be able to predict the properties of water and of course, that’s a much simpler problem all things considered than the problem of figuring you out you’re this crazily complex aggregate of these hypothetically simple entities but it isn’t obvious how their elemental properties can combine to produce you it’s not obvious at all it’s certainly not obvious how a material that’s supposed to be dead matter so to speak, can manifest consciousness no matter how complexly it’s arranged so, the phenomenologists Heidegger leading them were attempted to produce a philosophical model of being and we’ll talk more specifically about the phenomenologists after we’re done with Rogers but he fits in that philosophical framework one of the things that I’ve thought this is a bit of a tangent but I’ll move back to the model afterwards see, I really like the psychoanalysts and I like the idea that you have a psyche that’s inside of you and that that is structured in partly consciously and in part unconsciously there’s something about that that’s really cool and I’ve learned a lot from the psychoanalysts but, you know, there is a funny consequence of thinking the way they think and you do think the way they think, even if you don’t know it like, we tend to think that a lot of us is inside our head you know, that’s the psyche model, basically but the more I’ve practiced as a clinical psychologist the less I’ve actually been convinced that that’s true so I could say, well, let’s say I want to know about your personality we think, well, I want to know you, I want to know about your subjectivity I want to know what’s inside of you but that isn’t actually what you do want to know if you’re doing clinical work, say, with someone you want to know, do they have any friends? that’s really important because if you’re miserable and anxious and badly placed in life and misbehaving one of the reasons that all of that can occur is because you don’t have any friends you don’t know anyone and that’s not something that’s inside you it’s you localized in a broader sphere and then you might say, well, do you have a job? and, well, let’s talk about the job do you actually make enough money with your job? is it satisfying for you in any way? are you bullied all the time when you’re at work? does it provoke anxiety? is it a career that allows you to go somewhere? are you overworked? well, but let’s start with just the first question do you have a job? well, if the answer to that is no you have a serious problem and that would enough might be to depress you and make you anxious and hopeless and nihilistic and all of those things and you could say, well, you’re not reacting very well to not having a job but that’s kind of a foolish objection even though some of it might be true one problem is that you’re not reacting very well to not having a job and you’re not doing your job and one of the other things is that you’re not reacting very well to not having a job but another problem is that you don’t have a job and that actually constitutes a problem right? you don’t get to eat, you don’t have a place to live those aren’t psychological problems precisely, even though a psychological problem could make it worse well, are you as educated as you should be? that’s another question how do you handle drugs and alcohol? are they taking you down a bad pathway? you know, um what about intimate relationships? do you have one? do you have a plan for one? or is that a never ending series of catastrophes? or something that you avoid completely? that’s a big problem and maybe people aren’t attracted to you for one reason or another and you can think about that as a psychological problem but it’s an interpersonal problem and the degree to which that’s a psychological problem is certainly unspecified when you first begin to talk to somebody what about your family? do you have a family? because it’s hard to be in the world all by yourself that’s for sure it makes things a lot more stressful even though having a family can also be extraordinarily stressful do you have plans to have children? how are you doing with your parents? do you get along with your siblings? all of that, all of that to me is more fundamental and it’s outside of you those are elements of your experience more broadly conceptualized, more than they are objects of your psychology or of your internal experience it’s sort of like while a person is a creature that exists at multiple levels of analysis something might go wrong with you at a cellular level maybe you’re born with a genetic abnormality so something’s wrong with you molecularly or you have something wrong with a major organ or maybe there’s something wrong with you psychologically or maybe you’re in a pathological family or maybe you’re stuck in a pathological social system and figuring out why you’re suffering means going up and down those different levels trying to specify the appropriate level for analysis and also the appropriate level for intervention and for me, as I’ve said, even though I’m a great admirer of the psychoanalysts and I do things like dream analysis, which I really find incredibly useful and enlightening the fundamental level of analysis is what’s your experience structured like? and that isn’t localized in you now the behaviorists do that too because it’s one of the things I really like about the behavioral approach to psychotherapy it’s very very concrete and practical they’ll say, well there’s certain things that you need to have in order to live properly and maybe you don’t have the skills or the wherewithal to accumulate them and we’ll break them down into tiny little pieces and you’ll practice so for example, with someone who doesn’t have any friends, then you do a micro analysis of their social skills and maybe an analysis of the kinds of anxiety that are stopping them from going out and meeting people and then you address those things practically one by one, you try to get the person to have some friends, you try to figure out how they can establish an intimate relationship you see if you can help them sort out their family you do what you can about their employment and a lot of that’s only tangentially related to, really in some sense to the structure of their psyche but one of the things you’ll see if you work as a clinician or as a counselor is that most of the time people come and see you because they have problems, not because they have psychological problems and those things are not that easy to distinguish you know, it’s sort of the psychoanalytic idea, sort of like, well if you just got your act together, everything would work out for you it’s like, yeah there’s some truth in that but but you know, if you’re 55 years old and you’ve just been laid off work and maybe through no fault of your own it isn’t obvious how much getting your act together is going to help you find another job because the actual problem that you’re facing may have relatively little to do with you and that would especially be the case if you’re maybe on the bottom half of the intelligence distribution, for example and so it isn’t as easy for you just to go out and pick up new skills at the drop of a hat you know, and that gets harder as you get older because your IQ actually declines quite substantially as you get older the working, or the the fluid intelligence part anyways exercise can keep that at bay by the way, it’s the best way to keep that at bay so anyways you can think from the phenomenological viewpoint of your experience as a whole instead of you being a subject in an objective world, and so here’s another way of, here’s something that’s quite useful Jung talked about this because he was moving towards a phenomenological perspective later in his life the last book he wrote was called Mysterium Conjunctionus and he talked about three conjunctions that needed to take place in order for someone to be well constituted psychologically and you know how Piaget talked about learning that you could not only follow rules, but that you could make rules for new games as sort of the highest level of moral development I would say, Jung extended the Piagetian moral and the moral development of the world extended the Piagetian moral continuum up past what Piaget had envisioned now he didn’t do that because he wasn’t trying to extend Piaget’s model but you can think about it the same way, and it’s not easy to come up with a moral mode of being say that transcends the ability to make rules for new games that’s damn smart man that’s a major home run by Piaget as far as I’m concerned, but Jung said something like this, he said look when you’re going through the process of psychological integration here’s a way of conceptualizing it and he thought about this as symbolically as male-female pairings because as I’ve tried to point out one of the most fundamental categories that our mythological imagination uses to structure the world is the category of masculine and feminine, and it moves that around it’s a fundamental metaphor so you can move that around anywhere and so Jung thought, well one of the things that you’re trying to do is to get your thoughts and your emotions integrated and so you know the classic enlightenment viewpoint roughly speaking is something like passion is the enemy of reason right, and so to the degree that you’re rational, it’s sort of a Freudian viewpoint, it’s because you got your emotions under control and there’s some truth in that, but not enough truth, I like the Piagetian idea better, which is that no, no, that isn’t what happens, what happens if you’re playing the proper game is that you integrate your emotions underneath your thinking something like that, so they’re all working in the same direction, you know, so for example, you can make your anxiety work against you or for you and one of the ways I made a program called the Future Authoring Program that I think helps people do that, because one of the things you see when you’re talking to people and they’re trying to solve problems is that they’re afraid to face the problem and so then their anxiety is working against them, and you can think about it as antagonistic to rationality but then I could say well, why don’t you think for a while about what your life would be like if you didn’t face this problem because if you think that through if you have a problem and you really think through what the consequences are going to be in 3-5 years of not facing it then you’re going to get more afraid of not facing it than facing it and that’s great, because then your anxiety instead of standing in front of you instead of having a dragon that’s guarding the path in front of you you have one chasing you down the path from behind, that’s a lot more useful, and so you know, that’s just a minimal example of the utility of getting your emotions and your thoughts aligned the same way the same thing happens with aggression you know, one of the most common reasons that people come and seek psychotherapy really is because they’re too agreeable, but what that means is they’re not assertive enough, they haven’t integrated their capacity for aggression so other people can push them around and they’re very conflict avoidant and so the consequences of that across time is that you don’t stand up for yourself well enough, and you get taken advantage of, and that spirals badly downward, and so partly what you do when you’re doing assertiveness training with people is you find out what they’re angry about, and they’re usually angry if they’re not assertive enough, because other people are taking advantage of them, or you could say because they’re not putting their own necessities forward with enough force it’s hard to distinguish between those two things but anyways, you you get them to talk about what they’re angry about, that often makes them cry often many times and then you get them to kind of envision what they would want to have instead which they’re often afraid to do, because people are afraid to think about what they want because that makes it more clear when they’re not getting it, and that’s painful, right, or maybe they’re afraid of hoping, so they won’t specify a clear aim, but anyways, you get them to think about what they might want instead you get them to think about the costs of not pursuing that, and then you help them develop strategies for integrating their aggression and with their thinking so that they can come up with a plan to approach the world in a more confident way, so for example, someone might come to me and say, I’m being bullied badly at work, and so then I’ll say well, what are your options? you have to put up with it? well, we’ll figure that out, because maybe you do maybe you don’t have options, but here’s how to find out, get your damn CV together so it’s pristine right, it’s ready to go get over your fear of a new interview because people are generally afraid of that get over your fear of applying for a new job start thinking about what it would mean to have a different job start thinking about what it would mean to have a better job even, because maybe your fear is just making you stuck here but I can tell you one thing if someone’s picking on you at work, and you don’t have options, you lose so you get the person to start building a strategy, it’s like, okay if you’re going to tell this person to stop you have to know how to make them stop, and the one thing you need for sure is an option and if you can’t, if you don’t have an option, then maybe we start thinking about the fact that you need some more training or something like that, because you cannot negotiate if you don’t have any power so, because while, especially if you’re dealing with someone who’s really out to get you, or really disagreeable if you don’t have a leg to stand on, they’ll just push you over, and maybe they’ll jump on you too because that’s what they’re like, and they enjoy it anyway so, it’s no joke so, you put your options behind you, and then you start to think about strategies, so I tell people, look if you’re being harassed at work you document it every time it happens, and you write it down so you’ve got like 20 stories about it, and it’s fully documented and then, you go confront the person at some point but with at least three pieces of evidence and you have some sense of what you tell them about what will happen if they don’t stop so you have to figure out, well, if they don’t stop, what are you going to do about it? leave? Not if you can’t leave, so you have to be able to, what is it, wield a big stick and speak softly but you see, that way, it’s that’s how you take your aggression, which is an absolutely necessary part of your psyche and manifest it up into a sophisticated means of dealing with the world you don’t just suppress it, you say, well I should be able to put up with it or I wish I wasn’t so angry or something, it’s like, forget that that’s, all that’ll happen is your blood pressure will stay high and you’ll die of a heart attack, because anger, for example is a very toxic emotion and it does cause heart damage over time it’s the only emotion that we really know that’s been linked to things like cardiovascular risk, and anger is toxic, because it’s like you’re driving a car, you’re stepping on the gas and pushing on the brake at the same time because anger tells you to run away and to attack, at the same time because you don’t know what’s going to happen and so it really amps up the physiological demand on your body, and so if you including your heart, and your musculature so if you stay like that for like 10 years you know, you’re going to age 20 years and that’s a bad plan so so, you know, you take your underground emotions and you integrate them into a sophisticated reality now Jung said so, first of all you unite your mind your thinking, let’s say, with your emotions so that makes one thing instead of two fighting things okay, that’s a good one and then the next conjunction he talked about was, it isn’t enough to unite your mind and your emotions, and he thought about that as a male female pairing, symbolically that’s how it would manifest itself sometimes in dreams so you take the masculine element and the feminine element the thinking and the emotion, unite those and that makes you more like one thing, okay now all of a sudden that’s represented as symbolically male that one thing, and it unites with something else that’s now represented symbolically feminine, female, that’s the body so you take the mind emotion, integration and integrate that in your body so what does that mean? You act it out instead of just thinking so there’s this philosophical idea called a oh, now I’m going to forget what it’s called it’s a contradiction in action there’s actually a technical term for it but that’s when you think and believe something but you don’t act it out and so that means there’s a dissociation in you somehow between your abstract representations and what you manifest in action well that’s another form of discontinuity that isn’t doing you any good you know, the driver’s going one way and the car’s going the other and you won’t even be able to understand yourself if you do that, but even more you’re not putting your principles into practice so you’re dissociated, your being is dissociated, so once you get your mind and your emotions working together then the next thing to do is to act that out consistently, so that was the second conjunction as far as Jung was concerned and then the third one was this is the tough one, and this is the one that’s related to phenomenology you erase the distinction between yourself and the world okay that’s a tough one, so imagine you’re dealing with someone who’s hoarding now people who are hoarding are often older, or neurologically damaged or they have obsessive-compulsive disorder but then you walk into their house and there’s like 10,000 things in their house there’s maybe a hundred boxes, and you open up a box and in the box there’s some pens and some old passports and some checks and their collection of silver dollars and some hypodermic needles and some dust and you know, a dead mouse and there’s boxes and boxes and boxes like that in the house it’s absolute chaos in there absolute chaos, not order, chaos and then you think is that their house or is that their being is that their mind and the answer is, there’s no difference there’s no difference so you know, I could say, well if you want to organize your psyche, you could start by organizing your room, if that would be easier because maybe you’re a more concrete person and you need something concrete to do so you go clean up under your bed and you make your bed and you organize the papers on your desk and you think, well just exactly what are you organizing? are you organizing the objective world or are you objecting your field, or are you organizing your field of being like your field of total experience and Jung believed that and I think there’s a Buddhist doctrine that’s sort of nested in there that at the highest level of psychological integration there’s no difference between you and what you experience now you think, well I can’t control everything I experience but that’s no objection because you can’t control yourself anyways, so the mere fact that you can’t extend control over everything you experience is no argument against the idea that you should still treat that as an extension of yourself so you could say, well let’s say you have a long standing feud with your brother well, is that a psychological problem? is that him? is it a problem in the objective world? or is it a problem in your field of being? and it’s very useful to think that way because you might ask, what could you do to improve yourself? well, let’s step one step backwards the first question might be, why should you even bother improving yourself? and I think the answer to that is something like so you don’t suffer any more stupidly than you have to and maybe so others don’t have to either it’s something like that, you know, like there’s a real injunction at the bottom of it, it’s not some casual self help doctrine it’s that if you don’t organize yourself properly, you’ll pay for it, and in a big way so will the people around you and you could say, well I don’t care about that but that’s actually not true, you actually do care about that, because if you’re in pain you will care about it and so you do care about it, even if it’s just that negative way, you know it’s very rare that you can find someone who’s in excruciating pain, who would ever say, well it would be no better if I was out of this sort of pain is one of those things that brings the idea that it would be better if it didn’t exist along with it, it’s incontrovertible so you get your act together so that there isn’t any more stupid pain around you than necessary, well so then the question might be, well how would you go about getting your act together, and the answer to that and this is a phenomenological idea too it’s something like, look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it so, now you think, well let’s say you go into a you can do this in a room, it’s quite fun to do it just when you’re sitting in a room, like a room maybe your bedroom, you can sit there and just sort of meditate on it and think, okay if I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better what would I have to do? And you have to ask yourself that, right, it’s not a command it’s like a genuine question, and things will pop out in the room that you know there’s a stack of papers over there that’s kind of bugging you, and you know that maybe little order there would be a good thing, and you know, you haven’t, there’s some rubbish behind your computer monitor that you haven’t attended to for like six months, and the room would be slightly better if it was a little less dusty and the cables weren’t all tangled up the same way, and like if you, if you allow yourself just to consider the expanse in which you exist at that moment there’ll be all sorts of things that’ll pop out in it that you could just fix and you know, I might say, well if you were coming to see me for psychotherapy this easiest thing for us to do first would just be to get you to organize your room. You think, well is that psychotherapy? And the answer is, well it depends on how you conceive the limits of your being and I would say, start where you can start you know, if something announces itself to you, which is a strange way of thinking about it, as in need of repair, that you could repair, then hey fix it. You fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different Now I often tell people too, fix the things you repeat every day because people tend to think of those as trivial right? You get up you brush your teeth, you have your breakfast you know, you have your routines that you go through every day. Well those probably constitute 50% of your life, and people think well they’re mundane, I don’t need to pay attention to them it’s like, no no, that’s exactly wrong the things you do every day, those are the most important things you do hands down. All you have to do is do the arithmetic you figure it out right away so, a hundred adjustments to your broader domain of being, and there’s a lot less rubbish there’s a lot less rubbish around, and a lot fewer traps for you to step into. And so that’s in keeping with Jung’s idea about erasing the, once you’ve got your mind and your emotions together, and once you’re acting that out, then you can extend what you’re willing to consider yourself and start fixing up the things that are a part of your broader extent. Now sometimes you don’t know how to do that, so you might say, imagine you’re walking down Bloor Street and there’s this guy who’s like alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been on the streets for ten years, he sort of stumbles towards you and you know incoherently mutters something that’s a problem and it would be good if you could fix it, but you haven’t got a clue about how to fix that. You just walk around that and go find something that you could fix, because if you muck about in that, not only is it unlikely that you’ll help that person, it’s very likely that you’ll get hurt yourself. So you know, just because while you’re experiencing things announce themselves as in need of repair, doesn’t mean that it’s you right then and there that should repair them. You have to have some humility you know, you don’t walk up to a helicopter that isn’t working and just start tinkering away with it. You have to stay within your domain of competence, but most of the time, if people look at their lives you know it’s a very interesting thing to do I like the idea of the room because you can do that at the drop of a hat you know, you go back to where you live and sit down and think, okay, I’m going to make this place better for half an hour what should I do? You have to ask, and things will just pop up like mad and it’s partly because your mind is a very strange thing. As soon as you give it a name a genuine name it’ll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That’s actually how you see to begin with. And so if you set it a task, especially, you have to be genuine about it, which is why you have to bring your thoughts and emotions together and then you have to get them in your body so you’re acting consistently you have to be genuine about the aim but once you aim, the world will reconfigure itself around that aim, which is very strange and it’s technically true you know, the best example of that you have all seen this video where you watch the basketballs being tossed back and forth between members of the white team versus the black team and while you’re doing that, a gorilla walks up into the middle of the video and you don’t see it it’s like, you know, if you thought about that experiment for about five years that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it. Because what it shows you is that you see what you aim at and that man, if you can get one thing through your head as a consequence of even being in university that would be a good one. You see what you aim at and so because one inference you might draw from that is be careful what you aim at right? What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. And so if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way one thing to ask is, are you aiming at the right thing? Now, you know I’m not trying to reduce everybody’s problems to an improper aim people get cut off at the knees for all sorts of reasons, you know, they get sick they have accidents, there’s a random element to being, that’s for sure and so you don’t want to take anything even that particular phrase too far you want to bind it with the fact that random things do happen to people but it’s still a great thing to ask Okay, so Rogers was a phenomenologist and he was interested in he didn’t start his philosophy from the perspective of subject versus object or from the idea of psyche like sort of inside you your mind with its layers that’s not how he looked at it and so let’s go through I’ll introduce you to Rogers and then we’ll talk about it more next time I’m going to start though with something that I learned from him that I think was of crucial importance and so we’ll set the stage for the further discussion with this and I’m going to read it to you It’s quite a mouthful What does it mean? Assuming a minimal mutual willingness to be in contact and to receive communications Okay, we’re having a conversation I’m deciding I’m going to listen to you Right? That’s different than how people generally communicate because usually when they communicate they’re doing something like, okay we’re going to have a conversation and I’m going to tell you why I’m right and I’ll win if you agree or maybe you’re having a conversation where, I don’t know what you’re trying to do maybe you’re trying to impress the person you’re talking to so you’re not listening to them at all you’re just thinking about what you’re going to say next Okay, so that’s not this this is, you might have something to tell me and so I’m going to listen on the off chance that you’ll tell me something that would really be useful for me to know You could think about it as an extension of the Piagetian you know, Piaget talked about the fundamental the fundamentally important element of knowledge being to describe how knowledge is sought, the process by which knowledge is generated. Well if you agree with me and I find that out, I know nothing more than I knew before I just know what I knew before and maybe I’m happy about that because, you know it didn’t get challenged, but I’m no smarter than I was before Maybe you’re different than me, and so while I’m listening to you you’ll tell me something I wouldn’t, I don’t like maybe it’s something I find contemptible, or difficult, whatever maybe you’ll find, you’ll tell me something I don’t know, and then I won’t be quite as stupid, and then maybe I won’t run painfully into quite as many things, and that’s a really useful thing to know, especially if you live with someone and you’re trying to make long term peace with them, is they’re not the same as you, and the way they look at the world, and the facts that they pull out of the world aren’t the same as your facts and even though you’re going to be overwhelmed with the proclivity to demonstrate that you’re right it is the case that two brains are better than one, and so maybe nine of the ten things they tell you are dispensable or maybe even forty-nine out of fifty, but one thing all you need to get out of the damn conversation is one thing you don’t know and one of the things that’s very cool about a good psychotherapeutic session is that the whole conversation is like that. All you’re doing is trying to express the truth of the situation as clearly as possible. That’s it. And so now, Roger’s proposition and I’ll tell you why he derived it, was that if you have a conversation like that with someone it will make both of you better it will make both of you psychologically healthier. So there’s an implicit presupposition that the exchange of truth is curative. Well that’s a very cool idea. I mean it’s a very deep idea. I think it’s the most profound idea it’s the idea upon which western civilization although not only western civilization, is actually predicated the idea that truth produces health. But for Roger’s that was the entire purpose of the psychotherapeutic alliance You come to see me because you want to be better. You don’t even know what that means necessarily neither do I. We’re going to figure that out together. But you come and you say look, things are not acceptable to me and maybe there’s something I could do about that. So that’s the minimal precondition to engage in therapy. Something’s wrong, you’re willing to talk about it truthfully, and you want it to be better. Without that, the therapeutic relationship does not get off the ground. And so then you might ask, well what relationships are therapeutic? And the answer to that would be if you have a real relationship it’s therapeutic. If it isn’t what you have is not a relationship. God only knows what you have. You’re a slave they’re a tyrant. You know you’re both butting heads with one another it’s a primate dominance hierarchy dispute. Oh I don’t know, you’re like two cats in a barrel or two people with their hands around each other’s throats. But what you have is not a relationship. So Alright, we may say that the greater the communicated congruence of experience awareness and behaviour on the part of one individual that’s a reference to the same idea that I was describing with regards to Jung. So let’s say you come and talk to me and you want things to go well. Well I’m going to have to more or less be one thing because if I’m all over the place you can’t trust any continuity in what I say. There’s no reason for you to believe that I’m capable of actually telling you I’m capable of expressing anything that’s true. So the truth is something that emerges as a consequence of getting yourself lined up and beating all the what would you call all the impurities out of your out of your soul for lack of a better word. You have to be integrated for that to happen and you do that at least in part by wanting to tell the truth. The more the ensuing relationship will involve a tendency towards reciprocal communication with the same qualities. So one of the things that I’ve been quite influenced by, Rogers, one of the things I try to do in my therapeutic sessions is first of all to listen, to really listen. And then while I listen I watch and while I’m listening things will happen in my head. You know, maybe I’ll get a little image of something or I’ll get a thought or a question will emerge and then I’ll just tell the person what that is. But it’s sort of directionless, you know, it’s not like I have a goal except that we’re trying to make things better. I’m on the side of the person I’m on the side of the part of the person that wants things to be better not worse. And so then those parts of us have a dialogue and the consequence of that dialogue is that certain things take place and then I’ll just tell the person what happened. And it isn’t that I’m right. That’s not the point. The point is that they get to have an hour where someone actually tells them what they think. Here’s the impact you’re having on me. You know, this is making me angry. This is making me happy. This is really interesting. This reminds me of something that you said an hour ago that I don’t quite understand. And the whole point is not for either person to make the proposition or convince the other that their position is correct but merely to have an exchange of experience about how things are set up. And it’s extraordinarily useful for people because it’s often difficult for anyone to find, anyone to talk to that will actually listen. And so another thing that’s really strange about this listening is that if you listen to people they will tell you the weirdest bloody things so fast you just cannot believe it. So if you’re having a conversation with someone and it’s dull, it’s because you’re stupid. That’s why. You’re not listening to them properly because they’re weird. They’re like wombats or albatrosses or rhinoceroses or something. Like they’re strange creatures. And so if you were actually communicating with them and they were telling you how weird they really are it would be anything but boring. So and you can ask questions. That’s a really good way of listening. But you know one of Roger’s points is well you have to be oriented properly in order to listen. And the orientation has to be look, what I want out of this conversation is that the place we both end up is better than the place we left. That’s it. That’s what I’m after. And if you’re not after that, you’ve got to think why the hell wouldn’t you be after that? What could you possibly be after that would be better than that? You walk away smarter and more well equipped for the world than you were before you had the conversation. And so does the other person. Well maybe if you’re bitter and resentful and angry and anxious and you know generally annoyed at the world, then that isn’t what you want. You want the other person to walk away worse than you too because you’re full of revenge. But you know, you’ll get what you want if you do that. So we know from our research that such empathic understanding has already defined that. I want to hear you. I want to hear what you have to say so we can clarify it and move forward. I want to have your best interests in mind. And mine as well. But you know, both at the same time. Your families too if we can manage that. We’re after making things better. We know from our research that such empathic understanding, understanding with a person, not about him, is such an effective approach that it can bring about major changes in personality. Some of you may be feeling that you listen well to people and that you have never seen such results. The chances are very great that you have not been listening in the manner that I’ve described. Fortunately I can suggest a little experiment that you can do to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your wife or your friend or a small group of friends, stop the discussion for a moment and for an experiment and then institute this rule. Each person can speak up for himself only after he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately. What accurately means is they have to agree with your restatement. Now that’s an annoying thing to do. Because if someone is talking to you and you disagree with them, the first thing you want to do is take their argument, make the stupidest possible thing out of it that you can. That’s the straw man. And then demolish it. It’s like So then you can walk away feeling good about it and you know, you primate dominated them really nicely. But that isn’t what you do. You say, okay, well I’m going to take what you told me and maybe I’m even going to make your argument stronger than the one you made. That’s useful if you’re dealing with someone that you have to live with. Because maybe they can’t bloody well express themselves very well, but they have something to say. So you make their argument strong. Then, you see what this would mean. It would mean that before presenting your own point of view, it would be necessary for you to really achieve the other speaker’s frame of reference. To understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarize them for him. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But if you will try it, you’ll find that it’s the most difficult thing that you’ve ever done. Okay, good. We’ll leave it at that and then we’ll see you on Tuesday.