Re: Your story

[Guest guest]

When I have had a traumatic experience. I have a pain in the pit of my stomach

when someone is very directive in telling me what to do. I will often -

initially - look at what happened in my past (my mother was very controlling of

me because in her impoverished childhood where she received very little love and

guidance) ... I may initially try to analyze the past, figure it out, look for a

solution .... in other words fusion and confusion, sometimes blame, often avoid

..... experiential avoidance ( I am new to ACT so I try to use some ACT terms -

partially for practice)/

Today because of ACT and further study elsewhere I have given myself two words

that that act as a cue in helping me defuse a situation .... I remember, I

recall. When I do this I am seeing the whats and hows of a past event - not the

whys and why nots ... I find when I see enough " whats " eventually a tale comes

together that is helpful.

Marty

[Guest guest]

I am when I am fully present and immersed in the moment, or when I am totally

able to be myself, free from past and future, free from shoulds and shouldn'ts,

free from my shadow so to speak

Those moments aren't often, and vary in length, as I can be quite heady

But you guys might want to question the therapy (ACT) you are spending time

cultivating, if you are debating in favor of the conceptual self. " Good " and

" bad " are in the world of the conceptual self. You know that thing ACT calls the

" observing self " ...the one that just observes without judgment, or

" neutrality " ...that is the same self that all religions and spiritual teachings

teach is the one that connects us all...the Big Mind, Oneness, etc..

I am not attempting to state that what we consider " good " and " bad " things don't

happen, but that ultimately, life in and of itself is neutral...it just

IS...defining it, is up to us

I have come to experience that ultimately, what we consider " negative " , is here

to serve us, so I do my best to welcome them...often times not, but eventually

Yes

I'll leave with this parable

There once was a farmer, who had a horse. One day, the horse ran away. " How

unfortunate! " said the farmer's neighbors, consolingly. To which the farmer

replied: " Is that so? "

A couple days later, the horse returned, and brought with him two other wild

horses, that he had befriended on his sojourn. " How very fortunate! " exclaimed

the farmer's neighbors, in celebratory voice. To which the farmer replied: " Is

that so? "

The very next day, the farmer's son -- when attempting to tame one of the wild

horses -- was bucked off and broke his leg. " How unfortunate! " said the

neighbors, shaking their heads. To which the farmer replied: " Is that so? "

Several days later, government officials arrived in the farmer's province,

drafting all eligible young men into the army, to fight in a newly-declared war.

Because the farmer's son was injured, he was not drafted. " How extremely

fortunate! " intoned the neighbors. To which the farmer replied: " Is that so?

Well, we'll see ... "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Good and Bad, like other dualities, are merely mental

> > > > > > constructs ... In the real world though, where things

> > > > > > do not require their opposite in order for us to

> > > > > > understand them, there is only What Is

> > > > >

> > > > > Come out, come out from behind your theory, please. People

> > > > > are disclosing how they are really hurting, and you are

> > > > > responding by telling them they are imagining it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your message is not directed to me, but as it is going out

> > > > > on a list where many people are listening, I would like to

> > > > > ask a question or two.

> > > > >

> > > > > Namely, what is *your* experience of pain & suffering? Can

> > > > > you share that experience as openly & bravely as Helena

> > > > > shared hers?

> > > > >

> > > > > Can you share how your theory of " illusion " works for you,

> > > > > in your own life? In the nitty gritty and not in the abstract?

> > > > >

> > > > > - Randy

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> You guys might want to question the therapy (ACT) you are

> spending time cultivating, if you are debating in favor of the

> conceptual self.

VC,

First of all, no one is arguing in favor of the less savory aspects

of the concepualized self. What folks are arguing is that the

idealized world you seem to advocate (of always seeing things from

the POV of the " observer self " ) does not seem either possible or

desirable. Which in fact is also what ACT says.

To be specific, in ACT the observing self, or " self-as-context, " is

only one of the three senses of self that humans commonly make use

of. The other two are awareness of self as ongoing process, or

" self-as-process, " and the conceptualized self, or

" self-as-content. " And all three are essential to our functioning as

human beings.

Here's an example of this, from p. 133 of the book " Relational Frame

Theory " (as you remember, RFT is the model of verbal behavior on top

of which ACT is built). In the example, a person is considering

whether to become a doctor; the authors contend that a good decision

is more likely when not just one, but all three senses of self are

contacted. The language here is technical but hopefully you can

follow along:

" When a person makes a 'good decision' it seems likely that all

three types of self play a role. We would argue that self-as-context

broadens the scope of the stimulus control, so that neither

self-as-content nor self-as-process obtain absolute control over the

final decision. In effect, self-as-context provides a psychological

space in which the person can contact self-as-content (e.g., I have

good eyesight and a steady hand, so I might make a good surgeon) and

self-as-process (e.g., I really enjoy reading medical textbooks, so

I might enjoy being a doctor). "

Plus, the book adds this caution about trying to live life just from

the perspective of the observing self:

" Parenthetically, there is a danger with self-as-context in that a

decision based only on this self will not be a decision at all. In

this case, the person will simply observe all of the thoughts and

feelings that show up when the possibility of becoming a doctor is

considered, but no choice will ever be made, because there will

always be more thoughts and feelings to observe. To make a decision

and act upon it requires relinquishing control to both

self-as-content and self-as-process. "

All this said, I'm very sympathetic with your goal of attaining more

equanimity and not freaking out over whether a given event is seen

as " good " or " bad. " The farmer anecdote is interesting but seems

rhetorical. Do you have real-life examples of what you mean, whether

from your own life or from the life of some person you admire, e.g.

a spiritual leader or perhaps an ordinary person who responded a

particular way to suffering?

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Mindfulness is awesome. Seeing the self as a socially connected contextual process rather than a separate, independently sustained entity is wonderful. Employing either of these insights as an end run around feelings left over from a painful past leads to its own sort of problem, commonly called " spiritual bypass " , or sometimes, " Shunyata poisoning. "  

Here's a good blog post on the subject:http://www.religionandspirituality.com/view/post/1276023745873/

 

>

> You guys might want to question the therapy (ACT) you are

> spending time cultivating, if you are debating in favor of the

> conceptual self.

VC,

First of all, no one is arguing in favor of the less savory aspects

of the concepualized self. What folks are arguing is that the

idealized world you seem to advocate (of always seeing things from

the POV of the " observer self " ) does not seem either possible or

desirable. Which in fact is also what ACT says.

To be specific, in ACT the observing self, or " self-as-context, " is

only one of the three senses of self that humans commonly make use

of. The other two are awareness of self as ongoing process, or

" self-as-process, " and the conceptualized self, or

" self-as-content. " And all three are essential to our functioning as

human beings.

Here's an example of this, from p. 133 of the book " Relational Frame

Theory " (as you remember, RFT is the model of verbal behavior on top

of which ACT is built). In the example, a person is considering

whether to become a doctor; the authors contend that a good decision

is more likely when not just one, but all three senses of self are

contacted. The language here is technical but hopefully you can

follow along:

" When a person makes a 'good decision' it seems likely that all

three types of self play a role. We would argue that self-as-context

broadens the scope of the stimulus control, so that neither

self-as-content nor self-as-process obtain absolute control over the

final decision. In effect, self-as-context provides a psychological

space in which the person can contact self-as-content (e.g., I have

good eyesight and a steady hand, so I might make a good surgeon) and

self-as-process (e.g., I really enjoy reading medical textbooks, so

I might enjoy being a doctor). "

Plus, the book adds this caution about trying to live life just from

the perspective of the observing self:

" Parenthetically, there is a danger with self-as-context in that a

decision based only on this self will not be a decision at all. In

this case, the person will simply observe all of the thoughts and

feelings that show up when the possibility of becoming a doctor is

considered, but no choice will ever be made, because there will

always be more thoughts and feelings to observe. To make a decision

and act upon it requires relinquishing control to both

self-as-content and self-as-process. "

All this said, I'm very sympathetic with your goal of attaining more

equanimity and not freaking out over whether a given event is seen

as " good " or " bad. " The farmer anecdote is interesting but seems

rhetorical. Do you have real-life examples of what you mean, whether

from your own life or from the life of some person you admire, e.g.

a spiritual leader or perhaps an ordinary person who responded a

particular way to suffering?

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Neat article. There is also this book which touches on this & related subjects -

" Buddhist Practice on Western Ground, " by Harvey Aronson

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Practice-Western-Ground-Reconciling/dp/1590300939

- R.

> > >

> > > You guys might want to question the therapy (ACT) you are

> > > spending time cultivating, if you are debating in favor of the

> > > conceptual self.

> >

> > VC,

> >

> > First of all, no one is arguing in favor of the less savory aspects

> > of the concepualized self. What folks are arguing is that the

> > idealized world you seem to advocate (of always seeing things from

> > the POV of the " observer self " ) does not seem either possible or

> > desirable. Which in fact is also what ACT says.

> >

> > To be specific, in ACT the observing self, or " self-as-context, " is

> > only one of the three senses of self that humans commonly make use

> > of. The other two are awareness of self as ongoing process, or

> > " self-as-process, " and the conceptualized self, or

> > " self-as-content. " And all three are essential to our functioning as

> > human beings.

> >

> > Here's an example of this, from p. 133 of the book " Relational Frame

> > Theory " (as you remember, RFT is the model of verbal behavior on top

> > of which ACT is built). In the example, a person is considering

> > whether to become a doctor; the authors contend that a good decision

> > is more likely when not just one, but all three senses of self are

> > contacted. The language here is technical but hopefully you can

> > follow along:

> >

> > " When a person makes a 'good decision' it seems likely that all

> > three types of self play a role. We would argue that self-as-context

> > broadens the scope of the stimulus control, so that neither

> > self-as-content nor self-as-process obtain absolute control over the

> > final decision. In effect, self-as-context provides a psychological

> > space in which the person can contact self-as-content (e.g., I have

> > good eyesight and a steady hand, so I might make a good surgeon) and

> > self-as-process (e.g., I really enjoy reading medical textbooks, so

> > I might enjoy being a doctor). "

> >

> > Plus, the book adds this caution about trying to live life just from

> > the perspective of the observing self:

> >

> > " Parenthetically, there is a danger with self-as-context in that a

> > decision based only on this self will not be a decision at all. In

> > this case, the person will simply observe all of the thoughts and

> > feelings that show up when the possibility of becoming a doctor is

> > considered, but no choice will ever be made, because there will

> > always be more thoughts and feelings to observe. To make a decision

> > and act upon it requires relinquishing control to both

> > self-as-content and self-as-process. "

> >

> > All this said, I'm very sympathetic with your goal of attaining more

> > equanimity and not freaking out over whether a given event is seen

> > as " good " or " bad. " The farmer anecdote is interesting but seems

> > rhetorical. Do you have real-life examples of what you mean, whether

> > from your own life or from the life of some person you admire, e.g.

> > a spiritual leader or perhaps an ordinary person who responded a

> > particular way to suffering?

> >

> > - Randy

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

VC, you remind me of my younger self, when I believed that I "understood" some things to a spiritual certainty, and never tired of "teaching" those around me the wisdom I had found.As I grew older (but not much wiser), a number of "reality slaps" - as Dr. so appropriately puts it - made me realize that my spiritual certainties were based on a foundation of quicksand.That's the trouble with "certainties" - as soon as you apprehend one, poof! - it's gone.The mind is a terrible/wonderful thing.Regards,Detlef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good and Bad, like other dualities, are merely mental > > > > > > > constructs ... In the real world though, where things > > > > > > > do not require their opposite in order for us to > > > > > > > understand them, there is only What Is > > > > > > > > > > > > Come out, come out from behind your theory, please. People > > > > > > are disclosing how they are really hurting, and you are > > > > > > responding by telling them they are imagining it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your message is not directed to me, but as it is going out > > > > > > on a list where many people are listening, I would like to > > > > > > ask a question or two. > > > > > > > > > > > > Namely, what is *your* experience of pain & suffering? Can > > > > > > you share that experience as openly & bravely as Helena > > > > > > shared hers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share how your theory of "illusion" works for you, > > > > > > in your own life? In the nitty gritty and not in the abstract? > > > > > > > > > > > > - Randy > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

I have a lot of fun, and I also have fun on the ACT site, the problem is, I'm beginning to suspect that I might be somewhat mad - I just hope it is the stress. I am going to try to post a bit less until I recover.

I'm trying to find an anwer for you, Bruce, but having fun is ceratainly a super value. You sound lonely but I might be wrong, but friendship is a superb way to have fun. I think fun comes naturally, but a cycle ride can be fun too, and dancing. Having fun is an inate quality we all have, so it will come to you as you move towards things you value, like friendship, going out, etc. When you go out for a meal with someone, don't you have a lot of fun? Well don't force fun, and it will come to you when you start to get the life you want.

Kv

> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Steve, thanks for telling more about that chapter in the> > > > > > book of your life! Can I say that the new chapter sounds > > exciting!?> > > > > > (the> > > > > > 63 year old)> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Your story catapulted me into a dilemma - a runaway fusion: > > Maybe> > > > > > some of you would like to give me some input? Sorry for the > > long post.> > > > > >> > > > > > Recently, I have been promoted - i.e. I have a little more> > > > > > responsibility at work than before.> > > > > >> > > > > > This small promotion has changed how I see work in ways that > > are not> > > > > > according to my values. What I mean is I take too tooo much> > > > > > responsibility for the whole organization, for my > > colleagues ... My> > > > > > boss> > > > > > even warned me of this when she asked me- she said that I > > would need> > > > > > help not taking this role too seriously. My values at work - > > that> > > > > > where> > > > > > pretty clear before I was asked - suddenly became "non > > existent".> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > The story that could be attached to this could be one of > > many but why> > > > > > not start with:> > > > > >> > > > > > I was a 3,5 years old swedish speaking kid, going to an all > > french> > > > > > kindergarten (We where living in France) going to the > > smaller kids> > > > > > section of the school where things where both soft but also > > barren).> > > > > > One> > > > > > day, out of the blue I was moved up to the older kids > > section who> > > > > > where> > > > > > 3 - 5 years old. You could say I was "promoted". I think > > that that> > > > > > change contributed to me gradually stopping being "Henrik" and> > > > > > psychologically becoming an automaton.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Sorry folks... the next part is heavy...> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > That promotion took away everything joyful and added fear, > > screaming> > > > > > from the sadistic teacher, discipline, sitting still all day,> > > > > > homework,> > > > > > getting locked in, not being allowed to talk, not being > > allowed to go> > > > > > the bathroom, no liberty. The "upside" was learning to > > count, read and> > > > > > write. As I was swedish, I didn't get what is was all about. > > There was> > > > > > no upside for me, unfortunately. I didn't learn either > > reading,> > > > > > writing> > > > > > or counting to 100. I was there for 1,5 years. I was always > > reminded> > > > > > that I was the slowest/most stupid (but most silent which > > was a> > > > > > mitigating circumstance) pupil in the class, and was > > punished and> > > > > > publicly mocked for it.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ...> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I think this story and others still influences me in many > > ways ---> > > > > >> > > > > > -I often hold back from taking initiatives that could put me > > in> > > > > > situations where I'm challenged in unexpected ways.> > > > > >> > > > > > -I keep to myself inside my head (I found safety in my head > > when the> > > > > > teacher was screaming and when I didn't understand what they > > where all> > > > > > talking about). I have a limited social life and an almost non> > > > > > existent> > > > > > romantic life.> > > > > >> > > > > > -When in new, challenging situations - my back becomes rigid > > and> > > > > > straight and I loose myself to a kind of automaton with > > limited access> > > > > > to any kind of thinking process - trying to act the part of > > a "super> > > > > > person".> > > > > >> > > > > > -etc...> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Acceptance and defusion:> > > > > >> > > > > > I need to accept this story and defuse from it, all the > > while carrying> > > > > > this little kid with me - the way you often model it, Steve.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Values:> > > > > >> > > > > > While doing this, I need to find myself - Henrik - and see > > what kind> > > > > > of> > > > > > person I want to be at work. What can I change in the way I > > work so> > > > > > that> > > > > > it's fun to go to work? The world is changing faster and > > faster, with> > > > > > more and more challenges - so I need to change with it - all > > the while> > > > > > remaining Henrik. "Henrik" is a concept that is hard for me to> > > > > > maintain.> > > > > > Is it even useful as it could be moving deeper into self as > > concept?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Committed action:> > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps "Henrik" is about:> > > > > >> > > > > > -finding smart ways and short cuts to do things that make my > > life> > > > > > better.> > > > > >> > > > > > -joking> > > > > >> > > > > > -being lazy> > > > > >> > > > > > -opening up my heart to my colleagues, friends and clients> > > > > >> > > > > > -helping them to open up their hearts> > > > > >> > > > > > -trying to slow things down when the "automaton" is taking > > over so> > > > > > that> > > > > > I can go back to acceptance.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Any comments are welcome,> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > With appreciation> > > > > >> > > > > > Henrik> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >>

[Guest guest]

The problem with language is that we might start arguing over something that we

actually agree on. That Iranian guy who did so well on X factor had accepted his

condition but he also did not accept everything that life threw at him and

struggled with everything he had to get make his dream come true. He in fact did

both, he accepeted what he neaded to accept and then he went on and worked jolly

hard towards his values.

Sometimes I think acceptance only comes after much suffering, like how I slowly

got used to tinitus. It wasn't very nice.

Kv

> >

> > Vcferrara,

> >

> > Re: " illusion " and " theory " etc. -

> >

> > I really am speaking for myself - although coming back to this

> > thread this morning, I find that Kate & Helena have both said what

> > I was trying to say, only much better. But I will try again to

> > express myself, after which I will let the subject drop.

> >

> > I know I sound a little irked. Well, I am a little irked. I've

> > been hearing the " it's all an illusion, just chill " language from

> > you for a while. I don't buy it but even so I am trying to

> > understand where you are coming from.

> >

> > Maybe " theory " is the wrong word. Maybe " philosophy " or " point of

> > view " works better. I ask myself, what philosophy or point of view

> > are you espousing? And I find I don't know.

> >

> > It's not ACT nor any other school of psychology that I recognize.

> > It seems like a form of relativism, but relativism is not something

> > normally adopted in psychology or psychotherapy - it is typically

> > reserved for philosophers arguing (in effect) about how many

> > philosophers can fit on the head of a pin. In other words it gets

> > discussed with great furor in books but has very little relevance

> > to how philosophers actually live their lives. It is of some use

> > in cultural studies - but even there it has limits. It is not a

> > ruling principle for anyone who wants to do practical work with

> > human beings.

> >

> > And then again, sometimes you sound like you've been influenced

> > by nondualism - that's why I brought up the example of Buddhist monks

> > before. But I have never really read anything by nondualist or

> > Buddhist writers in which people's direct experiences of pain &

> > suffering - going hungry, suffering in time of war, political

> > oppression, etc. - is treated as casually as you treat it. As if

> > it were not really suffering but an error in point of view.

> >

> > If such things are not suffering, why is the Dalai Lhama still

> > fighting as a political leader on behalf of the Tibetan people?

> > Etc., etc.,

> >

> > As for why I ask about your own experience with suffering - I do

> > this because I doubt that you walk around in a sea of utter

> > relativism. Your life can't possibly resemble your philosophy -

> > even nihilists believe in a cause. So what's *your* cause? Even

> > nihilists have relationships with other people & feel sorrow

> > sometimes. So when do *you* feel sorrow?

> >

> > Here's an anecdote that may illustrate what I am getting at: A zen

> > student is meeting with a zen master. The master says, " OK, what's

> > your insight for today? " And the student preens a little bit & then

> > says, " Master, everything is an illusion. " At which point the master

> > makes a motion like he is going to punch the student on the nose,

> > and the student ducks. The master says, " OK, then, if it's all

> > an illusion, why did you duck? "

> >

> > I don't mean to put you on the spot personally. You don't have to

> > bare your soul or reveal secrets. I do mean to put you on the spot

> > in terms of your philosophy. That's why I ask my questions. Can you

> > show that what you are saying with illusion & relativism is livable

> > & relevant to the rest of us on this list, and not just an idealized

> > but unliveable philosophy?

> >

> > I do believe your intent in offering your POV is kind. I'm just not

> > sure your POV is workable.

> >

> > - Randy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" Sometimes I think acceptance only comes after much suffering, like how I slowly got used to tinitus. It wasn't very nice. " And I might wonder if the purpose of training and introspection is to recognize the seeds of suffering in my mind and accept the catalyst earlier in the process?

D>  >> The problem with language is that we might start arguing over something that we actually agree on. That Iranian guy who did so well on X factor had accepted his condition but he also did not accept everything that life threw at him and struggled with everything he had to get make his dream come true. He in fact did both, he accepeted what he neaded to accept and then he went on and worked jolly hard towards his values.

>> Sometimes I think acceptance only comes after much suffering, like how I slowly got used to tinitus. It wasn't very nice.>> Kv>>

>> >>> > Vcferrara,>> >>> > Re: " illusion " and " theory " etc. ->> >>> > I really am speaking for myself - although coming back to this

>> > thread this morning, I find that Kate & Helena have both said what>> > I was trying to say, only much better. But I will try again to>> > express myself, after which I will let the subject drop.

>> >>> > I know I sound a little irked. Well, I am a little irked. I've>> > been hearing the " it's all an illusion, just chill " language from>> > you for a while. I don't buy it but even so I am trying to

>> > understand where you are coming from.>> >>> > Maybe " theory " is the wrong word. Maybe " philosophy " or " point of>> > view " works better. I ask myself, what philosophy or point of view

>> > are you espousing? And I find I don't know.>> >>> > It's not ACT nor any other school of psychology that I recognize.>> > It seems like a form of relativism, but relativism is not something

>> > normally adopted in psychology or psychotherapy - it is typically>> > reserved for philosophers arguing (in effect) about how many>> > philosophers can fit on the head of a pin. In other words it gets

>> > discussed with great furor in books but has very little relevance>> > to how philosophers actually live their lives. It is of some use>> > in cultural studies - but even there it has limits. It is not a

>> > ruling principle for anyone who wants to do practical work with>> > human beings.>> >>> > And then again, sometimes you sound like you've been influenced>> > by nondualism - that's why I brought up the example of Buddhist monks

>> > before. But I have never really read anything by nondualist or>> > Buddhist writers in which people's direct experiences of pain & >> > suffering - going hungry, suffering in time of war, political

>> > oppression, etc. - is treated as casually as you treat it. As if>> > it were not really suffering but an error in point of view.>> >>> -- Darrell G King, RN, CASAC-T

Rochester, NY, UShttp://darrellking.comDarrellGKing@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Terry,thanks for the reminder re. learned helplessness and the shutting down and"it's futile/ hopeless" behavior pattern. In fact when I'm doing something and the thought or sensation: "what I'm doing now is futile and hopeless" is coming up, then that is maybe a marker that I'm on the right track. I could mean I'm doing something in an area where I use to give up/isolate myself. Or becoming invisible or shouting for attention (doing things to get attention could be the flip side of the "I'm invisible" behavior pattern). Not easy, this stuff. There are a million behavior patterns mixing with each other all the time. Glad we can inspire each other. Henrik Hi Henrik,What you went through was wrong, it was really hell and it's very goodyou are now honoring that and not sugar-coating any of it. That feelsheroic to me..the part of you that demands to witness and be honestabout what happened to you as a young child. You are standing guard ofyour little boy, giving him voice and this is very moving.I have a lot to learn from you. This reaching out that you do now,despite having been betrayed so early on and so profoundly. Or maybebecause of it(?).There is more I want to say about asking for help, a lot more.But for now, let me quickly say I think you really hit upon somethingbig here. Not like as a child you would have known to even ask. There isas you likely know the learned helplessness that typically happens whenwe're traumatized and neglected or abused..a slow shutting down and astrong sense that nothing will make a difference...so I'm sure you knowthat as a child, it probably never even occurred to you to even ask..andif it did, it's likely you quickly dismissed that idea, because itprobably wasn't safe and you probably got really discouraged reallyfast.But as adults we have a lot to learn about this whole reaching out toothers process, and also more specifically, reaching out and askingothers for specific kinds of help.I have a lot of stuff around this..I think it has to do with myattachment to outcome, and I suffer to the degree my mind attends andfeeds and gets distracted to this (how to ask, what did they say, am Idoing this right?) versus staying present with what is I am needing andnot trying to defend it like it's something inherently wrong.More later..thanks so much for this conversation.You are an inspiration to me!Warm Regards,Terry> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Steve, thanks for telling more about that chapter in the> > > > > > > book of your life! Can I say that the new chapter sounds> > > > > > > exciting!?> > > > > > > (the> > > > > > > 63 year old)> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your story catapulted me into a dilemma - a runaway> > > > > > > fusion:> > > > > > > Maybe> > > > > > > some of you would like to give me some input? Sorry for> > > > > > > the> > > > > > > long> > > > > > > post.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Recently, I have been promoted - i.e. I have a little more> > > > > > > responsibility at work than before.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > This small promotion has changed how I see work in ways> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > are> > > > > > > not> > > > > > > according to my values. What I mean is I take too tooo> > > > > > > much> > > > > > > responsibility for the whole organization, for my> > > > > > > colleagues> > > > > > > ...> > > > > > > My> > > > > > > boss> > > > > > > even warned me of this when she asked me- she said that I> > > > > > > would> > > > > > > need> > > > > > > help not taking this role too seriously. My values at work> > > > > > > -> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > where> > > > > > > pretty clear before I was asked - suddenly became "non> > > > > > > existent".> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The story that could be attached to this could be one of> > > > > > > many> > > > > > > but> > > > > > > why> > > > > > > not start with:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I was a 3,5 years old swedish speaking kid, going to an> > > > > > > all> > > > > > > french> > > > > > > kindergarten (We where living in France) going to the> > > > > > > smaller> > > > > > > kids> > > > > > > section of the school where things where both soft but> > > > > > > also> > > > > > > barren).> > > > > > > One> > > > > > > day, out of the blue I was moved up to the older kids> > > > > > > section> > > > > > > who> > > > > > > where> > > > > > > 3 - 5 years old. You could say I was "promoted". I think> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > change contributed to me gradually stopping being "Henrik"> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > psychologically becoming an automaton.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sorry folks... the next part is heavy...> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > That promotion took away everything joyful and added fear,> > > > > > > screaming> > > > > > > from the sadistic teacher, discipline, sitting still all> > > > > > > day,> > > > > > > homework,> > > > > > > getting locked in, not being allowed to talk, not being> > > > > > > allowed> > > > > > > to> > > > > > > go> > > > > > > the bathroom, no liberty. The "upside" was learning to> > > > > > > count,> > > > > > > read> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > write. As I was swedish, I didn't get what is was all> > > > > > > about.> > > > > > > There> > > > > > > was> > > > > > > no upside for me, unfortunately. I didn't learn either> > > > > > > reading,> > > > > > > writing> > > > > > > or counting to 100. I was there for 1,5 years. I was> > > > > > > always> > > > > > > reminded> > > > > > > that I was the slowest/most stupid (but most silent which> > > > > > > was a> > > > > > > mitigating circumstance) pupil in the class, and was> > > > > > > punished> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > publicly mocked for it.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ...> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think this story and others still influences me in many> > > > > > > ways> > > > > > > ---> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -I often hold back from taking initiatives that could put> > > > > > > me> > > > > > > in> > > > > > > situations where I'm challenged in unexpected ways.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -I keep to myself inside my head (I found safety in my> > > > > > > head> > > > > > > when> > > > > > > the> > > > > > > teacher was screaming and when I didn't understand what> > > > > > > they> > > > > > > where> > > > > > > all> > > > > > > talking about). I have a limited social life and an almost> > > > > > > non> > > > > > > existent> > > > > > > romantic life.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -When in new, challenging situations - my back becomes> > > > > > > rigid> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > straight and I loose myself to a kind of automaton with> > > > > > > limited> > > > > > > access> > > > > > > to any kind of thinking process - trying to act the part> > > > > > > of> > > > > > > a> > > > > > > "super> > > > > > > person".> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -etc...> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Acceptance and defusion:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I need to accept this story and defuse from it, all the> > > > > > > while> > > > > > > carrying> > > > > > > this little kid with me - the way you often model it,> > > > > > > Steve.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Values:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > While doing this, I need to find myself - Henrik - and see> > > > > > > what> > > > > > > kind> > > > > > > of> > > > > > > person I want to be at work. What can I change in the way> > > > > > > I> > > > > > > work> > > > > > > so> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > it's fun to go to work? The world is changing faster and> > > > > > > faster,> > > > > > > with> > > > > > > more and more challenges - so I need to change with it -> > > > > > > all> > > > > > > the> > > > > > > while> > > > > > > remaining Henrik. "Henrik" is a concept that is hard for> > > > > > > me> > > > > > > to> > > > > > > maintain.> > > > > > > Is it even useful as it could be moving deeper into self> > > > > > > as> > > > > > > concept?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Committed action:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Perhaps "Henrik" is about:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -finding smart ways and short cuts to do things that make> > > > > > > my> > > > > > > life> > > > > > > better.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -joking> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -being lazy> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -opening up my heart to my colleagues, friends and clients> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -helping them to open up their hearts> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -trying to slow things down when the "automaton" is taking> > > > > > > over> > > > > > > so> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > I can go back to acceptance.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Any comments are welcome,> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > With appreciation> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Henrik> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

This subject matter is quite sensitive, so I apologize in advance for

potentially causing you any additional suffering, but I think the conversation

is healthy for growth for both of us.

Yes I agree, that for most of us, many times suffering isn't optional, as we

don't have the wisdom to always see through it...

What you are telling me, is that despite being in a perceived life threatening

situation, you were able to be very present, clear, and rational...yet after

wards you suffered greatly from it.

But while the later sounds very understandable, normal, and human, what changed?

Where did your suffering come from? The event, or your mental resistance to the

event? I am not suggesting that it was your choice to suffer, or that you should

have been mentally stronger, but the reality is from your own words, that your

subsequent suffering was caused by your mind, not your attacker.

Yes, it is very unrealistic to think that one can go through life without

suffering, I surely don't, but that still doesn't mean that in the grand scheme

of things, there is an absolute standard of " good " and " bad " .

To use life threatening situations as your standard of " bad " , would suggest 2

things off the top of my head.

1) That death is " bad "

2) That anything else is " good "

I don't think you could say either with absolute truth..

> > >>

> > >> Vcferrara,

> > >>

> > >> Re: " illusion " and " theory " etc. -

> > >>

> > >> I really am speaking for myself - although coming back to this

> > >> thread this morning, I find that Kate & Helena have both said what

> > >> I was trying to say, only much better. But I will try again to

> > >> express myself, after which I will let the subject drop.

> > >>

> > >> I know I sound a little irked. Well, I am a little irked. I've

> > >> been hearing the " it's all an illusion, just chill " language from

> > >> you for a while. I don't buy it but even so I am trying to

> > >> understand where you are coming from.

> > >>

> > >> Maybe " theory " is the wrong word. Maybe " philosophy " or " point of

> > >> view " works better. I ask myself, what philosophy or point of view

> > >> are you espousing? And I find I don't know.

> > >>

> > >> It's not ACT nor any other school of psychology that I recognize.

> > >> It seems like a form of relativism, but relativism is not something

> > >> normally adopted in psychology or psychotherapy - it is typically

> > >> reserved for philosophers arguing (in effect) about how many

> > >> philosophers can fit on the head of a pin. In other words it gets

> > >> discussed with great furor in books but has very little relevance

> > >> to how philosophers actually live their lives. It is of some use

> > >> in cultural studies - but even there it has limits. It is not a

> > >> ruling principle for anyone who wants to do practical work with

> > >> human beings.

> > >>

> > >> And then again, sometimes you sound like you've been influenced

> > >> by nondualism - that's why I brought up the example of Buddhist monks

> > >> before. But I have never really read anything by nondualist or

> > >> Buddhist writers in which people's direct experiences of pain &

> > >> suffering - going hungry, suffering in time of war, political

> > >> oppression, etc. - is treated as casually as you treat it. As if

> > >> it were not really suffering but an error in point of view.

> > >>

> > >> If such things are not suffering, why is the Dalai Lhama still

> > >> fighting as a political leader on behalf of the Tibetan people?

> > >> Etc., etc.,

> > >>

> > >> As for why I ask about your own experience with suffering - I do

> > >> this because I doubt that you walk around in a sea of utter

> > >> relativism. Your life can't possibly resemble your philosophy -

> > >> even nihilists believe in a cause. So what's *your* cause? Even

> > >> nihilists have relationships with other people & feel sorrow

> > >> sometimes. So when do *you* feel sorrow?

> > >>

> > >> Here's an anecdote that may illustrate what I am getting at: A zen

> > >> student is meeting with a zen master. The master says, " OK, what's

> > >> your insight for today? " And the student preens a little bit & then

> > >> says, " Master, everything is an illusion. " At which point the master

> > >> makes a motion like he is going to punch the student on the nose,

> > >> and the student ducks. The master says, " OK, then, if it's all

> > >> an illusion, why did you duck? "

> > >>

> > >> I don't mean to put you on the spot personally. You don't have to

> > >> bare your soul or reveal sec

> > >

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Darrell G King, RN, CASAC-T

> > Rochester, NY, US

> > http://darrellking.com

> > DarrellGKing@

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> But what is it to you?

Hmm, not sure what you're asking here. If you are asking, why

do I keep harping on this issue, it's because I think there is

something actively dangerous in saying " there is no good or bad "

and telling people that suffering is entirely in their head.

And in fact I was suddenly struck today in following this thread

by the resemblance of such assertions to what the New Age guru Byron

says in promoting her form of talk therapy, " The Work. "

Here's an excerpt from the Byron book " Loving What is " - you

can find it yourself using the " Look inside " feature on Amazon:

" Q: How can you say that reality is good? What about war rape,

poverty, violence, and child abuse? Are you condoning them?

" A: How could I condone them? I simply notice that if I believe

they shouldn't exist, I suffer. They exist until they don't. Can I

just end the war in me? Can I stop raping myself and others with

abusive thinking? If not, I'm continuing in myself the very thing

that I want to end in you. Sanity doesn't suffer, ever. Can you

eliminate war everywhere on earth? Through inquiry, you can begin

to eliminate it for one human being: you. "

And here's another excerpt from the same book:

" I have helped people do The Work on rape, war in Vietnam and

Bosnia, torture, internment in Nazi concentration camps, the death

of a child, and the prolonged pain of illnesses like cancer. Many

of us think it's not possible to accept extreme experiences like

these, much less meet them with unconditional love. But not only

is that possible, it's our true nature.

" Nothing terrible has ever happened except in our thinking.

Reality is always good, even in situations that seem like

nightmares. The story we tell is the only nightmare that we have

lived. When I say the worst that can happen is a belief, I am

being literal. The worst that can happen to you is your

uninvestigated belief system. "

Both these quotes are so distant from ACT as a philosophy that I

would say ACT and " The Work " are incompatible. And for that matter

I would say " The Work " seems incompatible to me with being a caring

human being who takes action in the world, as opposed to staying in

his or her head.

Interestingly, Buddhist authors quite often write things that seem

outwardly very much like what Byron is saying, i.e. about

learning to respond in an unthreatened way to even the most

horrendous situations.

For example, the Dalai Lama, in books such as " The Art of

Happiness, " has given examples of how spiritual training has

allowed Tibetan monks undergoing torture in Chinese labor camps to

nonetheless feel compassion for their captors, and through this

compassion turn an extraordinarily negative situation into a

positive one: " For example, three days ago I met a monk who spend

many years in Chinese prisons ... as a result of his Buddhist

practices, because of this training of the mind, he was able to

remain mentally very happy even if he was in physical pain. Even

when he underwent torture and severe beatings, he was able to

survive it and still feel happy by viewing it as a cleansing of

his past negative Karma. "

So what is the difference between Byron and the Dalai Lama?

There are a couple of obvious differences & they are hug.

1) Unlike Byron , the Dalai Lama and other practicing

Buddhists acknowledge that not only do living beings (including

Chinese prison guards!) not wish to suffer, but they actively wish

to be happy; and that as part of seeking happiness, people have a

right to the material things that contribute to happiness - e.g.

freedom from oppression, a roof over your head, something

nourishing to eat, caring actions by other people, a good night's

sleep, etc. (The Dalai Lama especially loves a good sleep, by the

way.)

2) Also unlike Byron , the Dalai Lama and other contemporary

Buddhists work off a base of compassion which includes actively

doing work in the real world to end oppression, help people get

enough to eat, etc. Whereas if you follow Byron , you can

apparently stay in your head & never lift a finger for anyone and

that's fine.

I hope this illuminates a little bit more why I get as concerned

as I do when I hear stuff like " good and bad is an illusion " being

passed off as good advice for living. I am not saying you or anyone

else in this thread is not compassionate - far from it - but I *am*

saying that belief systems such as Byron's can lead us down

that path if we are not careful. I know you don't intend any such

thing - I am speaking only in general terms.

And now hopefully I am done with fulminating about this.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

And yet you were so clear in those moments of the actual physical potential life

threatening situation

It's interesting

I don't think we can say empirically that " we cannot help but fear the threat of

death " ...there are definitely people who don't, mostly through unlearning it in

various ways...if it is instinctual it can obviously be overridden...you sure

didn't fear it when it was potentially right in front of you

Even if it is automatic in the moment, is it death (unknown), or our thoughts

about death that cause us to fear it?

I do agree that a healthy fear of death is helpful to survival, but I don't need

to fear touching a hot stove in order not to get burnt from it again, I just

know it's painful from experience...I can't say that about death

> > > >>

> > > >> Vcferrara,

> > > >>

> > > >> Re: " illusion " and " theory " etc. -

> > > >>

> > > >> I really am speaking for myself - although coming back to this

> > > >> thread this morning, I find that Kate & Helena have both said what

> > > >> I was trying to say, only much better. But I will try again to

> > > >> express myself, after which I will let the subject drop.

> > > >>

> > > >> I know I sound a little irked. Well, I am a little irked. I've

> > > >> been hearing the " it's all an illusion, just chill " language from

> > > >> you for a while. I don't buy it but even so I am trying to

> > > >> understand where you are coming from.

> > > >>

> > > >> Maybe " theory " is the wrong word. Maybe " philosophy " or " point of

> > > >> view " works better. I ask myself, what philosophy or point of view

> > > >> are you espousing? And I find I don't know.

> > > >>

> > > >> It's not ACT nor any other school of psychology that I recognize.

> > > >> It seems like a form of relativism, but relativism is not something

> > > >> normally adopted in psychology or psychotherapy - it is typically

> > > >> reserved for philosophers arguing (in effect) about how many

> > > >> philosophers can fit on the head of a pin. In other words it gets

> > > >> discussed with great furor in books but has very little relevance

> > > >> to how philosophers actually live their lives. It is of some use

> > > >> in cultural studies - but even there it has limits. It is not a

> > > >> ruling principle for anyone who wants to do practical work with

> > > >> human beings.

> > > >>

> > > >> And then again, sometimes you sound like you've been influenced

> > > >> by nondualism - that's why I brought up the example of Buddhist monks

> > > >> before. But I have never really read anything by nondualist or

> > > >> Buddhist writers in which people's direct experiences of pain &

> > > >> suffering - going hungry, suffering in time of war, political

> > > >> oppression, etc. - is treated as casually as you treat it. As if

> > > >> it were not really suffering but an error in point of view.

> > > >>

> > > >> If such things are not suffering, why is the Dalai Lhama still

> > > >> fighting as a political leader on behalf of the Tibetan people?

> > > >> Etc., etc.,

> > > >>

> > > >> As for why I ask about your own experience with suffering - I do

> > > >> this because I doubt that you walk around in a sea of utter

> > > >> relativism. Your life can't possibly resemble your philosophy -

> > > >> even nihilists believe in a cause. So what's *your* cause? Even

> > > >> nihilists have relationships with other people & feel sorrow

> > > >> sometimes. So when do *you* feel sorrow?

> > > >>

> > > >> Here's an anecdote that may illustrate what I am getting at: A zen

> > > >> student is meeting with a zen master. The master says, " OK, what's

> > > >> your insight for today? " And the student preens a little bit & then

> > > >> says, " Master, everything is an illusion. " At which point the master

> > > >> makes a motion like he is going to punch the student on the nose,

> > > >> and the student ducks. The master says, " OK, then, if it's all

> > > >> an illusion, why did you duck? "

> > > >>

> > > >> I don't mean to put you on the spot personally. You don't have to

> > > >> bare your soul or reveal sec

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Darrell G King, RN, CASAC-T

> > > Rochester, NY, US

> > > http://darrellking.com

> > > DarrellGKing@

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi List,

I reread this entire topic today in an effort to see what the stir is all about.

I still really don't see it. In many of the posts, it appears that the two

" sides " are saying much the same thing but saying the other one is wrong. I see

Helena saying she is not continuing to suffer about the incident in her past,

and that she continues to judge that experience as " bad " (not a surprise)and

that judgment is " working " for her (in that it is not causing her to move away

from her valued life). I see VC saying that our habit of evaluating experience

as " good " and " bad " is just that - an evaluation or a judgement. I see him

saying that these judgments are created by our brains and do not exist outside

our brains (or minds). I see him and others saying that one " is " event can be

evaluated differently by different minds or even more than one way by one mind.

I do not see how this contradicts anything that anyone else on the list has said

or how it contradicts anything I have read in any ACT book. I see what VC is

saying as a description of the philosophy of contextualism, which is the

philosophy that unlies the work of the scientists in RFT and ACT. I think

would have loved to make the title of the book, " When things go in a way

that my minds tells me is terribly, horribly, wrong " , but I doubt his publisher

would go for it, because people wouldn't buy it. Probably for the same reasons

this debate began in the first place.

I saw Randy ask for specific life experience being viewed with the philosophy

that good and bad exist only in the mind of the person doing the evaluating. I

am willing to share mine:

In my " story " , the most painful and wrought with suffering experience or set of

experiences in my life has been losing the legal custody of my only child. I

could go into a very very long story about the events that lead up to that, but

not without giving a tremendous amount of evaluating (mostly of my own stupidity

- see that? lol there it is). I could tell you about the shame I feel when I

know someone has just learned that I do not have legal custody of my child and

all the thoughts I have about what their thoughts are (she must have used drugs

or abused him, why else would a mother lose custody?). I could give you an

endless tirade about what a jerk my ex-husband is and how much of a control

freak he is. You might agree with my assessment of the situation. You might

not. You might feel empathy for my pain, shame, frustration. You might not. I

could also tell you about the things that have happened in my life (valued

things) that most likely would not have happened if I had been the one who

received full custody. But the event is this: A judge ordered the legal

custody of my son be awarded to his father. It is a neutral event. Some things

that have happened since that time I judge as good. Some things that have

happened since that time, I judge as bad. The event itself is neutral. It

happened. And other things are continuing to happen. When I am fused with my

" this is bad " story, I feel like crap and frustrated and angry as hell and want

to avoid contact with any I think are judging me (don't want to go to baseball

games or school functions, etc) and this is not consistent with my value about

parenting. When I am in the mindset that my mind's judgments and the judgments

of any I may be in contact with are just that - judgments, creations of minds,

then I go to baseball games, school functions, be there for my son, be the mom I

want to be. This works for me.

To make another example, one that has been referenced already in this discussion

but in a different manner, most people would not look at the event of the

holocaust and judge it (by itself, just those moments in time) as good or even

neutral. Most would say that was awful and/or it never should have happened.

However, if there really were magic fairies in the world who could go back and

erase events from the past, and every Jewish person in the world today was asked

to vote whether to have it erased or not, do you think the vote would be

unanimous? Remember, the state of Israel exists today largely because of

reparations made by World Governments to the Jewish people at large. If the

holocaust were erased, its possible there would be no Israel today. So, one

could make the argument that the event of the holocaust, while I am in no way

invalidating the pain experienced by the people who were in camps and their

descendants, is a neutral event. It has consequences that are judged good by

some and bad by others and both good and bad by some.

Just my two cents, though the post is longer than I planned so I may actually

have racked up a bit more

> >

> >

> >

> > Gang up?  Cheapening one's stance by quoting from the internet?

> >

> >  

> >

> > It's probably time to drop the rope on this topic if that's how you feel. 

Ad hominem  responses ( An argument based on the failings of an adversary

rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a

personal attack) are not helpful to any discussion; although politicians seem

to thrive on them.  I did get that definition from the internet to make sure I

got it right : )

> >

> >  

> >

> > Helena

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Your " story "

> >

> >  

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Way to gang up guys

> >

> > Starting to feel a bit clickish in these parts

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'll leave it behind, thanks. And hold on to my cash. Cueing yourself kindly to

" turn it around " is different than trying to convince yourself the emotion is

not welcome because it just makes you feel bad and really, it's not natural and

not real.

I can't talk myself out of my thoughts/ feelings/ sensations, no matter how hard

I try. And the harder I try, the more I get tripped up.

The fact that you were upset about being robbed does not negate or cancel out

the reality that it's also important to keep your money safe in certain

situations. Both can and are true. In fact, staying present in a non-judgmental

defused way with emotion/thought is often just what helps to ultimately accept,

to gain wisdom of clarity to see what I can control and act on that.

It's a process, and it's all a lovely ride. Except when it's not.

> > >

> > > Thankfully there are many paths

> >

> > And with that I'll lay off. Thanks for listening & responding.

> >

> > - R.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, sorry..starting to go a bit too much off-topic here for an ACT forum.

Theresa

> > > >

> > > > Thankfully there are many paths

> > >

> > > And with that I'll lay off. Thanks for listening & responding.

> > >

> > > - R.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi VC

I don't believe I've been taking " jabs " at you and if you've found my posts are

" making it personal " in a negative sense then I'm sorry for that. I guess it's

hard not to be " personal " when we talk about belief systems and world views. I

do really want to understand whether your philosophy works for you in the nitty

gritty reality of life. Not the theory but the practice. If someone said to me

" this method will help you give up smoking and it's really simple " I would want

to see that it worked for them. Were they now an ex-smoker?

Byron 's philosophy strikes me as being a pretty limited template, but one

that purports to be a " one size fits all " solution to " life, the universe and

everything " . It's sort of neat and tricky but it doesn't really go much beyond

the " challenging the thought " part of CBT. If that's the only tool in one's

toolbox then one is pretty limited in how one approaches issues. It's a bit

like the old saying " to a hammer every problem looks like a nail " . It also

strikes me as being somewhat self-centered and heartless, but maybe that's just

me! We aren't just brains in buckets. Well I don't think so anyway... :-)

Kate

> >

> >

> >

> > Gang up?  Cheapening one's stance by quoting from the internet?

> >

> >  

> >

> > It's probably time to drop the rope on this topic if that's how you feel. 

Ad hominem  responses ( An argument based on the failings of an adversary

rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a

personal attack) are not helpful to any discussion; although politicians seem

to thrive on them.  I did get that definition from the internet to make sure I

got it right : )

> >

> >  

> >

> > Helena

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Your " story "

> >

> >  

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Way to gang up guys

> >

> > Starting to feel a bit clickish in these parts

> >

>

[Guest guest]

It has helped me tremendously, just like ACT has, just like Buddhist psychology

has, just as logic has, etc etc

Many tools in the kit

ACT actually led me to BK, as I felt there was something missing

That is, that as much as you can be mindful, de-fuse...if you never take a look

at what you are believing that are causing these thoughts to keep coming back,

then they are always going to be there...and it takes a much longer time for

them to disperse on their own from just not tending to them..

My anxiety issues are around my anxiety/fear itself...not fear of X happening in

the external world, but fear of fear itself...

BK's work has helped me to question my thoughts on fear itself, that were

causing me to view it as a threat, and subsequently (cause and effect)

experience anxiety and fear about it..

The whole notion that fear is something " negative " is getting wiped out...it's

hard to view it as something " negative " , when it has taught me so much,

including compassion, empathy, and best of all, love...

Outside of being in an actual life threatening situation, fear and other

emotions are messengers that your thinking is off somewhere...

So fear, not only is there to physically help protect us, it teaches us it's

opposite, and it's a messenger to take a look at what you are believing that is

causing it

So when I say that that " good " and " bad " are an illusion...it's because I am

learning that even what we consider " bad " is here to serve us...and when you can

start trusting that everything ultimately happens FOR US, and not TO US, that

all energy is here to serve us, and that all change is for our

betterment...what's there to fear?

I apologize to all of you for allowing this conversation to eventually get the

best of me. Please forgive me.

VC

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gang up?  Cheapening one's stance by quoting from the internet?

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > It's probably time to drop the rope on this topic if that's how you

feel.  Ad hominem  responses ( An argument based on the failings of an

adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves

a personal attack) are not helpful to any discussion; although politicians

seem to thrive on them.  I did get that definition from the internet to make

sure I got it right : )

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > > Helena

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Re: Your " story "

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Way to gang up guys

> > >

> > > Starting to feel a bit clickish in these parts

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This might surprise you VC, but I actually agree with you regarding what for me

also is a " missing " piece in ACT. I agree that looking at and challenging

thoughts and underlying beliefs is needed sometimes.

I'm not sure I agree with some of your other points below, especially the bit

about fear and other emotions.... but perhaps I'd better leave it there! :-)

All the best

Kate

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gang up?  Cheapening one's stance by quoting from the internet?

> > > >

> > > >  

> > > >

> > > > It's probably time to drop the rope on this topic if that's how you

feel.  Ad hominem  responses ( An argument based on the failings of an

adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves

a personal attack) are not helpful to any discussion; although politicians

seem to thrive on them.  I did get that definition from the internet to make

sure I got it right : )

> > > >

> > > >  

> > > >

> > > > Helena

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Your " story "

> > > >

> > > >  

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Way to gang up guys

> > > >

> > > > Starting to feel a bit clickish in these parts

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

VC, I agree with Kate - I can relate very much to much of what you say here. And

it seems very ACT-consistent too!

- Randy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Gang up?  Cheapening one's stance by quoting from the internet?

> > > > >

> > > > >  

> > > > >

> > > > > It's probably time to drop the rope on this topic if that's how you

feel.  Ad hominem  responses ( An argument based on the failings of an

adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves

a personal attack) are not helpful to any discussion; although politicians

seem to thrive on them.  I did get that definition from the internet to make

sure I got it right : )

> > > > >

> > > > >  

> > > > >

> > > > > Helena

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Your " story "

> > > > >

> > > > >  

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Way to gang up guys

> > > > >

> > > > > Starting to feel a bit clickish in these parts

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Henrik,

Yes, it's very tricky stuff with many layers, and I think sometimes the best

gift is to step back and really just remember that! So I'd say you very much on

are on the right track! The " right track " being staying present with where you

are, noticing and honoring the sadness, fears, joys that just rise and fall like

the breath. It's all part of the process, no?

Thanks so much for sharing yourself so fully here. It's very nice to hear from

you, where you're at with this work.

Warm Regards,

Terry

By the way, I really like your use of music to express how you are feeling!

Very creative! :-)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >> Steve, thanks for telling more about that chapter in

> > > > > > > > >> the

> > > > > > > > > book of your life! Can I say that the new chapter sounds

> > > > > > > > > exciting!?

> > > > > > > > > (the

> > > > > > > > > 63 year old)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your story catapulted me into a dilemma - a runaway

> > > > > > > > > fusion:

> > > > > > > > > Maybe

> > > > > > > > > some of you would like to give me some input? Sorry for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > long

> > > > > > > > > post.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Recently, I have been promoted - i.e. I have a little

> > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > responsibility at work than before.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This small promotion has changed how I see work in ways

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > according to my values. What I mean is I take too tooo

> > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > responsibility for the whole organization, for my

> > > > > > > > > colleagues

> > > > > > > > > ...

> > > > > > > > > My

> > > > > > > > > boss

> > > > > > > > > even warned me of this when she asked me- she said that

> > > > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > help not taking this role too seriously. My values at

> > > > > > > > > work

> > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > where

> > > > > > > > > pretty clear before I was asked - suddenly became " non

> > > > > > > > > existent " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The story that could be attached to this could be one of

> > > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > not start with:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I was a 3,5 years old swedish speaking kid, going to an

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > french

> > > > > > > > > kindergarten (We where living in France) going to the

> > > > > > > > > smaller

> > > > > > > > > kids

> > > > > > > > > section of the school where things where both soft but

> > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > barren).

> > > > > > > > > One

> > > > > > > > > day, out of the blue I was moved up to the older kids

> > > > > > > > > section

> > > > > > > > > who

> > > > > > > > > where

> > > > > > > > > 3 - 5 years old. You could say I was " promoted " . I think

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > change contributed to me gradually stopping being

> > > > > > > > > " Henrik "

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > psychologically becoming an automaton.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sorry folks... the next part is heavy...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That promotion took away everything joyful and added

> > > > > > > > > fear,

> > > > > > > > > screaming

> > > > > > > > > from the sadistic teacher, discipline, sitting still all

> > > > > > > > > day,

> > > > > > > > > homework,

> > > > > > > > > getting locked in, not being allowed to talk, not being

> > > > > > > > > allowed

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > go

> > > > > > > > > the bathroom, no liberty. The " upside " was learning to

> > > > > > > > > count,

> > > > > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > write. As I was swedish, I didn't get what is was all

> > > > > > > > > about.

> > > > > > > > > There

> > > > > > > > > was

> > > > > > > > > no upside for me, unfortunately. I didn't learn either

> > > > > > > > > reading,

> > > > > > > > > writing

> > > > > > > > > or counting to 100. I was there for 1,5 years. I was

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > reminded

> > > > > > > > > that I was the slowest/most stupid (but most silent

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > was a

> > > > > > > > > mitigating circumstance) pupil in the class, and was

> > > > > > > > > punished

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > publicly mocked for it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think this story and others still influences me in

> > > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > ways

> > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -I often hold back from taking initiatives that could

> > > > > > > > > put

> > > > > > > > > me

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > situations where I'm challenged in unexpected ways.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -I keep to myself inside my head (I found safety in my

> > > > > > > > > head

> > > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > teacher was screaming and when I didn't understand what

> > > > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > where

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > talking about). I have a limited social life and an

> > > > > > > > > almost

> > > > > > > > > non

> > > > > > > > > existent

> > > > > > > > > romantic life.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -When in new, challenging situations - my back becomes

> > > > > > > > > rigid

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > straight and I loose myself to a kind of automaton with

> > > > > > > > > limited

> > > > > > > > > access

> > > > > > > > > to any kind of thinking process - trying to act the part

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > " super

> > > > > > > > > person " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -etc...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Acceptance and defusion:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I need to accept this story and defuse from it, all the

> > > > > > > > > while

> > > > > > > > > carrying

> > > > > > > > > this little kid with me - the way you often model it,

> > > > > > > > > Steve.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Values:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > While doing this, I need to find myself - Henrik - and

> > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > kind

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > person I want to be at work. What can I change in the

> > > > > > > > > way

> > > > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > > work

> > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > it's fun to go to work? The world is changing faster and

> > > > > > > > > faster,

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > more and more challenges - so I need to change with it -

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > while

> > > > > > > > > remaining Henrik. " Henrik " is a concept that is hard for

> > > > > > > > > me

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > maintain.

> > > > > > > > > Is it even useful as it could be moving deeper into self

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > concept?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Committed action:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Perhaps " Henrik " is about:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -finding smart ways and short cuts to do things that

> > > > > > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > life

> > > > > > > > > better.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -joking

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -being lazy

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -opening up my heart to my colleagues, friends and

> > > > > > > > > clients

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -helping them to open up their hearts

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -trying to slow things down when the " automaton " is

> > > > > > > > > taking

> > > > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > I can go back to acceptance.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any comments are welcome,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > With appreciation

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Henrik

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry to jump in after so much absence...I have been working on so many things. I don't even know if I can contribute much. I think THE WORK is not for everyone...I have learned. I think they have both helped me, ACT and THE WORK, but they don't work in the same way. So, maybe it's hard to compare them. THE WORK gets misperceived as head stuff, but I never experienced it that way. Most psychology people seem to though...maybe because of shallow forms of CBT. When I learned CBT, basically people were just plugging in different thoughts...it seemed to be that there was no inner guidance in this process. Very superficial. In THE WORK, first, it's not "Byron " anymore than ACT is . The questions are useful IF you go within for answers...if not, then it is just head stuff...like bad CBT.

Kind Regards, jasonTo: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:36 AMSubject: Re: Your "story"

I have never been all that happy about Byron for some reason, but now I know the reason why. Excellent posts from both of you, Randy and Vc, which has brought this point so clearly to light.

Kv

> >

> > But what is it to you?

>

> Hmm, not sure what you're asking here. If you are asking, why

> do I keep harping on this issue, it's because I think there is

> something actively dangerous in saying "there is no good or bad"

> and telling people that suffering is entirely in their head.

>

> And in fact I was suddenly struck today in following this thread

> by the resemblance of such assertions to what the New Age guru Byron

> says in promoting her form of talk therapy, "The Work."

>

> Here's an excerpt from the Byron book "Loving What is" - you

> can find it yourself using the "Look inside" feature on Amazon:

>

> "Q: How can you say that reality is good? What about war rape,

> poverty, violence, and child abuse? Are you condoning them?

>

> "A: How could I condone them? I simply notice that if I believe

> they shouldn't exist, I suffer. They exist until they don't. Can I

> just end the war in me? Can I stop raping myself and others with

> abusive thinking? If not, I'm continuing in myself the very thing

> that I want to end in you. Sanity doesn't suffer, ever. Can you

> eliminate war everywhere on earth? Through inquiry, you can begin

> to eliminate it for one human being: you."

>

> And here's another excerpt from the same book:

>

> "I have helped people do The Work on rape, war in Vietnam and

> Bosnia, torture, internment in Nazi concentration camps, the death

> of a child, and the prolonged pain of illnesses like cancer. Many

> of us think it's not possible to accept extreme experiences like

> these, much less meet them with unconditional love. But not only

> is that possible, it's our true nature.

>

> "Nothing terrible has ever happened except in our thinking.

> Reality is always good, even in situations that seem like

> nightmares. The story we tell is the only nightmare that we have

> lived. When I say the worst that can happen is a belief, I am

> being literal. The worst that can happen to you is your

> uninvestigated belief system."

>

> Both these quotes are so distant from ACT as a philosophy that I

> would say ACT and "The Work" are incompatible. And for that matter

> I would say "The Work" seems incompatible to me with being a caring

> human being who takes action in the world, as opposed to staying in

> his or her head.

>

> Interestingly, Buddhist authors quite often write things that seem

> outwardly very much like what Byron is saying, i.e. about

> learning to respond in an unthreatened way to even the most

> horrendous situations.

>

> For example, the Dalai Lama, in books such as "The Art of

> Happiness," has given examples of how spiritual training has

> allowed Tibetan monks undergoing torture in Chinese labor camps to

> nonetheless feel compassion for their captors, and through this

> compassion turn an extraordinarily negative situation into a

> positive one: "For example, three days ago I met a monk who spend

> many years in Chinese prisons ... as a result of his Buddhist

> practices, because of this training of the mind, he was able to

> remain mentally very happy even if he was in physical pain. Even

> when he underwent torture and severe beatings, he was able to

> survive it and still feel happy by viewing it as a cleansing of

> his past negative Karma."

>

> So what is the difference between Byron and the Dalai Lama?

> There are a couple of obvious differences & they are hug.

>

> 1) Unlike Byron , the Dalai Lama and other practicing

> Buddhists acknowledge that not only do living beings (including

> Chinese prison guards!) not wish to suffer, but they actively wish

> to be happy; and that as part of seeking happiness, people have a

> right to the material things that contribute to happiness - e.g.

> freedom from oppression, a roof over your head, something

> nourishing to eat, caring actions by other people, a good night's

> sleep, etc. (The Dalai Lama especially loves a good sleep, by the

> way.)

>

> 2) Also unlike Byron , the Dalai Lama and other contemporary

> Buddhists work off a base of compassion which includes actively

> doing work in the real world to end oppression, help people get

> enough to eat, etc. Whereas if you follow Byron , you can

> apparently stay in your head & never lift a finger for anyone and

> that's fine.

>

> I hope this illuminates a little bit more why I get as concerned

> as I do when I hear stuff like "good and bad is an illusion" being

> passed off as good advice for living. I am not saying you or anyone

> else in this thread is not compassionate - far from it - but I *am*

> saying that belief systems such as Byron's can lead us down

> that path if we are not careful. I know you don't intend any such

> thing - I am speaking only in general terms.

>

> And now hopefully I am done with fulminating about this.

>

> - Randy

>