From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 16:01:29 MST
On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Richard Ridge wrote:
>> Read "To Thine Own Self Be True: The Relationship Between Spiritual
>> Values
>> and Emotional Health" by Lewis M. Andrews, Ph. D.
>> and then tell me what you think.
>
> Oddly enough, when I wrote my last post I ran it past a friend who
> predicted
> that you would find a token christian psychologist to reply with.
Almost. Nowhere in the book does the author indicate of what (if any)
particular religion he is affiliated with.
> The point
> simply remains whether emotional dependency is to be encouraged or not.
Or if it is an unavoidable fact of human nature (perhaps only evidenced
under unfortunate circumstances).
> If
> we were to speak of such dependency in the sole context of personal
> (i.e.
> human) relationships we would undoubtedly consider it to be a
> deleterious
> condition and seek to encourage the person in question to be more self
> dependent.
As social creatures, we are dependent upon others - and as Hermit has
pointed out, for the purpose of obtaining joy. Is this not then, an
emotional dependency?
> I see no reason to treat god any differently. As for the book, my
> financial resources are not infinite: a summary would not go amiss.
Ok, here goes:
The introduction consists of a story of the unfortunate rise of
psychoanalysis and behavior modification and the negative consequences
of therapists attempting to apply practices based on these theories.
(Granted, it was published about the same time as that whole notion of
"self efficacy" http://www.cc.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html was just
beginning to see the light of day.)
Neither psychoanalysis nor behavior modification were demonstratably
causing any improvement to patients other than if the patients were left
alone. The author attributed this fact to a lack of a few key principles.
A quote: 'For some, the biggest problem is the memory of a very strict
or punitive religious upbringing. They have difficulty distinguishing
the word "religious" from the word "spiritual" and need to be reminded
that the phrase "spiritual values" refers to the elevating ethical
beliefs at the heart of all great religious traditions - what Aldous
Huxley called "the highest common denominator" - not some narrow
interpretation of scripture or arbitrary dogma.'
The first chapter then goes on to tell about the author's own
experiences and how he came to write the book.
I bought the book used - here are two sections a previous owner
highlighted:
"certain ethical restraints, particularly honesty and the willingness to
curb judgemental tendencies, were absolutely essential to personal
happiness; yet now it was becoming clear that being more spontaneous
also had something to do with it."
"This is to say that the more I learned to trust my intuitive wisdom,
the less I felt I had to judge and manipulate other people. Similarly,
it was my willingness to be more open and tolerant with others that
seemed to strengthen and clarify my intuitive process."
The second chapter then goes on to describe what the author means by
"ethical therapy".
The third chapter is entitled "Beyond Depression" and my very short
summary is that "Don’t judge others." to avoid depression. There are
numerous anecdotes and statistics in every chapter to support the
conclusion.
The fourth chapter is entitled "Beyond Guilt" and my very short summary
says "Don’t judge yourself. But when you feel you’ve done something
wrong, make amends. Private suffering does no good."
The fifth chapter is entitled "Beyond Boredom" and my very short summary
says "Listen to your inner natural enthusiasm and integrity. Don’t let
the goal of trying to be someone you aren’t interfere with the
expression of who you are."
The sixth chapter is entitled "Beyond Indecision" and attributes
indecision to an excessive reliance on logic out of a fear of "getting
it wrong" and an inability to "trust one's gut" to make the decision.
The seventh chapter is entitled "Beyond Worthlessness" and attributes
this to using perfectionism (an "I can do it better than anyone else")
attitude as a consequence of low self-esteem - that is, by failing, one
sets an even loftier goal to "make up for it" or "make oneself
worthwhile" that one is doomed to fail - and thus the vicious cycle
continues.
The eighth chapter is entitled "Beyond Fear" and basically attributes
(unreasonable) fear to having something to be afraid of, which in turn
is attributed to trying to hide something, from which the conclusion to
not lie is deduced.
The ninth chapter is entitled "Beyond Frustration" and explains that
frustration at another is due to expectations of the other that we try
to hide - and thus, in reality, frustration is the source of failed
manipulation, from which the solution is to learn how to not manipulate
(and thus have no hidden expectations).
The tenth chapter is entitled "Beyond Loneliness" and basically
attributes loneliness to "role-playing" - that is, when we've chosen a
role to act and choose to act that role only, for purposes of
controlling (predicting) the outcomes of various interpersonal
interactions. The conclusion then, is to not role-play.
The eleventh chapter is entitled "Beyond Anxiety" and basically
considered anxiety a somewhat good thing, as it is a sign we are giving
up control (and thus being less manipulative of ourself and possibly
others) and enabling intuition to take over. But there is hyperanxiety,
where the anxiety becomes out of control and we try to run from it by
repressing it and it winds up just growing.
The twelfth chapter is entitled "Beyond Addiction". I won't summarize
this because I don't think I could do it justice, and because I don't
want you to feel like you've got nothing to look forward to if you read
the book.
The thirteenth chapter is entitled "The Family Barometer" and mentions
some issues that might arise in one's family as one attempts to utilize
"ethical therapy" in one's life.
>> You are equating faith with unprovability and uncertainty in the above
>> in order to deduce hypocrisy and my alleged enamorement with
>> uncertainly.
>
> Of course I equate faith with the unproven - what else is there to
> equate it
> with? I am not aware of any way to prove or disprove the existence of
> deities,
Allow for the possibility that such a way exists - but perhaps with a
different definition of deities.
> which hardly makes them the most practical base for morality (and
> I'm afraid I must still insist that it is unreasonable to demand
> certainty
> of morality when the same cannot be said of the postulates that you use
> to
> achieve that.
I'm looking for certainty of postulates to achieve certainty of morality.
> At the end of the day that simply proceeds to 'if god is dead,
> all is permitted' which is hardly adequate). Such a morality can only
> lead
> us into 'this is evil because my <blank>* tells me so.' Which is,
> frankly,
> utterly arbitrary. 'This' may be murder or it be may be worshipping
> graven
> images or getting out of the wrong side of bed on tuesday morning.
I will concur that we all need an unshakable grounding - and whether
that is in one's own self-efficacy or something else and which is better
is another issue.
> *i.e. "this is evil because my imaginary friend, skippy the kangaroo,
> tells
> me so," "this is evil because the fairies at the bottom of my garden
> tell me
> so."
Understood - you want verifiable sources.
> On the other hand, let us consider what it would mean if you are right.
> If I
> may quote a particularly eloquent passage from Christopher Hitchen's
> book,
> Letters to a Young Contrarian:
>
> "You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in
> passing,
> that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I
> should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the
> generalized
> agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an
> antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the
> same
> untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of
> religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of
> religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish,
> that
> they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to
> think
> that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable
> if
> what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.
>
> Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their
> lives
> under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and
> [around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot
> [personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be
> worse,
> in a way, if the supervision was benign...
How about, as G. I. Gurdjieff suggested, that the supervision is benign
but "imperfect"?
> I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources
> that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes
> to
> live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a
> much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas
> Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is
> just."
> However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there
> would
> be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a
> consolation
> that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.
And since that consolation infinitely outweighs any any imaginable
earthly care, it infinitely outweighs logic too. I know - I've been
there - and I'm on the cusp of going back, and have subscribed to this
list to get what I believe will probably be the most well-developed
reasons not to. So far I'm not incredibly impressed.
> I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose
> courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have
> chosen
> to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant
> decline of
> their intellectual and moral standards.
Because they believe in a "higher" standard than "intellectual and moral
standards" - a "spiritual standard".
> They want god on their side and they
> believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best,
> but
> an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just
> doing
> god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble
> humility,
> is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our
> greatest
> resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught
> to
> assume what has to be proved.
The mind is capable of more than logic - and they're trying to use that
part of it. Are you?
> This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most
> altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he
> or
> she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme
> Being;
There are "religions" with no Supreme Being, such as Taoism.
> he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that
> Supreme Being desires.
I have yet to meet a Taoist who would make such a claim - the issue
would be irrelevant to them.
> I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and
> hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the
> secrets of
> the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit.
Not privy to the secrets, but privy to the general idea. And to them,
it's "intuitively obvious" (but perhaps not always to me).
> I therefore have no
> choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let
> alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and
> what a
> revealing word that is) they form a part. "
This last statement is indeed a logical conclusion derived of the
previous statements.
>> I hypothesize (as do others) that there exists a central core of good
>> teachings in each religion, around which tradition (of mediocre value)
>> and nonsense (of detrimental value) have accumulated over the ages
>> (where sometimes an "age" is a very short period of time). I suggest
>> that all the "manifest evils of religion" are a consequence of the
>> accumulated nonsense.
>
> And I would suggest that this is nonsense, as the process of deciding
> what
> is or is not accumulated is arbitrary
No. Do what I have done, and search for the commonalities of the great
religions. And I'm still searching.
> and almost certainly entails the
> researcher selecting the doctrines that he or she has an a priori
> commitment
> to.
Historical study is suitable for determining what is accumulated, to
some extent - as are transpersonal research methodologies.
> Most likely these would be those that meet the Kantian criteria of being
> universal and reversible i.e. ethical precepts which are so self
> evidently
> sensible that anyone of any ethical persuasion will find it easy to
> agree to
> (including atheists).
I will admit that I was a bit put-off by Kant as what I read of him
seemed like an unwieldy edifice of notions. As you have asked me for a
summary, I ask you now for one.
> In this case, lying is morally detrimental because we
> do not generally wish to be lied to. Ditto murder, theft, fraud etc
What we see in our relations with others is obvious - what we see in
ourselves is only what we are so willing to be open to - and this then,
is what I "have a beef with" - that the morality that can easily be
commonly agreed upon, is not the morality that necessarily leads to a
person achieving their highest potential.
> To take one rather different example, most world religions have some
> form of
> opprobrium against homosexuality (though a rational, secular argument I
> have
> not yet heard.
I have. But I'll hesitate to put us on a tangent.
> ) i.e. from The Observer "The Archbishop of Canterbury
> sounded the trumpet blast last Sunday against who would teach
> impressionable
> young children that being gay is an equally good alternative lifestyle.
> He
> was followed by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who warned repeal would
> undermine morality, the Moslem Council of Britain, whose Secretary
> General
> is Iqbal Sacranie, brandished the Koran at the proposed repeal (and
> grabbed
> rare space in the Mail for its views) and Om Parkash Sharma, president
> of
> the National Council of Hindu Temples, who decried 'unnatural' gay
> activities." Is this counted as a 'good, original' teaching or is it
> accumulated tat?
I wouldn't pretend to know.
> Of course, this is all very hypothetical in any case. Regardless of what
> either of us regard as detrimental drivel, it will undoubtedly remain in
> religious teaching and be perpetuated, which makes this exercise of
> isolating good teachings academic at best.
It isn't academic if it is the basis of a new religion.
>> Legal law, by definition, is written down.
>
> As are religious laws in many cases. However, I think that Mill's
> approach
> to such matters is probably the one most people use in their private
> lives
> today.
And it is the morality of the private life which I find the greatest
potential concern - the self-deceit and other such issues. And about
those I'm still searching for meaningful material here, within the
confines of rationally motivated reason.
>> Without guiding
>> "moral absolutes", the legal profession will continue to grow well
>> beyond what I think it should.
>
> I would hope so. Better to have swarms of lawyers than swarms of
> priests; to
> the best of my recollection lawyers have never instigated wars or
> pogroms.
No, but they take more of my money.
> Religions have.
We need some form of population control.
> Incidentally, on the subject of moral absolutes, what of
> such incidents as lying to save someone's feelings? Many churches
> rightly
> refuse to count this as a sin, in which case they are surely being
> practical - but are clearly denying the ten commandments as an absolute.
There exist fine lines to walk. This is one of them.
>> There may be some slight twisting of words necessary here.
>
> I am not sure I understand that statement. If you look at
> http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html I do not see anything
> that
> could possibly be described as faith.
Sorry. It was in the Rhetoric, as found here:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/rhet2-17.html
>> Please provide me a link to a survey result of Europeans that indicates
>> that they consider themselves devoid of faith.
>
> You might want to ask Hermit about that as he is the master of all thing
> statistical (not my favourite topic), though I do recall one particular
> poll. The British Social Attitudes poll, (carried out by the National
> Centre
> for Social Research (NCSR) in November 2000) of more than 3,000 people
> showed 44% said they had no religious affiliation, from 31% in 1983.
I am willing to reconsider my knowledge of these issues.
>> I have heard that in America,
>
> See: http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9745.htm.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that what the current trend is is
necessarily the right or best trend. When I see the long-term
consequences and have ascertained for myself - irrespective of the mob's
behavior - then I shall have a clue as to what to do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT