Reality Therapy

Quoting Posty McPostface

However, I've noticed a trend happening in the field of psychology where this tendency of the analysis of the self is being replaced with the analysis of the self in respect to reality. This can be seen in CBT and some other forms of therapy, such as 'Reality Therapy'.

This just seems an example of what many have realised - we are socially constructed beings. So the focus of treatment for many psychological complaints - to the degree they are not strongly biological - is how people can better negotiate their position within their social world.

Of course, that leads to the political/economic question of whether that society is the right kind of world in the first place. A poor personal fit could reflect on the society itself. And it might be the good copers who suffer a kind of pathology in becoming so well adapted to the demands of their social environment.

Then, more optimistically, there is also the Positive Psychology movement that says "Reality Therapy" should be taught to everyone. It is not just there to fix the ill. It is the learnable basics of being mentally healthy.

Learning about how social construction works - how we get programmed for life by our early social influences - is also how we can transcend that early programming to make what might be more adaptive choices in terms of our attitudes and beliefs.

Quoting apokrisis

This just seems an example of what many have realised - we are socially constructed beings.

Yes; but, the context is important here. Meaning, that for much of the past history of psychology, the importance of the self has been elevated over the concerns of society, giving rise to what I call delusional psychology. Reality therapy, supersedes that goal, along with Glasser's choice theory, that instead of what we see happening all around of as the desire originating from the 'self' (whatever that may be), instead a form of pragmatism and mutual understanding is the goal, and harmony.

Quoting apokrisis

Of course, that leads to the political/economic question of whether that society is the right kind of world in the first place. A poor personal fit could reflect on the society itself. And it might be the good copers who suffer a kind of pathology in becoming so well adapted to the demands of their social environment.

Yes, the concept of "coping" itself is therefore flawed given that there's nothing that needs to be coped with in some sense because my values don't mesh with yours. There's also a deep and insidious ad hominen hidden in what you call "A poor personal fit" here, think the label "mental disorder".


Quoting apokrisis

Then, more optimistically, there is also the Positive Psychology movement that says "Reality Therapy" should be taught to everyone. It is not just there to fix the ill. It is the learnable basics of being mentally healthy.

Well, yes. Although, again this isn't a happy 'self-esteem' based inflating theory. The point is that one jumped over that hurdle and overcomes the desire to gratify all of of their wants.

Quoting apokrisis

Learning about how social construction works - how we get programmed for life by our early social influences - is also how we can transcend that early programming to make what might be more adaptive choices in terms of our attitudes and beliefs.

That's a futile task. I'm reminded of the man who spent a week to detail one day of his life, who was never able to complete his autobiography in time.

And, if all of this reeks of a modern day version of Stoicism, then I can't argue with that.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Meaning, that for much of the past history of psychology, the importance of the self has been elevated over the concerns of society, giving rise to what I call delusional psychology

I don't really see that at all. Freudian psychology might be highly egocentric perhaps. But regular psychology has been focused on society's need to jam round pegs into square holes most of the time. Hence the dominance of the medical defect model where people are assumed to be broken parts, not partners in co-construction of self and society.

Quoting Posty McPostface

here's also a deep and insidious ad hominen hidden in what you call "A poor personal fit" here, think the label "mental disorder".

But it is me pointing that out!

Quoting Posty McPostface

That's a futile task. I'm reminded of the man who spent a week to detail one day of his life, who was never able to complete his autobiography in time.

You say it is futile. But your responses are anecdotal rather than evidential. And one of the skills that positive psychology would aim to teach here is to be able to break out of that kind of self-fulfilling circle where you assume stuff - like that typical psychology is highly egocentric - and then brush off all suggestions to the contrary ... in egocentric fashion.

Reply to Posty McPostface I think two important aspects clash.

1. The self-that unique state of personal knowledge and the desires and actions that ensue in fulfilling the ego's wishes
2. The society-the need for social existence in a world that is unfavorable for a primate that lacks the physical equipment to survive in the jungles.

I think for a correct approach to this we need to look into both aspects of what makes us - a balance between the self and social existence.

To focus on one at the cost of the other would be missing something important in my view.

The trend in our world (I may be wrong) is that now we're in a position to allow individuals to achieve a greater degree of freedom from the limitations of social existence. It is possible, in the modern world, to isolate yourself from society - to not care about friendship, love, family, etc. - and yet derive all the benefits of a social existence like safety and security.

It's as if a solid state of matter is turning to liquid and then to gas. Initially we all were ''closer'' and communities were tightly-knit. Now we're getting further apart, individually isolated and yet we live in a ''society''. Do you see where this is going?

Quoting apokrisis

I don't really see that at all.

Well, just take the Prisoners dilemma for example or the tragedy of the commons, or the fact that economics treats what is rational with self interest. All of these situations arise because we place a higher value of our own welfare than that of others in much of Westernized society.

Quoting apokrisis

But regular psychology has been focused on society's need to jam round pegs into square holes most of the time.

I don't want to turn this thread into a critique of modern society; but, it's almost inevitable that this thread will take that turn. Why is that?

Quoting apokrisis

But it is me pointing that out!

Yeah, so doesn't that prove the point that psychology is in need of a paradigm shift from the ego-centric model?

Quoting apokrisis

You say it is futile. But your responses are anecdotal rather than evidential. And one of the skills that positive psychology would aim to teach here is to be able to break out of that kind of self-fulfilling circle where you assume stuff - like that typical psychology is highly egocentric - and then brush off all suggestions to the contrary ... in egocentric fashion.

I'm not saying all of psychology is egocentric; and I sure hope it isn't, but there's really no way to frame the issue otherwise, or is there?

Quoting TheMadFool

I think for a correct approach to this we need to look into both aspects of what makes us - a balance between the self and social existence.

Yes, so how do we arrive at that balance or golden mean?

Quoting TheMadFool

To focus on one at the cost of the other would be missing something important in my view.

How do you delineate or satisfy the two?

Quoting TheMadFool

The trend in our world (I may be wrong) is that now we're in a position to allow individuals to achieve a greater degree of freedom from the limitations of social existence. It is possible, in the modern world, to isolate yourself from society - to not care about friendship, love, family, etc. - and yet derive all the benefits of a social existence like safety and security.

I'm afraid that's a very impoverished way of living.

Quoting TheMadFool

Do you see where this is going?

Not sure.

Anyway, I'm interested in other input than my own on this topic. So, please don't feel obliged to engage me in this topic, as that's not the point here.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Well, just take the Prisoners dilemma for example or the tragedy of the commons, or the fact that economics treats what is rational with self interest. All of these situations arise because we place a higher value of our own welfare than that of others in much of Westernized society.

But to the degree these are models of how collaborative good can arise out of selfish actions, then they are hardly egocentric. They speak to the social science understanding that flourishing requires a self-organising and adaptive balance of competitive and co-operative actions. Both are right as both are needed. And that is what the psychological fixes would be targeting as the reality.

So the commons are a good thing - so long at the personal vs group dynamic is balanced by "market forces". Economic self-interest is rational - so long as it is framed within a generally shared social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity (and factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities).

Quoting Posty McPostface

I don't want to turn this thread into a critique of modern society; but, it's almost inevitable that this thread will take that turn. Why is that?

Because we are changing everything so fast. Humans are socially constructed and humans are changing the society that constructs them. When else in history has there been such a need to consider the kinds of people we are making?

And it cuts both ways. The Millennials could be making the right world for them, so Baby Boomers and Gen Xers should be shoving over, letting the change happen quicker.

Who can decide without a clearer theory of what really works?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yeah, so doesn't that prove the point that psychology is in need of a paradigm shift from the ego-centric model?

You mean like Positive Psychology? Which is a paradigm shift I've been tracking for some time. Where I live, it's been part of the damn national educational curriculum for a decade now. You can't get much more officially mainstream than that.

And among Millennials generally, it is one of their supposed hallmarks - a pro-social individualism. It expresses itself in social enterprise, the sharing economy, and other economic philosophies meant to roll back the excesses of funny money capitalism.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I'm not saying all of psychology is egocentric; and I sure hope it isn't, but there's really no way to frame the issue otherwise, or is there?

Social constructionism does not deny individuality. We are biologically various. So brains can be just broke at that level. And competition is part of the mix that social machinery would want to positively foster. You want people who have some assertiveness, self-esteem and motivation. Society needs creative energy as well as its generalised habits of constraint and collaboration.

So yes, there is definitely another way to frame the issues. But one that incorporates the natural thing of self-interested competition as part of the productive mix.

Quoting apokrisis

But to the degree these are models of how collaborative good can arise out of selfish actions, then they are hardly egocentric.

I'm not sure if you understand the Prisoners Dilemma. The point of it is the inverse of what you are saying. Namely that selfish actions are not Pareto optimal unless an external force/factor influences the decision making process, and the delineation of when a selfish action ought to be undertaken or not is epistemically futile, unless you were some computer or programmable entity.

Quoting apokrisis

They speak to the social science understanding that flourishing requires a self-organising and adaptive balance of competitive and co-operative actions. Both are right as both are needed. And that is what the psychological fixes would be targeting as the reality.

Well, given the advent of homo economicus, there seems to have been a profound perversion of human nature that has been taking place since the Industrial Revolution. I don't think this is a natural state of affairs and something sustainable, which has become apparent with existential issues now facing us such as nuclear war or climate change. To compound on the complexity, nobody really knows how the economy works exactly, it's being run by algorithms and soon, possibly, some form of AI. Just to go all sci-fi here, I don't think we really know what a future would look like with coexisting with an entity that is driven by a calculus of maximum efficiency and perfection in every regard.

Quoting apokrisis

So the commons are a good thing - so long at the personal vs group dynamic is balanced by "market forces".

We don't know those 'market forces', think the invisible hand.

Quoting apokrisis

Because we are changing everything so fast. Humans are socially constructed and humans are changing the society that constructs them. When else in history has there been such a need to consider the kinds of people we are making?

I feel as though our capacity to adapt to change (self induced change), is being tested to its limits, as we will see within the coming years ahead of us.

Quoting apokrisis

And it cuts both ways. The Millennials could be making the right world for them, so Baby Boomers and Gen Xers should be shoving over, letting the change happen quicker.

No, that's not true. The Millennials have inherited a no win situation. It has become a zero sum game of sorts, given the above existential threats that we now face.

Quoting apokrisis

You mean like Positive Psychology? Which is a paradigm shift I've been tracking for some time. Where I live, it's been part of the damn national educational curriculum for a decade now. You can't get much more officially mainstream than that.

I don't believe in the self inflating positive psychology movement. It's based on the false premise that self-esteem in necessary to give rise to positive affective emotions. Think of a hamster stuck in a wheel.

Quoting apokrisis

And among Millennials generally, it is one of their supposed hallmarks - a pro-social individualism. It expresses itself in social enterprise, the sharing economy, and other economic philosophies meant to roll back the excesses of funny money capitalism.

I have nothing against bona fide capitalism. The "capitalism" we see nowadays been perverted to protect the interests of the few and not many.

Quoting apokrisis

Social constructionism does not deny individuality.

No, the point is that it implies the need for collectivism, and not individualism, which we see widespread in the cult of the individual nowadays.

Quoting apokrisis

You want people who have some assertiveness, self-esteem and motivation. Society needs creative energy as well as its generalised habits of constraint and collaboration.

Self-esteem is not a need, more like a want that we've been told is a need.

Quoting apokrisis

So yes, there is definitely another way to frame the issues. But one that incorporates the natural thing of self-interested competition as part of the productive mix.

I beg to differ.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yes, so how do we arrive at that balance or golden mean?

That's the million dollar question nobody knows the answer to. Speaking for myself, I think, like the example I gave you of matter changing states from solid to liquid to gas with the particles losing cohesion while still maintaining some form of unity, society will develop along those lines with people isolating themselves out of preference and ensuring that the benefits of security, having a social origin, can be achieved.

I think this is especially good for morality. Ethics is much easier within the family and even friends. A smaller community makes for an ideal state to practice morality. The larger the social order the greater the risk for discord. Of course we have to ensure security and safety, the most important goal of society.

In a way I think we need to, instead of trying to unite society and the individual, actually separate them from each other. Safety and security can be achieved through non-social means e.g. with AI we could have an army of robots for defensive purposes. Individual freedom can then be allowed to flourish. So, it seems we don't really have to deal with these two competing notions together as I thought.

Oh, reality. I suppose. I'd love to talk about reality but you know, it's past 1:00 a.m. and the noetic fluids are coagulating for the night.

Quoting Posty McPostface

The purpose of reality therapy from my short read on the matter is to build a relationship with the world, not the self.

So the world is on one end of the relationship bridge; what is on the other end, if not some self? How did the self manage to get to a point where it doesn't have a relationship with the world any more? There is no escaping the world, or reality; it's a lion prowling in the dark savanna, silently slipping through the shadows, about to ambush us, once again. One of these nights will be the last time, and then the ambiguous self will vanish.

You want a relationship with reality? Let me tell you: reality is out to kill you and it will eventually succeed--if not this time, then the next time.

Quoting Posty McPostface

psychologists and psychiatrists have been lured like some angler trap into this idea that deep issues can be brought into the light and then the process of healing can occur.

Digging up those old, deep issues is not the most stupid idea in the world. Paleo-psychology is going to be the first step in relieving suffering, not a preliminary step. Of course, not everyone has fossil beds of agonizing trauma that needs to be dug up and sorted out. Most of us just have coprolites (fossilized shit). Get it out and on the table and deal with it, finally.

The critical step in therapy is always accepting reality. We don't have to like it, we can certainly commit ourselves to changing it, but we can not ignore it. So, our reality therapy patient must begin by accepting whatever he or she is. IF what one is is very bad (like, really very badly screwed up) then that's just going to be a tough piece to look at. But then there's acceptance, and absolution. Easy? Nope. Quick? Usually not. Difficult to make progress? Oh, yes -- very much so. But, you know, we keep working at it and at some point in the future we notice... "hey, I can see progress here!" And we keep on.

We keep on, that is, until reality finally succeeds in finishing us off. Then our case is closed.

Quoting TheMadFool

That's the million dollar question nobody knows the answer to.

I think the answer is pretty obvious, the golden mean, yes? Just one of those things that's harder to implement in reality, I suppose.

Quoting TheMadFool

Ethics is much easier within the family and even friends. A smaller community makes for an ideal state to practice morality.

This is a troubling predicament. Because it limits the sphere of interest to use the technical term, to those only closest to you. This in part leads to excluding the people out of your sphere of interest from shared goals and aspirations. It's an ethical problem as to how to encompass the sphere of interest for another beyond those closest to you.

Quoting TheMadFool

In a way I think we need to, instead of trying to unite society and the individual, actually separate them from each other.

What do you mean by that?

Quoting Bitter Crank

So the world is on one end of the relationship bridge; what is on the other end, if not some self? How did the self manage to get to a point where it doesn't have a relationship with the world any more?

Beats me. I'm just pointing out that psychology has been too ego-centric for a good while now, and that leads to the risk of developing values or beliefs that are detrimental to our shared world.

Quoting Bitter Crank

There is no escaping the world, or reality; it's a lion prowling in the dark savanna, silently slipping through the shadows, about to ambush us, once again. One of these nights will be the last time, and then the ambiguous self will vanish.

Yeah, there's no eliminating the fear of death and threats, unless one chooses to mindlessly distract themselves into some oblivion.

Quoting Bitter Crank

You want a relationship with reality? Let me tell you: reality is out to kill you and it will eventually succeed--if not this time, then the next time.

Oh, come now. It isn't that bad is it? Sure, we don't face lions or hyenas anymore as our main source of desperation. Which, has been a contributing environmental force to group and social cohesion. So, why is group cohesion disintegrating in the West, nowadays?

Quoting Bitter Crank

The critical step in therapy is always accepting reality.

Well, yes. Though, I don't think it can be found by looking deeper within the soup of the unconscious.

Quoting Bitter Crank

We don't have to like it, we can certainly commit ourselves to changing it, but we can not ignore it. So, our reality therapy patient must begin by accepting whatever he or she is. IF what one is is very bad (like, really very badly screwed up) then that's just going to be a tough piece to look at. But then there's acceptance, and absolution. Easy? Nope. Quick? Usually not. Difficult to make progress? Oh, yes -- very much so. But, you know, we keep working at it and at some point in the future we notice... "hey, I can see progress here!" And we keep on.

How is progress made by appealing to inner values such as selfishness and lust and wants and desires? Are you not a Buddhist?

Quoting Posty McPostface

What do you mean by that?

I mean you, we, are trying to find the ''golden mean'' between the individual and the group as interests of the two, despite the fact that the group is made of individuals, don't exactly line up. Proof? Crime is a perfect example where individual interests and group interests clash.

So, instead of finding the golden mean we let both flourish - let them go their separate ways. All we need from the group is safety. That can easily be achieved through an army of bots (AI). With safety ensured the individual is no longer bothered or ''burdened'' by having to adjust him/herself in society. We can be like gas particles of, say, oxygen - isolated and self-contained and yet oxygen.

Quoting TheMadFool

So, instead of finding the golden mean we let both flourish - let them go their separate ways. All we need from the group is safety. That can easily be achieved through an army of bots (AI). With safety ensured the individual is no longer bothered or ''burdened'' by having to adjust him/herself in society.

Safety from what? What threat's are we talking about here?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Safety from what? What threat's are we talking about here?

What do you need from society?

Quoting Posty McPostface

I beg to differ.

Plainly.

Quoting TheMadFool

What do you need from society?

Not much. Just food, clothing, and some shelter or domesticile. Everything else is just a luxury of sorts.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Not much. Just food, clothing, and some shelter or domesticile. Everything else is just a luxury of sorts.

All the things you've listed can be automated. You don't need society, nobody does. All we need are slaves to do the dirty work while we spend our time in leisure.

Reply to apokrisis

Well then what don't you agree with or where have I gone wrong in my beliefs?

The fact that I disagree is not indicative of validating your point, even though you can label me as simply being irrational because I am advocating something contrary to the established truth that rational self interest always leads to the maximization of personal utility, which I have illustrated that it is not the case due to never being able to calculate the net total of positive and negative externalities.

Edited the post slightly.

Reply to TheMadFool

You didn't answer the question though, you just deflected the issue. What is the threat that society poses? A limitation of personal freedom, through taxation or something else?

Reply to Posty McPostface You lost me at the prisoners dilemma. Game theory studies competition and cooperation. You chose the set up that makes cooperation impossible due to lack of an opportunity to interact. Uninteresting.

Reply to apokrisis

So, let me introduce the concept of Pareto optimality:

Quoting Wiki

Pareto optimal (comparative more Pareto optimal, superlative most Pareto optimal)

(game theory, economics) Describing a situation in which the profit of one party cannot be increased without reducing the profit of another.

So, if I behave selfishly and choose to defect in the Prisoners Dilemma, then I have decreased our net Pareto Optimal outcome. If I choose to cooperate with the other prisoner, and so does s/he, then we have attained a Pareto Optimal outcome.

So, yes cooperation is necessary to guarantee Pareto Optimal outcomes; but, the point I am making, is that it has to take place on a higher level than personal self interest. As to how to ensure that Pareto Optimal is always attained is a deeper topic, which entails ideal information asymmetry on which I'm not knowledgeable about enough to discuss.

The reason why prisoners don't snitch on each other is because the consequences of doing so outweigh the benefits.

Therefore, to ensure Pareto Optimal outcomes on a global scale, cooperation is necessary, and has to be instituted (not by force necessarily, I think and hope). One solution that I am aware of is devising a calculus to determine the cost/benefit analysis of net positive and negative externalities. This is done through the process of price setting and estimating transaction costs. But, as I've mentioned, this is almost impossible on an individual basis, as an ongoing guiding principle in all decisions pertaining rational self interest.

Reply to Posty McPostface You are still talking as if I said something different. If we have all the information, we can strike the balances which best satisfy our mutual interests. But likewise, we can also judge when selfish choices are wiser.

Quoting apokrisis

You are still talking as if I said something different.

That's because you assume that rational self interest is always optimal, which it isn't given the Prisoners Dilemma. That's what I surmised from what I understand in regards to the below (if you care to expand on this, please do.)

Quoting apokrisis

But to the degree these are models of how collaborative good can arise out of selfish actions, then they are hardly egocentric.

Quoting apokrisis

Economic self-interest is rational - so long as it is framed within a generally shared social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity (and factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities).

EDIT: I neglected to emphasize that calculating or generating "sufficient real equality of opportunity", along with "factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities" is hopelessly ambiguous or an unattainable ideal, again assuming rational self interest as the guiding goal to any end.

Quoting Posty McPostface

That's because you assume that rational self interest is always optimal,

No I don’t.

Reply to apokrisis Quoting apokrisis

Economic self-interest is rational - so long as it is framed within a generally shared social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity (and factors in the true long-term costs of its economic activities).

I'm trying to highlight the fact that those two concepts of being rational through self-interest and ensuring that the social context that generates sufficient real equality of opportunity, are at odds with one another.

Just think about monopolies for example. Every firm strives to be a monopoly, within certain bounds and limits before they're penalized for becoming one...

Reply to Posty McPostface Competition holds the advantage in the short run, cooperation in the long run. It ain’t rocket science.

Reply to apokrisis

Oh, so there's no such thing as collusion and cartels are make believe?

Reply to Posty McPostface You keep replying in non sequiturs.

Reply to apokrisis

I guess this is where I say, I agree to disagree.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I'm just pointing out that psychology has been too ego-centric for a good while now, and that leads to the risk of developing values or beliefs that are detrimental to our shared world.

There is a difference between "ego-centric" and egotistical, self-centered, narcissistic, and the like. We must be ego-centric, focused on "I am" because we don't apprehend the world, and other selves, directly (the 5 senses and all that). There is a difference between mature adult ego-centrism and infantile narcissism. It is the latter that is so detrimental to the shared world.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yeah, there's no eliminating the fear of death and threats, unless one chooses to mindlessly distract themselves into some oblivion.

Truth: there is no eliminating the fear of death from various threats. We just don't like thinking about it. Compared to death, just about everything is more interesting and pleasant. (One of the benefits of aging is that we can get to a point where one can realize that roughly 90% of one's life is spent, and a lot of it was actually quite well spent, and it was good. If one is lucky one has forgotten the fine details of the stretches which weren't so good.)

But it isn't DEATH that is the most visible threat for much of one's life. What is more present is the loss of the tangible and intangible goodies we have collected. This is where the infantile narcissist suffers the most. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune could deprive him and her of all their goodies, and then leave them very much alive to suffer from their loss.

[I don't think most people are infantile narcissists. Most people are, however, quite attached to their stuff and they usually hate losing it.]

Quoting Posty McPostface

Oh, come now. It isn't that bad is it? Sure, we don't face lions or hyenas anymore as our main source of desperation. Which, has been a contributing environmental force to group and social cohesion. So, why is group cohesion disintegrating in the West, nowadays?

Hyperbole has its uses. But what makes you think group cohesion is disintegrating in the West (or North, South, and East)? Groups of people are as cohesive as they have to be. It's been 73 years since the World was at war and we were all (allegedly) cohesive. On a much smaller scale, (groups of 100 or less) people are as cohesive as they ever were -- which is to say they are ready, willing, and able to work together for common goals.

Families falling apart? Family cohesion is steady. A percentage of families have always lacked cohesion, particularly when society was loose enough to allow it. A certain percentage of people marry, decide that they made a big mistake, and break up.

Work? People seem to willingly spend a lot of time at work in more or less cohesive groups.

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Well, yes. Though, I don't think it can be found by looking deeper within the soup of the unconscious.

For the most part, I agree. The non-conscious mind isn't all that open to inspection. What is more or less open, though, is our memories of our lives so far, and all that is at least somewhat open. And, let me add, the ways we evade dealing with reality right now are open to inspection--and modification.

Quoting Posty McPostface

How is progress made by appealing to inner values such as selfishness and lust and wants and desires? Are you not a Buddhist?

I am not a Buddhist. Whatever gave you that idea?

No -- progress is NOT made by appealing to selfishness, lust, wants, and desires, fears, anxieties, and so on. Progress is made by acknowledging our lusts, needs, desires, fears, anxieties, and fantasies. We can't deal with them if we haven't faced up to their reality. And the end goal isn't to deny, or destroy what we wish for and fear. The goal is to achieve control. So, we will still have lusts, for instance, and if we are mature adults we can decide whether, when, where, and how our desire may be satisfied -- or not. We will still have fears, but we can deal with them more effectively.

One of the more perplexing fantasies is that we can be free of our human-animal nature and be purely rational beings untroubled by disruptive urges. On a good morning one can get by for a few hours feeling purely rational, but then a bowling ball of lust, hunger, rage, or blind ambition will plow into all that dry, cool rationality and we'll be upset for days.

I like the idea behind reality therapy. I'd never heard of it before.

Quoting Bitter Crank

There is a difference between "ego-centric" and egotistical, self-centered, narcissistic, and the like. We must be ego-centric, focused on "I am" because we don't apprehend the world, and other selves, directly (the 5 senses and all that). There is a difference between mature adult ego-centrism and infantile narcissism. It is the latter that is so detrimental to the shared world.

Perhaps, indeed, I am throwing away the baby with the bathwater; but, realizing that distinction is very difficult. This is because the logical conclusion of ego-centrism entails the latter, so nobody knows when to delineate the two or more aptly, nobody cares to.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Truth: there is no eliminating the fear of death from various threats. We just don't like thinking about it. Compared to death, just about everything is more interesting and pleasant. (One of the benefits of aging is that we can get to a point where one can realize that roughly 90% of one's life is spent, and a lot of it was actually quite well spent, and it was good. If one is lucky one has forgotten the fine details of the stretches which weren't so good.)

Yeah, but what would life look like if nobody ever died?

Quoting Bitter Crank

But it isn't DEATH that is the most visible threat for much of one's life. What is more present is the loss of the tangible and intangible goodies we have collected. This is where the infantile narcissist suffers the most. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune could deprive him and her of all their goodies, and then leave them very much alive to suffer from their loss.

So, two steps forward, and one back I guess. One realizes that life isn't all about the gratification of personal needs and wants; but, what then?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Families falling apart? Family cohesion is steady. A percentage of families have always lacked cohesion, particularly when society was loose enough to allow it. A certain percentage of people marry, decide that they made a big mistake, and break up.

This is a big issue. Divorce rates are incredibly high, so why bother at all if we all live in our own worlds as it is?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Work? People seem to willingly spend a lot of time at work in more or less cohesive groups.

Work, hmm. The issue seems to be about what we want. Hence, again the ego-centrism becomes an issue again, with all this talk about wants and complaints about never attaining it.

Quoting Bitter Crank

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years.

Not true. We are incredibly and plastic and malleable. The fact that so much progress has been made since the Industrial Revolution, attests to this fact.

Quoting Bitter Crank

For the most part, I agree. The non-conscious mind isn't all that open to inspection. What is more or less open, though, is our memories of our lives so far, and all that is at least somewhat open. And, let me add, the ways we evade dealing with reality right now are open to inspection--and modification.

Yes, drug addiction, rising rates of depression and other mental disorders, the disenfranchisement with the current status quo and form of governance are all symptoms about the above. So, one must address the underlying issue here and focus on the self or the reality we find ourselves in?

Quoting Bitter Crank

I am not a Buddhist. Whatever gave you that idea?

Why not? Isn't the cessation of suffering which we are all too aware about, the setting of the limits on the desirous and lustful nature that we profess all too much?

Quoting Bitter Crank

No -- progress is NOT made by appealing to selfishness, lust, wants, and desires, fears, anxieties, and so on. Progress is made by acknowledging our lusts, needs, desires, fears, anxieties, and fantasies. We can't deal with them if we haven't faced up to their reality. And the end goal isn't to deny, or destroy what we wish for and fear. The goal is to achieve control. So, we will still have lusts, for instance, and if we are mature adults we can decide whether, when, where, and how our desire may be satisfied -- or not. We will still have fears, but we can deal with them more effectively.

This just sounds like the same thing to me. I have wants and desires; but, acknowledging them entails that I want to either realize them or limit their appeal to my psyche. So, again either we all become egotistical, and suffer, or in some manner or form limit their reach on our sanity and emotional well-being.

Quoting Bitter Crank

One of the more perplexing fantasies is that we can be free of our human-animal nature and be purely rational beings untroubled by disruptive urges. On a good morning one can get by for a few hours feeling purely rational, but then a bowling ball of lust, hunger, rage, or blind ambition will plow into all that dry, cool rationality and we'll be upset for days.

Yeah, I agree.

Quoting csalisbury

I like the idea behind reality therapy. I'd never heard of it before.

Glad you liked it.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yeah, but what would life look like if nobody ever died?

Extremely crowded. There have been maybe 50 to 100 billion people born since we became Homo sapiens.

Quoting Posty McPostface

This just sounds like the same thing to me. I have wants and desires; but, acknowledging them entails that I want to either realize them or limit their appeal to my psyche. So, again either we all become egotistical, and suffer, or in some manner or form limit their reach on our sanity and emotional well-being.

It isn't, and you identify the difference.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Why not? Isn't the cessation of suffering which we are all too aware about, the setting of the limits on the desirous and lustful nature that we profess all too much?

Well, you know, we set limits on our desires and lusts. That isn't the same as taking the vail and vowing poverty, chastity, and obedience (shudder). We devise a budget of pleasure. A certain amount of desire and lust will be enjoyed, and then we'll not ask for more for a while--15 minutes, at least. Back in my salad days, I almost never stayed up all night every night screwing my brains out. I took a full helping of sex--I just didn't take everything on offer. An outing might not be repeated for 2 or 3 days, or a week, even. I like premium ice cream too, but I don't eat the whole carton at one go. I meter my decadence.

I consider suffering a given in life. It can be more, it can be less. We can make it worse, we can make it better. All our suffering will end in death. Some people don't suffer a lot; they are lucky enough to be so composed that they are not intensely bothered by everything (that would not be me). Some people can calmly endure more pain for a longer period of time; others cannot.

Quoting Posty McPostface

"We" Homo sapiens haven't changed. We're still the same old hunter-gatherers we've been for the last couple hundred thousand years.
— Bitter Crank

Not true. We are incredibly and plastic and malleable. The fact that so much progress has been made since the Industrial Revolution, attests to this fact.

We are Individually plastic and malleable. As a species, not so much.

So what? We've been a species for 300,000 thousand years, and then in the last 300 we did all these amazing things. What about the previous 299,700 years? Some significant achievements in the last 300,000 years:

1) we settled the entire planet
2) we domesticated several species
3) we invented a host of technologies (from glue made from bark to boomerangs)
4) we invented language & culture
5) we invented agriculture
6) we invented writing
7) we invented government (much to the sorrow of early libertarians)

And yes, electricity, steel, radios, cameras, guns, pneumatic nail guns, tampons, and the Wonder Bra.

Quoting Bitter Crank

It isn't, and you identify the difference.

How so?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Well, you know, we set limits on our desires and lusts.

No, reality sets limits on our desires and lusts. Some people sometimes get lucky and have them realized by chance or farce though.

Quoting Bitter Crank

A certain amount of desire and lust will be enjoyed, and then we'll not ask for more for a while--15 minutes, at least. Back in my salad days, I almost never stayed up all night every night screwing my brains out. I took a full helping of sex--I just didn't take everything on offer. An outing might not be repeated for 2 or 3 days, or a week, even. I like premium ice cream too, but I don't eat the whole carton at one go. I meter my decadence.

Well, yeah. I find it hard to self regulate; but, reality tells me why most of the time.

Quoting Bitter Crank

I consider suffering a given in life. It can be more, it can be less. We can make it worse, we can make it better. All our suffering will end in death.

So we must constrain our desires to suffer less. Blasphemy, I know.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Some people don't suffer a lot; they are lucky enough to be so composed that they are not intensely bothered by everything (that would not be me). Some people can calmly endure more pain for a longer period of time; others cannot.

I've learned to be that way, through Stoicism. What are your thoughts about Stoicism then if you do not agree with it?

Quoting Bitter Crank

So what?

It's a constrained situation, much like reality. We learn to adapt and change and evolve, if not biologically, then psychologically. Sometimes we regress. Technology and science serve to enhance and solidify the changes we've made in terms of knowledge. Philosophy is a form of psychoevolution in my mind or at least should be.

I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real.

Quoting Arne

I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real.

So, then what's all the disagreement and misunderstanding about in philosophy if we're talking about the same thing, the real?

Quoting Posty McPostface

I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real. — Arne
So, then what's all the disagreement and misunderstanding about in philosophy if we're talking about the same thing, the real?

First and for what it is worth, I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real. In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing. At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject. Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it. And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct. I only insisted that it is mine. How do you define philosophy? :smile:

Quoting Arne

How do you define philosophy?

As consensus building, which is desperately lacking in my view.

Quoting Arne

I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real.

So, if there's no consensus, then what are we talking about?

Quoting Arne

In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing.

I'm not sure if it's the same thing if we can't agree on what the nature of the real is.

Quoting Arne

At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject.

Why not? If it's about the same thing, then why so much disagreement?

Quoting Arne

Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it.

Well, yes, we do hold different beliefs about the world; but, if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it?

Quoting Arne

And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct.

So, then, what is it? Just a personal belief of sorts?

Quoting Posty McPostface

if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it?

I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion. I already have an understanding of the real and I suspect that may be true of most people engaged in philosophical discussion. One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation. Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se. But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome. Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.

Quoting Arne

I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion.

Well, we would hope that to be the case, yea?

Quoting Arne

One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation.

So, that can only be done through disagreement, yes?

Quoting Arne

Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se.

But, it's conducive to your motive of 'gauging [your beliefs] accuracy'?

Quoting Arne

But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome.

So, your seeking to reaffirm your beliefs or challenge them?

Quoting Arne

Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.

I don't see how this follows...

I'm not sure if anyone noticed; but, the real hidden gem about 'Reality Therapy' is that anyone can engage in it, without formal training, I think.

It highlights why often psychologists and psychiatrists don't achieve remission from their own method of treatment, and 'life' simply does that for the patient.

So, coming to the realization of what is under your control or not, through the realization of actual needs from 'wants' or fantasies, is quite important here.

Quoting Posty McPostface

You didn't answer the question though, you just deflected the issue. What is the threat that society poses? A limitation of personal freedom, through taxation or something else?

The social glue is made of sacrifices of the individual. Law and order, most important for society, consists of curbing the individual's basic instincts to achieve the best possible state of existence. However, no single person can do that without infringing on someone's elses territory. So, what we need, as you said, is the golden mean.

Let's set aside all the distractions and focus on the bare essentials of what benefits accrue from social existence. All I can see is safety. Can't safety be achieved through non-social means e.g. intelligent robots to control us?