Hello All,

A rare opportunity for me to check in.

Clay, I am thrilled another determinist is addressing the "Self" help
issue.


And well-written reply, if I may say so, Ken, as usual.

It's long been a hot button topic of mine, this so-called "self help"
movement or genre. It fairly frustrates me to see long, and
ever-growing shelves of this rubbish in bookstores everywhere.

Many self help (SH) authors, while grandiosly deluding themselves that
they are helping of others, become rich and famous at the expense of
their almost inevitably disappointed readers. So I suppose, in an
ironic way, the books do work--for the publishers and their writers.
They wittingly, or not, exploit desperate victims of the FW culture,
while all the time actually assisting in the pathogenesis of that model.

Any benefit they have to their audience is based solely upon what Ken
alludes to: the addition of new information into their pool of
determinants, and the fleeting, cheerleader effect. Of course, these
revisions are themselves determined too. And when I speek of
determinants, I am referring only those that are operating at the
split instant of a given event--not hypothetical, and unknowable
future ones.

I say "unknowable" because I think the immediate future is the only
true domain of the over-hyped and often misunderstood quantum physics
term called the "observer effect" More precisely, just as some event
is about to be born into the present any observer involved necessarily
is part of, and therefore affects, the mix of its determinants.

We often read about this as evidence that things "could" have been
different, had the observer not been present (and therefore implying
FW). Well, this is not even a half-truth--which is to say, not a
truth at all. The key issue, blindly missed by QM-versed FreeWillies,
is that the addtion of the observer to these experiments is also
determined, and therefore, so is his/her effect upon the outcome of
the experiment. You cannot both have observed, and not observed, any
single event; and there is no such thing as exactly reproducing the
same conditons twice in order to "test" this. But I digress, as usual.

Regarding "self" help notions again: I think this is a classic example
of how FW is destructive. I can't tell you how many patients I've had
who've come to me more despondent than ever after "failing" to help
themselves even after being "enlightened" by some SH book. The
not-so-subtle message, and fine print escape clause of all SH books is
that if the method seems to fail, it's the reader's "fault" for not
being more self-disciplined, or some such tripe. It shouldn't take a
determinist to spot the euphemisms for FW here.

So it galls me how it's also completely lost on the majority of the
public that if it's all ultimately up to FW anyway then what the hell
does anyone need a SH book for in the first place??? Similarly, if
the book is supposed to make a difference then this simultaneously
obviates FW. In the bizarre, self-refuting world of FW, either
everything must be due to FW, or nothing is.

With Warm and Determined Regards, Naturally

Les






--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
>
> Hi Clay: I'm glad you're able to rejoin our discussion. I hope your
> treatment is painless and successful.
>
> We might be able to simplify this discussion if we examine the idea
> "changing the future".
>
> What is being changed? The future hasn't occurred yet, so we can't in
> my opinion speak of changing it. We don't know what the future is,
> whether our actions will be a significant part of it, but whether our
> action will play a significant role in the future, and what that
role will
> be, is fully caused and not possible to "change".
>
>
> Let's take a trivial example. Say I have some dirty plates on the
dining
> room table in the evening at my house. What will happen to those
> plates in the near future? I don't have full information about all the
> determinants involved, but I can imagine several different futures: in
> one version the plates remain there until morning, in another I put
them
> in the dishwasher right away, in another I wait an hour, in another
I drop
> one, in another the table breaks and the plates fall on the floor and
> break, in another a meteorite crashes through the ceiling and destroys
> the table, the plates, and me. And so on. There are an infinite number
> of seemingly possible futures, but only one genuinely possible future,
> fully caused by preceding determinants. That's the assumption of
> science, as I understand it, that for a given set of circumstances
there
> is only one possible outcome. For a roughly approximate set of
> circumstances, "plates on a table at night at my house", there are
> several imaginable outcomes, but only one possible outcome for each
> particular occurrence. Some of the futures seem more likely, but only
> one will actually occur, and it will be fully caused, including any
> participation or non-participation on my part.
>
> So, though I may take the plates to the kitchen, I can't be said to
have
> changed the future, any more than the table or the plate or the
> dishwasher or meteor can. If all events are determined (which in
> determinism, they are!) then my actions are no more free than the
> actions of the molecules in the plate, the meteor, the table. I am more
> complex and therefore harder to predict, but no less caused. The same
> applies to the missions to the moon or to a therapist's plan. If they
> occur, they had to occur, the future was not changed. There need be
> no grand "plan", just some energy and space and time and physical
> laws, lots of stuff will happen.
>
> Ken
>
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "clayt1_2000" <drclay@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Sorry for the long break...but I see others have been gone too.
> >
> > I'm getting my out-of-control cells taken care of...just 6 more
> > weeks of radiation to go.
> >
> > I finally took a little time to try to think through my confusion
> > about self-help and determinism. This is my first rough draft. I
> > need to think about it some more. Any help anyone can give me will
> > be welcome.
> >
> > Self-help, Will power, and God's will.
> >
> > Self-help is the use of knowledge to change yourself, your
> > relationships, or your life. This knowledge may come from many
> > sources—reading, wise helpers, accumulated cultural wisdom, and
> > even "figuring out" by yourself what will work. If the plan for
> > changing is developed and carried out by a professional, however, it
> > is not self-help, it is professional treatment. Self-help is based
> > on better understanding the very complex laws of behavior—the
> > dependable cause and effect relationships—that permit one to
> > establish conditions, mental or physical, that control the
> > subsequent behavior. Scientific knowledge offers a hope of
> > influencing the future.
> >
> > Will power is based on the belief that concentration and sufficient
> > long-lasting motivation will enable a person to achieve
> > extraordinary goals. It is the change method exemplified by a
> > motivational speaker, a cheering section, a supportive friend or
> > group, an encouraging coach, or even by repeated self-inspiration.
> > If meaningful motivation can be increased and if the existing lawful
> > habits, attitudes, and environmental conditions do not need to be
> > changed, future changes are sometimes possible. High motivation can
> > not alter nature's laws. That is, if the necessary and lawful
> > conditions, skills, methods, and other factors are not already in
> > place and functioning the end goal is not likely to be achieved, no
> > matter how motivated or driven one might be. Another major problem
> > with this approach is that often motivational drive quickly
> > dissipates and becomes ineffective unless it is repeatedly or
> > constantly pumped up.
> >
> > God's will is a concept widely believed by many people…or at least
> > applied by many when some outcome is highly desired or dreaded. It
> > is a fatalistic belief that everything is unfolding according to a
> > pre-set "divine" plan; thus, humans are urged to accept God's
> > inevitable plan and to be grateful for or, at least, tolerant of
> > whatever happens. God's will is a particularly interesting notion
> > because it would seem to contradict the common belief that God's
> > plan for everything can be influenced by prayer. The future has to
> > be either fixed or changeable; it can hardly be both. Yet, believing
> > God will intervene for you or already has good plans for your future
> > may leave you hopeful and optimistic, characteristics that are
> > positively related to feeling better and performing better.
> >
> > While I don't believe that every event and every outcome in the
> > future is totally pre-determined by a grand plan, it would be
> > possible to believe that everything is unfolding in accordance with
> > fixed, immutable laws, such as the laws of physics, chemistry,
> > behavior, social interaction, etc. In that case, while every future
> > event would be fixed in terms of being lawful but also controllable
> > to the extent that the conditions and lawful relationships could be
> > understood and manipulated to bring about a desired outcome.
> > Likewise, every moment and action that has already passed and was
> > fully determined by the laws involved at the time, i.e. the actor
> > couldn't have done otherwise. Yet, what happens at a future moment
> > can be influenced if the actor, a helper, or someone else is
> > knowledgeable enough of the laws (methods of change) involved in
> the
> > future event.
> >
> > Example: Man might influence his destiny to some extent,
> > e.g. in the early 1960's the USA decided to go to the moon…and did
> > it. Or a therapist might draft a plan to reduce a patient's
> > depression…and do it.
> >
> >
> > Clay