Ken,

I agree totally with your critique; I wouldn't change even an
apsotrophe of it.

I didn't intend to overstate my points--something I nevertheless do
from time to time anyway. I can fall victim to passion and the
illusion that others somehow know what I'm really thinking, or leaving
out.

As for my writing a book: first, thanks very much for your kind
encouragement. I've been pecking away, in fits and starts, on several
projects for nearly two decades now. Longer than that, it's been a
life-long dream to write.

Not to dodge the issue, but I'm convinced it's not entirely due to my
severe schedule that I procrastinate and get continually distracted
from this goal; it's at least partly because of my ADHD too. I
really should start a trial of ritalin, but, irnonically, I also put
that off too! And I've already tried Wellbutrin and Atomoxatine; they
didn't help.

Anyway, determinism/naturalism-based articles and books within the
greater "self help" genere is a worthwhile (and neglected) cause, I
think. For that matter, radio shows and other media should also be
exploited for the same purpose, I firmly believe.

For the more immediate future, I'm trying to restructure the
curriculum of a CBT group I have to co-facillitate in such a way to be
consistant with D/N principles. It's tougher than it sounds, and I
have to deal with the resistance of my employer and collegues, not to
mention the FW-indoctrinated patients.

Gotta go for now;

Warmly,

Les


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
>
> Les: Good comments on the relationship of the self-help movement to
> free willism. An implication of many self-help books is that this
should
> be enough, you should be able to do this on your own, you shouldn't
> have to seek therapy. Unfortunately a lot of therapists give the same
> FW message, that if therapy fails then the client has chosen to fail,
> could have done better, etc. I think if therapy got better and more
> accessible, that would help get rid of a lot of the worthless stuff
that's
> being promoted as self-help.
>
> To call a book "self-help is a bit of a misnomer. Isn't it really
one person
> writing something which may be of help to another person? So it's
> other-help, just like therapy, but a much cheaper and probably much
> weaker form. Not personalized, interactive, dynamic.
>
> While I agree with you that most of the real affect of the self-help
> movement is enriching the authors and publishers and lecturers at the
> expense of the desparate public, I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that
> the right book or tape or lecture at the right moment could be
> beneficial. These products can become determinants, though, in the
> case of mental problems, unlikely to be powerful determinants. But I
> wouldn't rule out the possibility that a well-written book by a sincere
> author might have a positive effect on a person.
>
> Like you I've had clients come to my office after reading self-help
> books. I'm not sure if I could say they were always worse off for
having
> read them, maybe the books were the early, stumbling steps on a long
> productive quest for happiness.
>
> Maybe we should compile a list of books we've found useful to
> recommend to clients. I've thought of copying Tucker-Ladd's chapter
> on Determinism for clients. One book I've recommended is "Wherever
> you go, there you are" by Jon Kabat-Zinn. Other helpful books are ones
> on organization, philosophy ("The Problem with the Soul", not
officially
> a self-help book, but it was pretty damn helpful to me).
>
> In fact, weren't you thinking of writing a book, Les?! I hope you
do. Your
> ideas and vision top what's out there by miles. Who knows, it may be
> the first truly helpful book in the genre.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think maybe some common ground might be reached if we change the
> name of the movement. After all, what we're really talking about is not
> self-help, it's more like book-help, in other words the idea that
this book
> might help me. And I don't find that impossible to believe. Even if I
> thought 100% of the self-help books ever written were useless, that
> wouldn't mean that no one will ever write a useful one. The idea that a
> book could help some serious problems seems unlikely--- In
> cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Les Garwood, D.O." <
> determinism00@y...> wrote:
> >
> > 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