Herb:  I think all behavior, innate or learned, is selfish. It's hard to
imagine animals engaging in any behavior not resulting from strictly
internal needs. I distinguish between unintelligently selfish behavior and
intelligently selfish behavior.  It's intelligently selfish to be able to follow
rules which seem to benefit the rule-follower.

Is this question on responsibility a general one or is it related to our
proposed article? I heard you presented something on consciousness
and free will, is it something you could share with us?

Ken







--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "justtrying2beme2002" <
JustTrying2BeMe@a...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> There are two kinds of responsibility, to others and to onesself.
> The first is learned adherence to social rules, the second is
> innate selfish animal behavior. Therapy is improving the second.
>
>
> Tom, thank you very much for the article you posted under
> "files."
>
> Herb

Does this make sense?

There are two kinds of responsibility, to others and to onesself.
The first is learned adherence to social rules, the second is
innate selfish animal behavior. Therapy is improving the second.


Tom, thank you very much for the article you posted under
"files."

Herb

No hurry, Bob.

To continue my medical analogy here's a short piece I'm in the process
of writing concering treatment. It's a continuation of the medicine/
epidemiology analogy, which I think is actually more than an analogy. I
believe mental health is not essentially different from physical health,
indeed it is an aspect of physical health, so lends itself to comparison
to other realms of medicine.

In a natural world, cognition is chemical, thoughts are drugs. Good
thoughts are good drugs, bad thoughts are bad drugs.

Ideas and drugs work on our brain in similar ways. Every thought has a
chemical composition, and each time a similar thought occurs, there's
something similar about the chemical make-up of that thought. Those
chemicals can have a beneficial effect on the brain. That's why I think
mantra-like, repeated sentences can be useful. So can the repeated
words of a therapist, and anyone's oft-repeated kind and true words for
that matter. Reminders that we are not the free will authors of our
lives, we could never have done otherwise so we needn't get dragged
down by self-loathing, that we can and must thoughtfully examine our
determinants in order to understand ourselves and make improvements,
that we should respect ourselves and others as fully-caused, that we
are natural creatures for whom health is the highest good, that we
deserve to be happy, etc. Some words are good medicine, some bad.
Each time the words are repeated they deliver a small amount of
beneficial drug to needy sites in your brain, literally.

Similar ideas have been stated in other ways, I'm still working on this,
am eager to hear your thoughts on this or other approaches.

Ken

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...> wrote:
> Ken,
> Thanks for keeping the ball rolling.  I just got back from vacation and
> returned to significantly more demands than expected, so haven't
had a
> chance to adequately consider and reply to your contribution.   Just
wanted
> to thank you, and hope other committee members will get involved
soon.
> Bob
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Batts" <ken@k...>
> To: <cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 12:42 PM
> Subject: [cfntherapy] Sample
>
>
> >
> >
> > Here's a sample of the kind of piece, or the introduction to a piece,
I'd
> > like to produce. It's not finished, I'm sending it to show the tone I'm
> > going for. If anything it's too formal, I'd like it to sound warmer,
more
> > impassioned, more personal. I think this could serve as an outline
for
> > the introduction, perhaps the article itself could include more
> > anecdotes, examples, etc.
> >
> > This might be a way to proceed, to trade examples of writing and
see if
> > we can put some of it together.
> >
> >
> > The central goal of psychotherapy is a healthy, realistic self-
concept.
> > Our lives are filled with challenges, encounters between ourselves
and
> > our environment. The more realistic we are about ourselves, the
> > greater our chances of getting the things we want from life, of
> > achieving happiness.
> >
> > In order to be realistic about ourselves, we must of course try to
> > discern what is real. This applies not only to questions about a
specific
> > event or situation, but to larger questions about human nature, our
> > place in the world. Our worldview, and specifically what our
worldview
> > has to say about ourself, affects us emotionally and behaviorally at
> > every moment; what we believe about ourselves influences what we
> > feel about ourselves and consequently how we behave.
> >
> > As naturalists we believe that only science and logic can answer
these
> > questions about the reality of self and world. Ancient myths about
> > creation, humans' place in the world, immaterial souls, original sin,
> > supernatural explanations for events, etc. have all proved
inaccurate
> > and therefore unhelpful in our quest for what is real.
> >
> > We believe that the ancient myth of Free Will, the mysterious
ability to
> > act independently of physical cause, is untrue and leads to a basic,
> > harmful misunderstanding of ourselves. The doctrine of FW says
that
> > our actions have no causes, they are "free" of cause. This leaves
us
> > with a vague, mysterious picture of why we do what we do. Instead
of
> > looking for real answers we are left with foggy, irrational notions.
Since
> > our actions are not caused, all our mistakes and troubles must be
"our
> > fault", and we deserve blame and contempt. Far from promoting
moral
> > or productive behavior, this line of irrational thinking causes great
> > distress which leads to anger, depression, denial, addiction, etc.
These
> > outrcomes overshadow healthy regret for our mistakes and the
healthy
> > desire to do well in life.
> >
> > Once we reject the myth of Free Will, the simple truth about
ourselves
> > and our relationship to our environment is revealed, one which can
have
> > a profound impact on our lives:
> >
> > We all are always doing the best we can.
> >
> > The implications are hard to overestimate. My working hypothesis in
> > therapy is that to the extent people are able to introduce this
thought
> > into their life, along with the universal empathy it implies, they will
> > gain
> > in health and happiness.
> >
> > The difference between the Free Will and the Non-Free Will
worldview is
> > as large as that which separates scientific medicine from
witchcraft.
> > Scientific medicine hasn't solved every problem, but without its
basic
> > assumption, that disease has natural causes which can be studied,
> > curing serious disease is hopeless. Knowing there are causes for our
> > actions doesn't immediately solve all our problems either, but
> > nevertheless the knowledge is vital, it allows us to think about
> > ourselves, learn, research, hypothesize, experiment, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Ken,
Thanks for keeping the ball rolling.  I just got back from vacation and
returned to significantly more demands than expected, so haven't had a
chance to adequately consider and reply to your contribution.   Just wanted
to thank you, and hope other committee members will get involved soon.
Bob



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Batts" <ken@...>
To: <cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: [cfntherapy] Sample


>
>
> Here's a sample of the kind of piece, or the introduction to a piece, I'd
> like to produce. It's not finished, I'm sending it to show the tone I'm
> going for. If anything it's too formal, I'd like it to sound warmer, more
> impassioned, more personal. I think this could serve as an outline for
> the introduction, perhaps the article itself could include more
> anecdotes, examples, etc.
>
> This might be a way to proceed, to trade examples of writing and see if
> we can put some of it together.
>
>
> The central goal of psychotherapy is a healthy, realistic self-concept.
> Our lives are filled with challenges, encounters between ourselves and
> our environment. The more realistic we are about ourselves, the
> greater our chances of getting the things we want from life, of
> achieving happiness.
>
> In order to be realistic about ourselves, we must of course try to
> discern what is real. This applies not only to questions about a specific
> event or situation, but to larger questions about human nature, our
> place in the world. Our worldview, and specifically what our worldview
> has to say about ourself, affects us emotionally and behaviorally at
> every moment; what we believe about ourselves influences what we
> feel about ourselves and consequently how we behave.
>
> As naturalists we believe that only science and logic can answer these
> questions about the reality of self and world. Ancient myths about
> creation, humans' place in the world, immaterial souls, original sin,
> supernatural explanations for events, etc. have all proved inaccurate
> and therefore unhelpful in our quest for what is real.
>
> We believe that the ancient myth of Free Will, the mysterious ability to
> act independently of physical cause, is untrue and leads to a basic,
> harmful misunderstanding of ourselves. The doctrine of FW says that
> our actions have no causes, they are "free" of cause. This leaves us
> with a vague, mysterious picture of why we do what we do. Instead of
> looking for real answers we are left with foggy, irrational notions. Since
> our actions are not caused, all our mistakes and troubles must be "our
> fault", and we deserve blame and contempt. Far from promoting moral
> or productive behavior, this line of irrational thinking causes great
> distress which leads to anger, depression, denial, addiction, etc. These
> outrcomes overshadow healthy regret for our mistakes and the healthy
> desire to do well in life.
>
> Once we reject the myth of Free Will, the simple truth about ourselves
> and our relationship to our environment is revealed, one which can have
> a profound impact on our lives:
>
> We all are always doing the best we can.
>
> The implications are hard to overestimate. My working hypothesis in
> therapy is that to the extent people are able to introduce this thought
> into their life, along with the universal empathy it implies, they will
> gain
> in health and happiness.
>
> The difference between the Free Will and the Non-Free Will worldview is
> as large as that which separates scientific medicine from witchcraft.
> Scientific medicine hasn't solved every problem, but without its basic
> assumption, that disease has natural causes which can be studied,
> curing serious disease is hopeless. Knowing there are causes for our
> actions doesn't immediately solve all our problems either, but
> nevertheless the knowledge is vital, it allows us to think about
> ourselves, learn, research, hypothesize, experiment, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Here's a little rant/rave which maybe helps to clarify the relative
importance of this to other issues we face. I think neurosis is number
one. Stated positively, recognizing the extent, causes and cures of
neurosis could launch humanity onto an drastically higher level of
existence.

Neurosis is not only very much like AIDS, it is far more devastating than
AIDS, and much more of a danger to humanity. It's a pandemic which
directly affects nearly everyone or everyone to some extent. Indeed it
has been, among many other things, largely responsible for the
continuing spread of AIDS itself. Look at the destructive parts played in
the AIDS epidemic by homophobia, anti-rational religiosity, fear of sex,
drug addiction, racism, etc., all symptoms of neurosis.

AIDS is caused by a virus. Neurosis consists of a virulent set of core
beliefs: self-contempt and blame, pessimism, hyper-dependency on
others (and/or it's opposite, hypo-dependency, psychological alienation
from others).

HIV works to weaken the immune system, leaving the body defenseless
against opportunistic infections. Neurosis, which results in a weakened
self-concept and therefore weakened self, leaves us in pain and open to
all kinds of opportunistic reactions and palliatives: addiction,
compulsion, violence, self-destructive behavior.

People don't die of AIDS, they die of whatever combinations of
infections AIDS lets in, possibly combined with the toxicity of the
medicines they need. Neurosis injures and kills in the same way, by
damaging our defenses against the dangers in our environment.

Like AIDS, the severity of neurotic symptoms depends to some degree
on the health and environment of the body it infects. Healthy lifestyle
and treatment are helpful. One possible difference: someday there may
be a true cure for AIDS, whereas that's hard to imagine in the case of
neurosis. In both cases, prevention is by far the best hope.
Unfortunately, the cultural taboos against understanding neurosis are
much stronger even than those which made and continue to make the
AIDS epidemic difficult to solve.

Ken

(From this perhaps you get an idea why I'm unable to say that the
aetiology of neurosis don't matter. To me, it's like saying it doesn't
matter what causes AIDS, that we just need to treat it. I believe we can
and need to prevent neurosis. After-the-fact therapy will probably
never be more than a difficult, costly and elite tool (I imagine 90+% of
people in the world couldn't afford it, even then its effect is uncertain).

Here's a sample of the kind of piece, or the introduction to a piece, I'd
like to produce. It's not finished, I'm sending it to show the tone I'm
going for. If anything it's too formal, I'd like it to sound warmer, more
impassioned, more personal. I think this could serve as an outline for
the introduction, perhaps the article itself could include more
anecdotes, examples, etc.

This might be a way to proceed, to trade examples of writing and see if
we can put some of it together.


The central goal of psychotherapy is a healthy, realistic self-concept.
Our lives are filled with challenges, encounters between ourselves and
our environment. The more realistic we are about ourselves, the
greater our chances of getting the things we want from life, of
achieving happiness.

In order to be realistic about ourselves, we must of course try to
discern what is real. This applies not only to questions about a specific
event or situation, but to larger questions about human nature, our
place in the world. Our worldview, and specifically what our worldview
has to say about ourself, affects us emotionally and behaviorally at
every moment; what we believe about ourselves influences what we
feel about ourselves and consequently how we behave.

As naturalists we believe that only science and logic can answer these
questions about the reality of self and world. Ancient myths about
creation, humans' place in the world, immaterial souls, original sin,
supernatural explanations for events, etc. have all proved inaccurate
and therefore unhelpful in our quest for what is real.

We believe that the ancient myth of Free Will, the mysterious ability to
act independently of physical cause, is untrue and leads to a basic,
harmful misunderstanding of ourselves. The doctrine of FW says that
our actions have no causes, they are "free" of cause. This leaves us
with a vague, mysterious picture of why we do what we do. Instead of
looking for real answers we are left with foggy, irrational notions. Since
our actions are not caused, all our mistakes and troubles must be "our
fault", and we deserve blame and contempt. Far from promoting moral
or productive behavior, this line of irrational thinking causes great
distress which leads to anger, depression, denial, addiction, etc. These
outrcomes overshadow healthy regret for our mistakes and the healthy
desire to do well in life.

Once we reject the myth of Free Will, the simple truth about ourselves
and our relationship to our environment is revealed, one which can have
a profound impact on our lives:

We all are always doing the best we can.

The implications are hard to overestimate. My working hypothesis in
therapy is that to the extent people are able to introduce this thought
into their life, along with the universal empathy it implies, they will gain
in health and happiness.

The difference between the Free Will and the Non-Free Will worldview is
as large as that which separates scientific medicine from witchcraft.
Scientific medicine hasn't solved every problem, but without its basic
assumption, that disease has natural causes which can be studied,
curing serious disease is hopeless. Knowing there are causes for our
actions doesn't immediately solve all our problems either, but
nevertheless the knowledge is vital, it allows us to think about
ourselves, learn, research, hypothesize, experiment, etc.

Bob: Good question, and I suppose you answered it: I also would like to
reach a consensus, so the ultimate answer also depends on you and
others. I'm voting for an informal, lay audience, and I'll try to submit
some samples, but I'm willing to contribute what I can to whatever we
come up with. I like your approach of thinking of specific publications,
that process will make it much more likely that the piece will actually
appear somewhere. One place which might consider initially publishing
our article is a website called naturalism.org, we can take advantage of
our connections...

Ken





--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> What type of audience and publication are you thinking of?
>
> Are you thinking now of a paper written for a lay audience rather
than a professional audience?  (For example, "Psychology Today")
>
> Or are you thinking of something for a professional but non-academic
audience?  (For example, "the Family Therapy Networker")
>
> I'm up for anything we can get a concensus on, so that we can get a
real committee going on it.
>
> Bob
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Ken Batts
>   To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:31 PM
>   Subject: [cfntherapy] "The Paper"
>
>
>   Hi: I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what we're aiming for
here,
>   where I'd like to see this go.
>
>   I'm interested in seeing whether we can come up with a more
>   convincing way of writing/talking about this than is already out
there.
>   The "intellectual", multi-syllabic approach is less interesting to me,
and
>   I feel like others can do that better than I. I wonder if we could
conceive
>   of this as an article meant for popular consumption? A way of
getting
>   to to the idea of "application" is to have the writing be more
anecdotal,
>   emotional, entuhsiastic, funny, topical, etc. Some of the short
essays
>   I've included on my website (naturalcauses.net) are examples. One
way
>   we might go is to have each of us describe a particular instance in
our
>   own life where our belief in NFW has had a beneficial result.
Anecdotes,
>   while not the ultimate philosophical tool, are a very powerful tool
with
>   people, they can be convincing. And, something more in a popular
vein
>   may have a bigger impact and circumvent the academy, which
seems
>   to have made a terrible muddle of this whole rather simple topic.
>
>   Let me know what you think.
>
>   Ken
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cfntherapy/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     cfntherapy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Batts

To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:31 PM

Subject: [cfntherapy] "The Paper"

Hi: I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what we're aiming for here,
where I'd like to see this go.

I'm interested in seeing whether we can come up with a more
convincing way of writing/talking about this than is already out there.
The "intellectual", multi-syllabic approach is less interesting to me, and
I feel like others can do that better than I. I wonder if we could conceive
of this as an article meant for popular consumption? A way of getting
to to the idea of "application" is to have the writing be more anecdotal,
emotional, entuhsiastic, funny, topical, etc. Some of the short essays
I've included on my website (naturalcauses.net) are examples. One way
we might go is to have each of us describe a particular instance in our
own life where our belief in NFW has had a beneficial result. Anecdotes,
while not the ultimate philosophical tool, are a very powerful tool with
people, they can be convincing. And, something more in a popular vein
may have a bigger impact and circumvent the academy, which seems
to have made a terrible muddle of this whole rather simple topic.

Let me know what you think.

Ken

Hi: I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what we're aiming for here,
where I'd like to see this go.

I'm interested in seeing whether we can come up with a more
convincing way of writing/talking about this than is already out there.
The "intellectual", multi-syllabic approach is less interesting to me, and
I feel like others can do that better than I. I wonder if we could conceive
of this as an article meant for popular consumption? A way of getting
to to the idea of "application" is to have the writing be more anecdotal,
emotional, entuhsiastic, funny, topical, etc. Some of the short essays
I've included on my website (naturalcauses.net) are examples. One way
we might go is to have each of us describe a particular instance in our
own life where our belief in NFW has had a beneficial result. Anecdotes,
while not the ultimate philosophical tool, are a very powerful tool with
people, they can be convincing. And, something more in a popular vein
may have a bigger impact and circumvent the academy, which seems
to have made a terrible muddle of this whole rather simple topic.

Let me know what you think.

Ken

To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:03 PM

Subject: [cfntherapy] Distracting line breaks

I don't know what causes those weird line breaks in my last post, something
about typing on a Mac? They're not always there, but often. Any ideas?

Ken

Ken,
Re your idea for a paper:  I think it would be difficult to come up with a
topic that would better tie naturalism and therapy together, and my vote is
strongly that we take this on as the first project of this group.   The
scope of the topic is defined enough to bring focus, yet broad enough to
incorporate a number of aspects of naturalism and therapy.  Have you thought
of an outline, or ways to structure the paper?

Please, other members of the group, weigh in with your opinions.

Thanks, Ken.  Maybe we can get started on this if enough people are onboard.

Bob





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Batts" <ken@...>
To: <cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: [cfntherapy] Idea for a paper


> How about writing the article/paper on how the naturalistic NFW  worldview
> influences the cognitive model? Neither Bob nor I are strict cognitive
> therapists, but we both work with elements of it (right Bob?),
> particularly
> making the connection between beliefs and emotions/behavior.
>
> We could narrow the scope down to one part of the self-concept,
> responsibility/shame/regret over "bad" acts. This could include discussion
> of
> the "tool" of total compassion (theoretical at least) by the therapist for
> the client
> which helps to ameliorate guilt much better than partial compassion. For
> one
> thing, if total compassion has a theoretical justification, no time need
> be spent
> figuring out how much is deserved, how guilty one should feel, and one can
> move on to the constructive, positive part of therapy.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

How about writing the article/paper on how the naturalistic NFW  worldview
influences the cognitive model? Neither Bob nor I are strict cognitive
therapists, but we both work with elements of it (right Bob?), particularly
making the connection between beliefs and emotions/behavior.

We could narrow the scope down to one part of the self-concept,
responsibility/shame/regret over "bad" acts. This could include discussion of
the "tool" of total compassion (theoretical at least) by the therapist for the
client
which helps to ameliorate guilt much better than partial compassion. For one
thing, if total compassion has a theoretical justification, no time need be
spent
figuring out how much is deserved, how guilty one should feel, and one can
move on to the constructive, positive part of therapy.

Ken

I don't know what causes those weird line breaks in my last post, something
about typing on a Mac? They're not always there, but often. Any ideas?

Ken

The cognitive approach to therapy is based on the idea that ones' beliefs o=
r
assumptions affect one's emotions, behavior and quality of life, and a chan=
ge
toward a more realistic belief can result in a positive change. As naturali=
stic
therapists, we are suggesting that the "reality" part of the cognitive mode=
l is
not a given, it matters what the therapist's view of reality is. The natura=
listic
therapist believes that the client does not have free will and is not choos=
ing
his/her problems, that those problems all have causes. We also know that th=
e
causes are not magical, supernatural ones but real physical causes which
can be looked into.

Therapy as I practice it comes down to repetition of one basic scenario, wi=
th
variations:

The client tells of a recent episode which caused some aggravation, either =
big
or small, in which the client is willing to consider the possibility that h=
e or she
played a partial role, passive or active, in the outcome. We discuss the ev=
ent
and explore what part a false assumption or belief may have played,
particularly those having to do with self-concept (I freely choose bad acti=
ons,
I'm second rate, no one could like me, etc).

The process is important;  the act of being empathetic and thoughtful with =
the
client about their happiness implies that their happiness is important, tha=
t their
trouble is respectworthy. The act of looking for possible causes of the cli=
ent's
contribution implies that there ARE causes, which reinforces the belief in =

cause and effect and strengthens the "functional" belief in NFW.

We look for alternatives for next time (most aggravating circumstances repe=
at
themselves all too often), experiment with practical ways to do better, whi=
ch
are based on more realistic ideas. If, in the past, the client has benefitt=
ed from
similar therapy experiences, he or she becomes increasingly likely to come =

up with useful insights and experiments. Lessening the current level of sel=
f-
blame can give some relief and allow more self awareness. The client is
reinforced to use the more reality-based approach, challenging self-defeati=
ng
beliefs.

Just like science is stripping away society's supernatural beliefs one by o=
ne,
therapists can help to gradually strengthen the naturalistic beliefs of the=
  client
and lessen the need to rely on magical thinking. For most it will only happ=
en
partly through direct argumentation, since there are so many defenses built=

up around our unconscious assumptions. Just like in society, the progress
isnÕt linear, guaranteed, or usually very fast. But progress does seem to o=
ccur
so we keep working.

Ken

Bob and Tom:  Please pardon the tone of my post, it wasn't really what I
wanted, a bit too tinny or brassy, to use recording studio terminology.

And thanks for clearing up, via your recent posts and e-mails, my
misunderstanding of what you were saying about the scope of the therapy
mode you envision. Your more detailed descriptions of how you see our
endeavor here make good sense to me, and show me that we may indeed
have enough common ground to proceed.

It does remain to be seen whether Tom's speculation, that our differences on
the etiology of the free will illusion shouldn't prevent collaboration, will be
realized, I hope it will.  One possibility is that the individual's progress 
may
turn out to require a detailed search for and hypothesis about the origin of the
individual's problem, one's personal history. This seems to be the case with
transference, which as you know is central for me. But I do believe in the
value of developing techniques and exercises which at the very least
augment the contribution of the more historical approach. I firmly believe that
discovering an individual's history is NOT enough, and that positive, direct
techniques for dealing with the present, such as those you are proposing, are
a vital part of getting better. So let's see what happens.

Ken

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <rpm@n...> wrote:

> Ken, Tom and I have posted several messages which I interpret as
> meaning we three agree that the Fellowships are not about therapy,
but
> will perform some of the functions of  (guided) self-help groups as
> well as some of the functions of churches and community service
> organizations.   The self-help involved is focussed on freeing each
> other from the illusion of free will and strengthening the
realization
> of naturalism.   The discussion of techniques and practices for
> freeing ourselves and others  from the illusion might best be
> discussed in Practices and Techniques section of the Fellowship
> Committee.  Input?
>
> Sooo, do we in this committee want to focus on developing
therapeutic
> approaches to free people from the illusion, or do we want to
focus on
> how to incorporate naturalism into psychotherapy in order to
enhance
> therapy's effectiveness for the people who seek our help for
> depression, anxiety, and other common client complaints?    I vote
for
> the latter, but also recommend that we go with the majority
opinion.
>

Bob,

I vote with you on this.  The mission of this group should be
specific to psychotherapy as practiced by professionals.  Of course
there's overlap in that some the techniques used in
an "experiential naturalism" workshop offered to fellowships (or
offered as a way to introduce and attract people to fellowships)
might be useful in psychotherapy, and visa versa.


Ken,

I don't think (inevitable) differences on the etiology of the free
will illusion should prevent collaboration on applying naturalism to
therapy, in fact it might be useful since it brings different
perspectives to bear.  I'd hate to miss your input, given your long
experience.  There will clearly be a range of therapeutic techniques
based in naturalism that you, Bob, Les, Herb, and Shannon will have
developed in your work, and it's important that all of these be put
on the table.  This group should explore their common basis in
naturalism, validate them, and then write them up for a peer-
reviewed journal.

Of course research into the factors that feed into the assumption
and feeling of radical agency would be very helpful in developing
methods to deal with it as a psychological problem.  I see at least
three broad areas (there are undoubtedly others): 1) parents,
family, and upbringing; 2) the hard-wired phenomenology of agency
and self (e.g., Damasio's "The Feeling of What Happens"
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol7-spring2000/damasio.htm ),
and the culturally transmitted dualistic memes of soul and free
will.  Therapy could address such factors by 1) working at the
personal level to undo the effect of formative experiences (what Ken
emphasizes, I think), 2) using guided exercises to explore and
clarify feelings of agency, 3) exploring/challenging the client's
higher-level cognitive beliefs about free will, the self, etc.  The
right mix of these approaches will depend on the person sitting in
front of you.

I offer this simply as a preliminary framework to help organize our
thinking about therapeutic techniques and principles based in
naturalism.  I invite all and sundry to modify and flesh out this
framework by describing what you do in practice that's related to
undoing the feeling of and belief in radical agency.

Is this a way forward?  Other suggestions most welcome.

Tom





> Hi y'all,
>
> Welcome to you new members, and thanks for joining.   This is
pretty
> exciting that we're getting together on some concrete action for
> furthering naturalism.  What follows is a brief and non-inclusive
> summary, from my own limited perspective, of what has been posted
so far.
>
> Ken seems to feel strongly that the illusion of free will is
largely
> due to parental influence, and that if we better understood this
> influence we could design more effective interventions to free
people
> from the illusion.   Tom and I seem to share the pursuasion that
the
> illusion is largely hard-wired, and that while it is necessary to
> correct the  thoughts, beliefs and actions that maintain the
illusion,
> discovering the origin of the illusion is not crucial for
development
> of effective interventions.
>
> This is a potentially important point of  discussion and
> investigation.     It would be interesting to know to what degree
the
> experience of free-agency is shared by other cultures,
contemporary or
> historical.    If the illusion is hard-wired, we'd expect it to be
> universally fairly consistent.  If it is engendered by culture or
> parenting, we might expect it to vary significantly.
>
> Currently we are working to formulate some goals for this Therapy
> Committee, and some of the possibilities have been discussed in
> previous posts.  As our newer members post-in, a concensus on goals
> may take shape.    Eventually, sooner is better,  we need to decide
> whether freeing ourselves from the illusion of agency is the
purview
> of this Therapy committee or the Fellowship committee.
>
> Ken, Tom and I have posted several messages which I interpret as
> meaning we three agree that the Fellowships are not about therapy,
but
> will perform some of the functions of  (guided) self-help groups as
> well as some of the functions of churches and community service
> organizations.   The self-help involved is focussed on freeing each
> other from the illusion of free will and strengthening the
realization
> of naturalism.   The discussion of techniques and practices for
> freeing ourselves and others  from the illusion might best be
> discussed in Practices and Techniques section of the Fellowship
> Committee.  Input?
>
> Sooo, do we in this committee want to focus on developing
therapeutic
> approaches to free people from the illusion, or do we want to
focus on
> how to incorporate naturalism into psychotherapy in order to
enhance
> therapy's effectiveness for the people who seek our help for
> depression, anxiety, and other common client complaints?    I vote
for
> the latter, but also recommend that we go with the majority
opinion.
>
> Bob

Ken,

I agree entirely that few things are fully hard-wired.   Perhaps our
disagreement is more about where on the continuum of  "entirely
hard-wired------------entirely determined by experience"  the illusion of
agency falls.



To again use the example of anxiety, we certainly seem hard-wired for the
anxiety response.  No question that the hard-wiring is highly variable from
person to person, and no question that this response is highly affected by
environmental conditions, especially early conditions,  and especially
parental.  If it weren't modifiable by influences, therapy would be useless!
The cognitive-behavioral research is clear that therapy is significantly
more effective when these developmental influences  are addressed and
incorporated into treatment.  My point is that, IMOH, we can't always
discover  these early influences, and can never know all of  them, but we
can still very often achieve a great deal of relief with the knowledge and
techniques we do have to address those current influences (internal and
external)  that maintain and exacerbate the anxiety in a given person.



Like anxiety, if the illusion of agency were not modifiable by environmental
influences, it would be useless to try to develop techniques to modify it.
I don't know if we can ever be 100% successful in eliminating the hard-wired
stuff for anxiety or the illusion,  but then again some Buddhist practices
do seem to come close.   So, wherever on the continuum this illusion of
agency falls,  let's find out all we can about the influences that nurture
and maintain it,  and work together to to develop influences to undo it!







Bob

Just a follow-up to my last post:

I'm not really expecting to make converts of any of you, and don't want to
impede progress on the mission of this committee or of CFN.  If there is a
consensus among the others here that a meaningful mode of therapy can be
developed based on a notion of a hard-wired illusion of free will, I certainly
won't try to stop you from developing one. Who knows, I could be wrong!  My
main interest in CFN is not therapy anyway, and I'm perfectly happy to register
my disagreement as I did and shift my interest to other aspects of CFN.  I was
originally and still am mainly interested in seeing what ways besides therapy
can be created by CFN to spread the belief of NFW.

Ken

Bob, Tom:  Saying our illusion of free will is hard-wired is, in my opinion, a
lot
like saying our concept of love is hard-wired. There are certainly some
anatomical structures which are determinants influencing both those aspects
of our minds, but, given the huge variation in people's ability to love, and the
huge variation in our ability to deal rationally with blame/credit (a functional
measure of our Illusion of free will) it seems clear that other determinants
matter, and must be looked at when working with dysfunction (or, more
positively, trying to improve function).

Ken

Hi y'all,

Welcome to you new members, and thanks for joining.   This is pretty
exciting that we're getting together on some concrete action for
furthering naturalism.  What follows is a brief and non-inclusive
summary, from my own limited perspective, of what has been posted so far.

Ken seems to feel strongly that the illusion of free will is largely
due to parental influence, and that if we better understood this
influence we could design more effective interventions to free people
from the illusion.   Tom and I seem to share the pursuasion that the
illusion is largely hard-wired, and that while it is necessary to
correct the  thoughts, beliefs and actions that maintain the illusion,
discovering the origin of the illusion is not crucial for development
of effective interventions.

This is a potentially important point of  discussion and
investigation.     It would be interesting to know to what degree the
experience of free-agency is shared by other cultures, contemporary or
historical.    If the illusion is hard-wired, we'd expect it to be
universally fairly consistent.  If it is engendered by culture or
parenting, we might expect it to vary significantly.

Currently we are working to formulate some goals for this Therapy
Committee, and some of the possibilities have been discussed in
previous posts.  As our newer members post-in, a concensus on goals
may take shape.    Eventually, sooner is better,  we need to decide
whether freeing ourselves from the illusion of agency is the purview
of this Therapy committee or the Fellowship committee.

Ken, Tom and I have posted several messages which I interpret as
meaning we three agree that the Fellowships are not about therapy, but
will perform some of the functions of  (guided) self-help groups as
well as some of the functions of churches and community service
organizations.   The self-help involved is focussed on freeing each
other from the illusion of free will and strengthening the realization
of naturalism.   The discussion of techniques and practices for
freeing ourselves and others  from the illusion might best be
discussed in Practices and Techniques section of the Fellowship
Committee.  Input?

Sooo, do we in this committee want to focus on developing therapeutic
approaches to free people from the illusion, or do we want to focus on
how to incorporate naturalism into psychotherapy in order to enhance
therapy's effectiveness for the people who seek our help for
depression, anxiety, and other common client complaints?    I vote for
the latter, but also recommend that we go with the majority opinion.

Bob

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
> All this is to agree with you that the Fellowships, which presumably
> consist of us normal, only slightly less troubled folks, might be
> better places to offer techniques in "experiential naturalism"
> designed to lessen the illusion

I agree that the fellowship groups aren't therapy, and really nothing I've said
which relates to therapy could be applied to the fellowship groups. Tom's
description of offering "experiential naturalism", experiences which lessen the
illusion (which includes being around others who see through it) sounds right
on to me.

I don't find people in therapy on average more troubled than people out of
therapy, though some particular trouble usually is what gets them started. My
analogy is the health club: there are all sorts of reasons to be there, not all
of
which are overall poor health. The fellowship groups may contain a range,
from people who don't necessarily need therapy, to people incapable of
seeking or benefitting from therapy, at least for the time being. But people
aren't coming to the group for therapy and the fellowship groups would be
unable to provide it, nor is it their mission. The most I would expect to happen
is that people in the group would be aware that there is such a thing as
naturalistic therapy,  just as they'd be aware of anything else related to
naturalism. The idea that the fellowship groups encourage members to enter
therapy is to be avoided (I personally encourage everyone to try therapy, but
that's different!)

Ken





(for those who want to undertake
> this).  Arnell is developing a workshop on this, and Paul Breer has
> looked into it as well.  I'm not sure I would call this "therapy,"
> however, since it's dealing with mostly well-functioning people who
> are seeking to move higher up the continuum.
>
> I see the Fellowships as analagous, for instance, to UU
> congregations, but with a definite set of beliefs, namely
> naturalism.  As such they could do almost anything as a group or in
> sub-groups or as individuals, and one thing might be to explore what
> it means experientially to question free will in a workshop or in a
> continuing individual or group practice.
>
> Tom
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...>
> wrote:
> > As Tom has observed, too many therapists (one is too many) blame
> the client
> > for lack of progress.   Perhaps it is seen as an alternative to
> having the
> > therapist's feeling of effectiveness lowered. Perhaps it comes
> from being
> > stuck using archaic therapeutic techniques that don't work.  A
> naturalist
> > would more likely choose to learn more about therapy or the types
> problems
> > s/he is not having success with.
> >
> > Ken and I recently discussed, as an initial goal for this group,
> the
> > publication of a paper on the use of the naturalist perspective in
> therapy.
> > It appears that Shannon is working toward developing a type of
> therapy based
> > on naturalism, and others have thought of developing therapeutic
> techniques
> > aimed at freeing people from the delusion of free will.   Probably
> all of us
> > in this group approach clients and therapy from a naturalistic
> perspective,
> > and can't imagine doing otherwise.   I don't know how I could
> practice
> > differently and still be authentic.  Fortunately, clients relate
> very well
> > to phrases such as "and then comes the thought/feeling.."  and
> other
> > absolutely non-blaming and accurate ways of describing
> psychological
> > experience and functioning.
> >
> > So, writing a paper is one possibility for this committee,
> developing a
> > school of therapy based on naturalism is another, and developing
> therapeutic
> > techniques to free people from the toxic illusion of freely
> willing agency
> > is another.   My personal preference is to allocate the latter
> goal
> > (techniques to free people from the illusion) as appropriate for
> the
> > fellowship committee, as people have to recognize it is an
> illusion and want
> > to be free of it before they will engage in that effort.   Once
> they are to
> > that stage, practicing as a community/group/fellowship might be
> the most
> > effective route.
> >
> > Input?
> >
> > Bob

Tom, Bob:  I didn't notice that things had started to happen here until just
now.

Hopefully it will help for me to make a full disclosure of my particular
clinical
bias. I don't want to give you the false impression that I'm looking for a model
of naturalistic therapy to put into practice, though I very much want to hear
about others' experiences and ideas. I'm about twelve years into a particular
model for naturalistic therapy which was around twenty or more years before I
discovered it and, though evolving, has been based on a stable, working
hypothesis:

Neurosis is primarily transmitted by parents, and its main manifestation is
transference. Learning to understand how transference (inaccurate
generalizing from our early relationship to our present-day relationships with
boss, spouse, child, etc.) is the key to seeing how deficiencies in parenting
are affecting our present lives. There are of course countless determinants
affecting us, but we feel this one is central enough to put it at the hub of our
therapy model.

The function, the reason for the survival, of the doctrine of free will has been
to
protect parents (and all other causes) from blame, shifting it onto the child.
Children learn by experiencing: blaming and shaming them is to teach them
that they are willfully, purposely, without cause, being bad. That's free will!
That's what leads to a poor self-concept which causes our symptoms.

Tom states that it's not necessarily the case that we must understand where
the belief in free will comes from in order to make a useful therapy. That might
be true in theory, but I can't imagine it in practice. In order to get better,
people
need to look closely at the origin of their particular neurosis and it's
associated false beliefs, and how specifically that is affecting them today. If
it
is caused by parents, then early experience holds the key to seeing it clearly,
closely analyzing it. Without knowing its origin, where would we look for
information about it?  Parents, through their actions,  teach children they're
bad, and by doing so they teach free will.  Facing that and working with it is
the way people improve their lives. Luckily NFW:ism contradicts their early
teaching  and also allows the client to look at the contradiction rationally
while
NOT breaking the deepest taboo: blaming parents. Because in a NFW world,
there is no blame. Students may be angry, but their anger is hopefully
mitigated greatly by their awareness of NFW.

I admit it, I am a "true believer" in this model. I've used it for years, my own
therapy used it, and, accurately or not, I attribute a great deal of healing to
its
application. I'm not dead, so it's still possible for me to learn new things (I
hope), but that's my bias.  If the facts demand it, one should change their
belief, but as you see I'm pretty far down this road.

As I said this is a working hypothesis, one with tens of thousands of hours of
clinical application. I believe the use of mindfulness, meditation, and many
other techniques can alleviate symptoms and be an important part of getting
better, and I encourage their use in increasing functionality and enriching
lives. But without the core examination of the nature of one's neurosis I think
these techniques won't be of much help.

I hope this helps you understand my point of departure.

Ken

 "Those are the unhappy folks seeking one-on-
one therapy qua therapy, and many might not be ready to tackle
directly the illusion of contra-causal agency.  But they would
undoubtedly benefit from a naturalisticly informed therapy, as for
instance you, Ken, Shannon, and Les practice it.  As they progress,
they might eventually become candidates for questioning the free
will illusion.  Writing a paper or papers on all this would be part
of developing the principles and techniques."

---------Tom,  I agree entirely.  I often do introduce the free-will question towards the end of therapy with high functioning people.  They almost never get it fully, but it gets them thinking.

"All this is to agree with you that the Fellowships, which presumably
consist of us normal, only slightly less troubled folks, might be
better places to offer techniques in "experiential naturalism" 
designed to lessen the illusion (for those who want to undertake
this).  Arnell is developing a workshop on this, and Paul Breer has
looked into it as well.  I'm not sure I would call this "therapy,"
however, since it's dealing with mostly well-functioning people who
are seeking to move higher up the continuum. "

----------Maybe they would be willing to post what they've developed so far?

"I see the Fellowships as analagous, for instance, to UU
congregations, but with a definite set of beliefs, namely
naturalism.  As such they could do almost anything as a group or in
sub-groups or as individuals, and one thing might be to explore what
it means experientially to question free will in a workshop or in a
continuing individual or group practice."

--------------Again, I agree entirely.  Gee it's nice to have someone with whom I nearly always see eye-to-eye!

---------------Bob

Tom

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...>
wrote:
> As Tom has observed, too many therapists (one is too many) blame
the client
> for lack of progress.   Perhaps it is seen as an alternative to
having the
> therapist's feeling of effectiveness lowered. Perhaps it comes
from being
> stuck using archaic therapeutic techniques that don't work.  A
naturalist
> would more likely choose to learn more about therapy or the types
problems
> s/he is not having success with.
>
> Ken and I recently discussed, as an initial goal for this group,
the
> publication of a paper on the use of the naturalist perspective in
therapy.
> It appears that Shannon is working toward developing a type of
therapy based
> on naturalism, and others have thought of developing therapeutic
techniques
> aimed at freeing people from the delusion of free will.   Probably
all of us
> in this group approach clients and therapy from a naturalistic
perspective,
> and can't imagine doing otherwise.   I don't know how I could
practice
> differently and still be authentic.  Fortunately, clients relate
very well
> to phrases such as "and then comes the thought/feeling.."  and
other
> absolutely non-blaming and accurate ways of describing
psychological
> experience and functioning.
>
> So, writing a paper is one possibility for this committee,
developing a
> school of therapy based on naturalism is another, and developing
therapeutic
> techniques to free people from the toxic illusion of freely
willing agency
> is another.   My personal preference is to allocate the latter
goal
> (techniques to free people from the illusion) as appropriate for
the
> fellowship committee, as people have to recognize it is an
illusion and want
> to be free of it before they will engage in that effort.   Once
they are to
> that stage, practicing as a community/group/fellowship might be
the most
> effective route.
>
> Input?
>
> Bob

Bob,

Thanks, here are some thoughts re group goals.

I spoke to Paul Breer today, and we touched on the obvious fact that
there's a continuum of functioning, from very dysfunctional to
psychologically very healthy.  Seems to me that the therapy group's
objective is more to develop principles and techniques for those
having difficulties that prevent them from functioning at the
median, shall we say.  Those are the unhappy folks seeking one-on-
one therapy qua therapy, and many might not be ready to tackle
directly the illusion of contra-causal agency.  But they would
undoubtedly benefit from a naturalisticly informed therapy, as for
instance you, Ken, Shannon, and Les practice it.  As they progress,
they might eventually become candidates for questioning the free
will illusion.  Writing a paper or papers on all this would be part
of developing the principles and techniques.

All this is to agree with you that the Fellowships, which presumably
consist of us normal, only slightly less troubled folks, might be
better places to offer techniques in "experiential naturalism"
designed to lessen the illusion (for those who want to undertake
this).  Arnell is developing a workshop on this, and Paul Breer has
looked into it as well.  I'm not sure I would call this "therapy,"
however, since it's dealing with mostly well-functioning people who
are seeking to move higher up the continuum.

I see the Fellowships as analagous, for instance, to UU
congregations, but with a definite set of beliefs, namely
naturalism.  As such they could do almost anything as a group or in
sub-groups or as individuals, and one thing might be to explore what
it means experientially to question free will in a workshop or in a
continuing individual or group practice.

Tom

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...>
wrote:
> As Tom has observed, too many therapists (one is too many) blame
the client
> for lack of progress.   Perhaps it is seen as an alternative to
having the
> therapist's feeling of effectiveness lowered. Perhaps it comes
from being
> stuck using archaic therapeutic techniques that don't work.  A
naturalist
> would more likely choose to learn more about therapy or the types
problems
> s/he is not having success with.
>
> Ken and I recently discussed, as an initial goal for this group,
the
> publication of a paper on the use of the naturalist perspective in
therapy.
> It appears that Shannon is working toward developing a type of
therapy based
> on naturalism, and others have thought of developing therapeutic
techniques
> aimed at freeing people from the delusion of free will.   Probably
all of us
> in this group approach clients and therapy from a naturalistic
perspective,
> and can't imagine doing otherwise.   I don't know how I could
practice
> differently and still be authentic.  Fortunately, clients relate
very well
> to phrases such as "and then comes the thought/feeling.."  and
other
> absolutely non-blaming and accurate ways of describing
psychological
> experience and functioning.
>
> So, writing a paper is one possibility for this committee,
developing a
> school of therapy based on naturalism is another, and developing
therapeutic
> techniques to free people from the toxic illusion of freely
willing agency
> is another.   My personal preference is to allocate the latter
goal
> (techniques to free people from the illusion) as appropriate for
the
> fellowship committee, as people have to recognize it is an
illusion and want
> to be free of it before they will engage in that effort.   Once
they are to
> that stage, practicing as a community/group/fellowship might be
the most
> effective route.
>
> Input?
>
> Bob

As Tom has observed, too many therapists (one is too many) blame the client
for lack of progress.   Perhaps it is seen as an alternative to having the
therapist's feeling of effectiveness lowered. Perhaps it comes from being
stuck using archaic therapeutic techniques that don't work.  A naturalist
would more likely choose to learn more about therapy or the types problems
s/he is not having success with.

Ken and I recently discussed, as an initial goal for this group, the
publication of a paper on the use of the naturalist perspective in therapy.
It appears that Shannon is working toward developing a type of therapy based
on naturalism, and others have thought of developing therapeutic techniques
aimed at freeing people from the delusion of free will.   Probably all of us
in this group approach clients and therapy from a naturalistic perspective,
and can't imagine doing otherwise.   I don't know how I could practice
differently and still be authentic.  Fortunately, clients relate very well
to phrases such as "and then comes the thought/feeling.."  and other
absolutely non-blaming and accurate ways of describing psychological
experience and functioning.

So, writing a paper is one possibility for this committee, developing a
school of therapy based on naturalism is another, and developing therapeutic
techniques to free people from the toxic illusion of freely willing agency
is another.   My personal preference is to allocate the latter goal
(techniques to free people from the illusion) as appropriate for the
fellowship committee, as people have to recognize it is an illusion and want
to be free of it before they will engage in that effort.   Once they are to
that stage, practicing as a community/group/fellowship might be the most
effective route.

Input?

Bob

Bob, I just noticed that the archives of this group are public.  We
want them to be private, don't we?

Tom

Greetings,

I've put a recent article re fw and counseling in the files
section.  I found it using Questia, but haven't yet read it.  It
will be important to be up to date in the current literature, so we
don't reinvent any wheels and in order to see who the players and
potential collaborators are.  Also, we can probably help correct
some misunderstandings about fw/determinism, etc.

Re Ken's two questions, these are indeed fundamental and getting to
the answers will certainly inform how naturalism is brought to bear
in therapy.  However, we may not need to answer the first question
precisely (why people believe in free will) in order to address the
second (how to change that belief).

I've been in touch with Shannon and Les, and both are interested in
being part of this group.  Bob, have you invited them and Herb K. to
join yet?

Mary Ellen knows two counselors (one is a good friend and the other
her brother) who routinely talk about "choice" as pivotal.  The
client must be helped to make better choices, but if they don't
choose well, the blame ultimately resides with the client.  Neither
of these counselors seems to realize or pay much attention to the
fact that choices are fully caused.  I suspect the emphasis on some
sort of unconditioned choice has to do with wanting to encourage
autonomy (that all American value) in clients, but of course if
autonomy is seen as some sort of contra-causal capacity, that just
means that the client is left dangling on their own, finally: we
gave you the tools, now it's up to you Jack!


Tom

Bob, members (future members that is, as of this moment I guess it's just Bob
and me!):

The question in the subject of this e-mail is a central question for me, along
with the related question "what can we do to change that belief?" The belief in
free will is extremely destructive, it leads to the self-contempt from which
most
of the troubles of humanity derive. We can treat symptoms forever, but unless
we understand and prevent the cause of those symptoms, the suffering will
continue.

I propose using these two questions as a way of starting the discussion about
naturalistic therapy.

Ken