--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Will" <will_g_davidson@y...> wrote:
  In other words,
> > neurosis can be explained through the general adaptability of
> > brain mechanisms

> The "in other words," section above sounds off though. That's like saying lung
cancer in
> smokers can be explained through the general adaptibility of lung mechanisms.
Yes but
> mainly no! Focussing on the lungs blinds us to the obvious truth that lung
cancer is
> caused by smoking. Analogously, neurosis is caused by outrageously bad
information,
to
> which no brain could be expected to adapt.
>
> Ken

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the text. Does it mean that neurosis is caused when
the
information is too faulty for the brain to adapt to healthfully? If that's what
they mean, I
agree. I suppose I could read the whole paper.....

Ken

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Will" <will_g_davidson@y...> wrote:
> <<<KOUKKOU and LEHMANN see this neuroscientific conception as an
> alternative to the psychoanalytic conflict model, stating
> that the pathogenesis of neurosis cannot be explained as conflicts
> between the "instincts" and socialization. Instead the explanation of
> neurosis lies in the quality of the knowledge that the
> individual acquires and creates from interactions with the social
> realities that are important at different ages. In other words,
> neurosis can be explained through the general adaptability of
> brain mechanisms

This definition of neurosis jibes completely with mine. What we're saying is
that the
"quality of knowledge" conveyed to children is extremely bad. Parents teach the
"knowledge" that the child's actions are uncaused. Talk about some low quality
information!

The "in other words," section above sounds off though. That's like saying lung
cancer in
smokers can be explained through the general adaptibility of lung mechanisms.
Yes but
mainly no! Focussing on the lungs blinds us to the obvious truth that lung
cancer is
caused by smoking. Analogously, neurosis is caused by outrageously bad
information, to
which no brain could be expected to adapt.

Ken

Tom:  Our culture, based on managerial, authoritarian childrearing, instills
both an
aversion for and a dependence on control. This distorts our ability to
distinguish
legitimate from illegitimate uses of power. To some degree we're all like Woody
Allen in
Annie Hall when he tears up his driver's license in front of the perfectly
reasonable cop
and ends up unnecessarily in jail.

Determinism, psychotherapy, progressive politics, are so provocative to people
because
they see these ideas (and those of us who promote them) as cops ordering them
around.

As promoters of an idea who are trying to wield some legitimate authority (based
on merit)
we are seen as cops, taking things away from people, making people do things
they don't
want.  Radical individualism is tough soil for planting our crop, though we seem
to get a
sprout here and there.

Ken

Here's pretty much what we are not:

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/56/9/1160

I suppose the perceived threat of mechanism might be a deterrent to
some clients in taking a deterministic view.

One double-edged reassurance: since there's no one in charge of the
mechanism, it tends to behave itself pretty spontaneously, from
the "owner's" standpoint.  Problem: how do I ensure that my
spontaneous acts are good, productive, life-enhancing?  Answer:
learn, with the therapist's help, what works for you and enjoy the
spontaneity that still remains within the boundaries of what works.

Also, I imagine some clients would rather end up as a reliably happy
(and vastly complex) mechanism rather than a anxious/depressed
freely willing agent.

How the heck is everyone, anyway?  Any insights/reports from the
field?

Tom
CFN

BTW: I can hardly believe what Dartmouth neuroscientist Michael
Gazzaniga said about the insanity defense.  Just shows yet again in
this administration the triumph of ideology over science, see
http://www.naturalism.org/criminal.htm#brain .

Tom: Sounds like Zelenski's heart is in the right place, though he may have a
ways to go,
as indicated by his emphasis on the word "totally". "Free persons" can't totally
overwhelm
their "determined brains, and they can't partially overwhelm their determined
brain,
because there are no such persons!  But I'm glad he's so enthusiastic about
defending his
patients from those cold hearts farther out on the free will rim. And thanks for
nudging
him closer to our side.

Ken




--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
> I thought the following exchange from the Yahoo Evol-Psych list
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) was
> relevant to us.  Developmental neuropsychiatrist Steve Zelenski
> responds to a post of mine regarding neuroscientist Michael
> Gazzaniga, who for no good reason opposes the insanity defense.
>
> Tom
>
>
> This concept of believing that a "determined brain" can be totally
> overwhelmed by a "free" person when making critical decisions is one
> of the most mean-spirited, backward-dragging intellectual arrogances
> that I have encountered in my work. My patient population consists
> primarily of individuals with profound and severe mental retardation
> and developmental disability. These individuals also frequently have
> severe neuromuscular and sensory impairments. The societal insult to
> these individuals occurs when, frequently at the behest of government
> advocacy or regulatory groups a behavioral psychologist appears and
> indignantly declares that medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics
> etc.), environmental safety adjustments (ie locking a door behind
> which poisonous chemicals are kept) are all unnecessary because the
> individual can be "trained" to function without these aids. Notice
> the operational word here is "totally." Of course, there is a
> potential in any damaged brain, in any "determined" brain to learn
> and grow and we still don't know how to fully assess that potential.
>
> Steve Zelenski, D.O., Ph.D.
> Developmental Neuropsychiatrist
> Central Wisconsin Center
> University of Wisconsin Medical School
> Madison, WI
>
> On 8/15/05, Tom Clark <twc@> wrote:
> > I have a serious bone to pick with Gazzaniga, since he somehow
> > twists findings from neuroscience to suggest that we shouldn't take
> > neural defects into account when assessing responsibility and
> > culpability. This leads him to reject the insanity defense in the
> > interview linked below. This may help explain why he's welcome on
> > the president's bioethics commission.
> >
> > I've analyzed Gazzaniga's position at
> > http://www.naturalism.org/criminal.htm#brain , and I'm not alone in
> > my assessment. In her review of the Ethical Brain at
> >
> http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/asseti
> > d/44445;jsessionid=baa6S5z-1EUlg4 , Patricia Churchland says
> > that "Gazzaniga sums up his solution to the problem of free will by
> > saying that 'the brain is determined, but the person is free.' The
> > logic of this brain/person duality is not particularly compelling,
> > or even coherent...". Indeed.
> >
> > Tom Clark
> > Center for Naturalism
> > www.naturalism.org
> >
> >
> > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Malloy"
> > <jmalloy@n...> wrote:
> > > "When Dr. Michael Gazzaniga calls in for an interview, while
> > > vacationing in California, he apologizes for having "12 things
> > > going on at once." The repairman is coming, dogs are barking in
> > > the background, and the hustle-bustle is evident even on the
> > > other end of the line. This environment is not new to Gazzaniga.
> > > A founder of the field of cognitive neuroscience, he still runs a
> > > busy lab at Dartmouth College and sits on the president's
> > > Council on Bioethics. In addition to several textbooks, he has
> > > written four books for popular audiences, including his latest,
> > > The Ethical Brain, one of the first to examine what the field of
> > > neuroscience has to say about modern ethical dilemmas."
> > >
> > > http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050803/3book.htm
> >
> >

I thought the following exchange from the Yahoo Evol-Psych list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) was
relevant to us.  Developmental neuropsychiatrist Steve Zelenski
responds to a post of mine regarding neuroscientist Michael
Gazzaniga, who for no good reason opposes the insanity defense.

Tom


This concept of believing that a "determined brain" can be totally
overwhelmed by a "free" person when making critical decisions is one
of the most mean-spirited, backward-dragging intellectual arrogances
that I have encountered in my work. My patient population consists
primarily of individuals with profound and severe mental retardation
and developmental disability. These individuals also frequently have
severe neuromuscular and sensory impairments. The societal insult to
these individuals occurs when, frequently at the behest of government
advocacy or regulatory groups a behavioral psychologist appears and
indignantly declares that medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics
etc.), environmental safety adjustments (ie locking a door behind
which poisonous chemicals are kept) are all unnecessary because the
individual can be "trained" to function without these aids. Notice
the operational word here is "totally." Of course, there is a
potential in any damaged brain, in any "determined" brain to learn
and grow and we still don't know how to fully assess that potential.

Steve Zelenski, D.O., Ph.D.
Developmental Neuropsychiatrist
Central Wisconsin Center
University of Wisconsin Medical School
Madison, WI

On 8/15/05, Tom Clark <twc@...> wrote:
> I have a serious bone to pick with Gazzaniga, since he somehow
> twists findings from neuroscience to suggest that we shouldn't take
> neural defects into account when assessing responsibility and
> culpability. This leads him to reject the insanity defense in the
> interview linked below. This may help explain why he's welcome on
> the president's bioethics commission.
>
> I've analyzed Gazzaniga's position at
> http://www.naturalism.org/criminal.htm#brain , and I'm not alone in
> my assessment. In her review of the Ethical Brain at
>
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/asseti
> d/44445;jsessionid=baa6S5z-1EUlg4 , Patricia Churchland says
> that "Gazzaniga sums up his solution to the problem of free will by
> saying that 'the brain is determined, but the person is free.' The
> logic of this brain/person duality is not particularly compelling,
> or even coherent...". Indeed.
>
> Tom Clark
> Center for Naturalism
> www.naturalism.org
>
>
> --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Malloy"
> <jmalloy@n...> wrote:
> > "When Dr. Michael Gazzaniga calls in for an interview, while
> > vacationing in California, he apologizes for having "12 things
> > going on at once." The repairman is coming, dogs are barking in
> > the background, and the hustle-bustle is evident even on the
> > other end of the line. This environment is not new to Gazzaniga.
> > A founder of the field of cognitive neuroscience, he still runs a
> > busy lab at Dartmouth College and sits on the president's
> > Council on Bioethics. In addition to several textbooks, he has
> > written four books for popular audiences, including his latest,
> > The Ethical Brain, one of the first to examine what the field of
> > neuroscience has to say about modern ethical dilemmas."
> >
> > http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050803/3book.htm
>
>

Will: I agree that we are all neurotic to some extent, we don't divide into two
discrete
groups, one neurotic and one non-neurotic.

I think neurosis is formed when our innate and other healthy urges come into
conflict with
pathological social imperatives, like abusive, authoritarian parenting,
indoctrination into
irrational religion, free will and self-blame, original sin, nationalism,
repressed sexuality,
etc. As you put it, being taught sub-optimal behavioral strategies, which are
accompanied
by sub-optimal beliefs about ourselves. Without these pathological teachings I
think we'd
turn out quite healthy. In any case there's no evidence we wouldn't.

I believe this because I and others have observed that neurosis varies greatly
between
individuals and correlates most strongly in strength and kind with the way
people are
treated as kids. I think that's a fact which people routinely observe, in their
friends, their
families, human stories in history and  literature, and if they are reflective,
in themselves.
But as kids get older, the common (pathological) belief in free will obliterates
what
common sense tells us with the dismissive "he/she should be over that by now"!

Ken

<<<KOUKKOU and LEHMANN see this neuroscientific conception as an
alternative to the psychoanalytic conflict model, stating
that the pathogenesis of neurosis cannot be explained as conflicts
between the "instincts" and socialization. Instead the explanation of
neurosis lies in the quality of the knowledge that the
individual acquires and creates from interactions with the social
realities that are important at different ages. In other words,
neurosis can be explained through the general adaptability of
brain mechanisms (1998a, p. 287, see also LEDOUX, 2002)>>>

I don't see how these two ideas are in conflict. Egocentric urges do
conflict with social imperatives and do result in behavioral
strategies that are instantiated in the mind. Neuroses would be when
these strategies are sub-optimal.
Actually, the idea that a person is neurotic or not neurotic is
misleading. We all employ sub-optimal behavioral strategies that
reduce our overall effectiveness in living. It is just a matter of
degree.



--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
> Thought this looked like good background material should people
want a
> physicalist perspective:
>
>
> http://www.cip-medien.com/01_ImplicationsStorch.pdf
>
> Tom
>
> CFN

Thought this looked like good background material should people want a
physicalist perspective:


http://www.cip-medien.com/01_ImplicationsStorch.pdf

Tom

CFN

Andy:  Unfortunately "CFN therapy"  doesn't exist, at least not yet. This group
was founded
in order to come up with such a thing, and it may happen someday! In the
meantime, if
you're a naturalistically inclined therapist who'd like to contribute ideas,
please do so. If
you're looking for a therapist or are just curious, I wish we could offer you
more. I'd be
happy to answer any specific questions you have, not on behalf of CFN which has
yet to
endorse any specific model of therapy.

Ken

On Monday 11 July 2005 05:35 pm, Bob Miller wrote:
>
> Since this has links to naturalism.org and the Center for Naturalism, you
> all may be aware of this, but if not you might be interested:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29 .

Great to see this.

I'm looking for more information on CFN Therapy.  Any pointers to material not
on naturalism.org?

--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...> wrote:
> A new acute anxiety disorder client, a middle-aged psychiatrist, kept
> referring to his problem with father-figures .  I told him that from a
CBT perspective our primate heritage has left us prone to feel
intimidated and  submissive in the presence of alpha males, and that
one's early experience with alpha males (such as fathers) can either
desensitize that anxiety or reinforce it and lead to a phobic response
such as his.  The look on his face was a simultaneous combination of
sudden understanding, hopefulness and, even more significantly,
grateful relief from what had been a long-time shame.

Sounds like he came to the right place, Bob!

Ken

Thanks  for the post, Ken.

I often remind clients that one of the biggest strengths of about doing this
therapy is this very simplicity you speak of.  Only having to focus on what
is most likely true circumvents a tremendous amount of speculative and
theoretical red-herrings and miscommunications.  Here are a couple
anecdotes:

A new acute anxiety disorder client, a middle-aged psychiatrist, kept
referring to his problem with father-figures .  I told him that from a CBT
perspective our primate heritage has left us prone to feel intimidated and
submissive in the presence of alpha males, and that one's early experience
with alpha males (such as fathers) can either desensitize that anxiety or
reinforce it and lead to a phobic response such as his.  The look on his
face was a simultaneous combination of sudden understanding, hopefulness
and, even more significantly,  grateful relief from what had been a
long-time shame.

On the other hand, a 60 year old woman came in last week for her first
session, complaining of OCD with a number of cognitive and behavioral
rituals and compulsions to keep her loved ones safe.  These began after the
death of her father at a young age, when she wanted to protect her mother
from the same fate.   She told me "I'm a long time student of metaphysics",
and as we explored the nature of her OCD,  it became apparent that she still
believes that her rituals reduce the likelihood of bad things happening.
To make significant progress she'd have to re-examine her whole supernatural
self-world view, which makes her prognosis pretty poor.

In my experience, the most rapid therapy responders are physicians,
attorneys, and professional scientists, because they appreciate the value of
logic and evidence and quickly engage in the process of exploring 1) what is
true, and 2) what strategy/tactic works best to deal with it.  Some of the
saddest cases are very religious OCD clients with blasphemous or othewise
"sinful" intrusive thoughts.  They believe these thoughts are offensive to
God, so they try to suppress them, which keeps all the associated neural
networks constantly primed, leading to more easily evoked intrusive thoughts
of the same nature.   They can logically understand the cognitive
explanation,  but they can rarely get past their terror of annoying the
uber-alpha male in the sky.   "Ignorance is bliss"?  I don't think so.

Bob

One result of being a naturalist which appeals to me is the simplicity
gained by dropping a whole non-existent world. We don't inhabit two
worlds, only one, this one. What's more, the one we really do inhabit is
observeable and operates in a consistent "lawful" manner, unlike
supernature. The other one, or I should say other ones, the thousands
of postlated supernatural realms, were held to be the more important,
the controlling realms, so the world around us was thought to be poor in
useful information and depth, a testing grounds. Spirits in a material
world, etc etc. It's like when a child "loses" his or her imaginary friend,
his real friends become more valuable and significant. They're not
perfect like the imaginary friend, but they have one advantage: they
are real!

I think this belief still lies in our unconscious. It leads us to use a
"priestly" approach to debate and learning, unnecessary complexity in
language, jargon, know-it-all-ism, academic (the inheritor of monastic)
approaches which serve to obscure rather than illuminate.

Cognitive therapy is based on an ultra-simple idea, that our clients may
suffer from misunderstanding their situation due to flaws in their self-
concept. They learned things about themselves that were untrue (that
they have free will so all their mistakes are moral failings, that they
must be devoted to their parents right or wrong, that their anger is
"bad" (they should only be mad at themselves because due to free will
all their problems are their fault, etc.)

I think of myself as a teacher. People see a situation, interpret it wrong,
act on that interpretation, and mess things up for themselves and
others. I ask them to examine themselves, scrutinize their beliefs, test
them, experiment with something new to see if another belief about
themselves fits the facts better.

There certainly may be reason to construct an academy-approved
literature describing this all, but even more important is to develop our
simplest possible method of describing it, convincing the average
person, etc. I think the ideal book would be one with an intro followed by
as many case studies as it could find. Anecdotes have a cumulative
affect, and I believe are the highest level of evidence we can amass,
and one of the most convincing forms of "evidence" for general
readers. People like to read stories, especially ones they can see
something of themselves in.

Ken

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: The post before the previous post is the one I thought had
disappeared.

Ken


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
>
> I just sent a rather lengthy post a few hours ago, I guess it's
> disappeared into the ether. The gist was that I'm working on my
> section, based on CHDO (Could have done otherwise) as it relates to
> guilt, blame, depression. I asked if Bob or others have any experience
> with recording therapy sessions, I thought I might ask a student if I
> could do that and transcribe it for the article. My "technique" is very
> free-form, best represented as is rather than in the abstract. I do
make
> a point of disbelieving my clients when they say they or anyone else
> could have done otherwise, challenging that belief is my primary tool
> for helping people. Also I mentioned that I agree with Tom about
Bob's
> proposed article, a good idea but let's do the other article first if
you're
> willing.
>
> Happy Holidays,
>
> Ken

I just sent a rather lengthy post a few hours ago, I guess it's
disappeared into the ether. The gist was that I'm working on my
section, based on CHDO (Could have done otherwise) as it relates to
guilt, blame, depression. I asked if Bob or others have any experience
with recording therapy sessions, I thought I might ask a student if I
could do that and transcribe it for the article. My "technique" is very
free-form, best represented as is rather than in the abstract. I do make
a point of disbelieving my clients when they say they or anyone else
could have done otherwise, challenging that belief is my primary tool
for helping people. Also I mentioned that I agree with Tom about Bob's
proposed article, a good idea but let's do the other article first if you're
willing.

Happy Holidays,

Ken

For the paper, I'm working on a way to present my "technique", which
mostly involves me stubbornly not believing clients when they say "I (or
someone else: boss, friends, parents, etc.) could have done otherwise".
My hypothesis is that by undermining that FW belief of theirs, especially
around areas connected to their neurosis, they can feel better and do
better.

Most people aren't up for full-blown determinism, at least at the
beginning. Often determinism is the end result, after a long time in
therapy, after ample evidence that it's getting the client somewhere. In
practice, I resort to convincing people that the most useful, practical
healing assumption is that they could not have done otherwise.

I think a dialogue form might be best. Since my technique can best be
described as directed conversation, it's best illustrated by a real-life
example.

I'm not really calling "dibs", this could be the theme we all choose, we'll
all have different enough approaches to make it interesting.

Maybe I could ask a client if I could tape a session, and get their
pemission to release it. Bob and others, do you have any experience
with this?

Bob:  I agree with Tom, it's a good idea but let's do the other paper
first, if you're willing.

Ken



  -- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> What you've suggested below about limiting the scope and claims of
> the paper looks good.  I guess I see my role as helping with the
> background/intro sections on naturalism and in editing, while the
> therapists (you, Bob, Clay, and anyone else that's interested) take
> on the nitty gritty of saying exactly how they use
> naturalism/determinism in their practice.
>
> Re this latter bit, perhaps we need some vignettes, case studies,
> scenarios, etc. that illustrate the sort of language and techniques
> employed, so we make it concrete.  If each therapist contributed one
> such element, it would help flesh out the paper.
>
> The other thing that needs doing is a literature search so that the
> paper is put in context of other work heading in the same
> direction.  Anyone want to take that on?  A beginning is the paper
> I've put in the files section, and Bob did some preliminary work on
> this a couple of years back when we first started corresponding.
>
> The other thing I just did was to go over our posts thus far and to
> 1) extract relevant ideas in bullet format (necessarily just my take
> on what's most important)  2) paste in preliminary sketches and
> elements and prior work (Herb's) from posts and 3) start an author
> and reference list.   I put this document in the files
> section "Therapy Paper Notes."
>
> Clay, we're thinking of you, and hope you beat this thing quickly.
>
> Tom
>
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts" <ken@k...> wrote:
> >
> > Tom:  Your comment about our significant overlap, moving past our
> > differences, and Clay's comment about the complexity of our
> > determinants inspired a thought:
> >
> > The good aspect of post-modernism is the one which recognizes
that
> > it's not as easy to know things as we thought it was way back in
> modern
> > times. Maybe we should build this into our model of therapy and
> frame
> > it rather more modestly than our modernist brains want to. I think
> this
> > will make the model and the paper more useful. For example, the
> paper
> > could take the following form:
> >
> > Intro consisting of two sections:
> >
> > 1) A discussion of naturalism and specifically NFW ism and how we
> > think it implies certain things for human behavior (change the way
> we
> > think of blame, retribution, causality, morality and truth,
> science and
> > scientifically informed inquiries into  why people do what they
> do. We
> > can "borrow" from your writing on the subject.  This to be
> followed by
> >
> > 2) a discussion of naturalism/nfw and therapy, how the former can
> > inform the latter, since the issues dealt with in therapy overlap
> with
> > those dealt with in philosophy of naturalism (meaning of life,
> dualism,
> > morality, perception of reality, nature of self). Rather than
> rigidly
> > describing a model which we all agree on, we each write a section
> on
> > how we feel NFW has informed our practice of therapy, Clay may
> want
> > to concentrate on his ideas on self-help, and in your case your
> > discussion of the topic as a philosopher.
> >
> > In order to avoid internal conflicts, we refrain from making the
> following
> > claims:
> >
> > NFW is necessarily central or sufficient in our practice of therapy
> >
> > NFW is necessarily not central and not sufficient in our practice
> of
> > therapy.
> >
> > None of us can or need to support either of those claims in order
> to
> > write a useful paper.We do apparently agree that NFW is important
> to
> > our practice of therapy.
> >
> > We would limit our discussion to NFW and naturalism, not needing
> to
> > discuss our therapy as a whole.
> >
> > We don't need, and I believe we can't, construct a useful, neat
> and
> > complete "modern" model to be carefully followed and which
> > supposedly is internally consistent. I think this approach would
> be called
> > Positivism, you know more about this than I do, but I think we
> don't
> > need to go there, and are better off not claiming anything we
> don't
> > need to.
> >
> > One advantage of this form for the paper: I think it could be
> written
> > relatively easily and quickly, as we each can work independently
> once
> > we agree on the framing of the discussion. We would all need to
> > approve of all parts of it before it gets sent into the world, at
> least if
> > our section is to be included and our name put on it.
> >
> > In order to get going right away, I suggest we each go to your
> website,
> > review your outline of the benefits of naturalism, and write or at
> least
> > outline our sections, then see if they can be sewn together and
> topped
> > off with a unifying intoduction, and viola we'll have written
> something.
> >
> > Or something like that.... I'll give my section a shot soon, I
> find I never
> > know unless I actually sit down and write it.
> >
> > Ken

Bob,

Sounds good, but I think we should first proceed with the more
general paper as outlined by Ken (see posts 87 and 96).  This way
we'll get everyone's ideas about how naturalism works in therapy,
and it will have broader application since we'll present techniques
appropriate for patients who may or may not be totally on board
about naturalism.  But I like the pedagogical point you have
in mind with this other paper.

Tom


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...>
wrote:
> What if one paper we write is "Considerations in the Treatment of
the High-Functioning Determinist Patient"?  We could envision
scenarios in which this type of  patient's  self/world view would
present challenges to certain common therapeutic assumptions and
interventions, and how therapists of various schools could deal with
these challenges.   In the course of this, we could illuminate
advantages of the naturalistic approach for patient and therapist
alike.
>
>
>
> This format might harness the reader's motivation to understand
the patient and the issue,  rather than risk arousing defensiveness
by telling professionals how to do their job better.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Bob

> All "change", whether we're talking about evolution, volcanoes,
disease,
> education, or "personal growth", is entirely inevitable, caused by
> physical factors, including in some cases the physical state of the
> brain.

By "in some cases" I meant all cases where brains are involved (which
excludes much of evolution and all volcanoes!)

Ken

Clay:

"Self-change" occurs without free will.

All "change", whether we're talking about evolution, volcanoes, disease,
education, or "personal growth", is entirely inevitable, caused by
physical factors, including in some cases the physical state of the
brain. The desire and ability to change are caused. We do what we
must, we either change or we don't. If we try and fail it means we
couldn't.

Knowing this can be an important determinant, it steers us away from
the fruitless concepts of free will and contra-causal self-blame ("I could
have done better but I didn't") to look at the myriad of causes and
potential solutions to our problems.

As for the degree of difference it makes (Free will vs. NFW), I'd
compare it to the difference between pre-science  and science, in other
words there's a big difference. When people believed volcanoes erupted
because the gods were angry, they had to throw virgins into them to
appease them. Now we don't, and the virgins are happy about this
difference!

Ken

Hopefully good books can lead people to good therapists, and vice
versa.

Ken


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...> wrote:
> Clay,
> I don't know much about radiation tx, so am just hoping it's effective
and painless.  Thanks for keeping us posted.
>
> Re self-help, I don't really see the difference between going to a
therapist whom you use as a coach or guide, vs. using a book as a
coach or guide.  A therapist might lead clients through exercises, but
books do that too.   The therapist is more tailored to the clidnt than a
book, but othewise what's the diff?  My info brochure for new patients
states that most of therapy is self-help, but really it's all self-help.
The client gets whatever s/he can out of the book or therapist, and
uses it however s/he can.    I honestly do not see the difference, but
maybe I'm not understanding your question.
>
> bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Clay Tucker-Ladd
>   To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:33 PM
>   Subject: RE: [cfntherapy] Clay's Health
>
>
>               Yahoo! Groups Survey
>               Please help us to improve Yahoo! Groups. Take the survey
now!
>
>
>
>    Thanks Bob for asking about my health. Well, I still don't know the
proper treatment...although you can bet it has captured my attention.
Without going into details, the biopsy found a small cluster of cancer
cells which repeated PSA tests had been there for 6 years which a
biopsy didn't detect 3 years ago. So, there is a problem and the
Urologist (a surgeon) said surgery was not a good idea but he suggested
that I want to consider radiation therapy. OK, there are likely to be
unpleasant side effects from radiation but the cancer cells are zapped.
So, I talk to my general practitioner and he suggests I should just let it
go and observe the cells carefully. Monday, my wife and I will be talking
to the radiation oncologist on Monday.
>
>   This decision takes priority in my hierarchy of needs. If I go with the
radiation treatment, it will take about 2 hours a day for 8 weeks or so.
So I should have time to work. I'll just watch the cfntherapy progress
and see if I can add some comments but I'd rather not make a firm
commitment to extensive involvement in writing an article.
>
>   In any case, my interest in explaining the self-change process in a
way that is totally compatible with the laws of behavior (vs. mystical,
magical "free will") has been peaked again. So, I'll observe your
behavior and the cancer cells. (:-)
>
>   Clay
>   Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.
>   Clinical Psychologist & Author of
>
>   Psychological Self-Help
>
>   http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   From: Bob Miller [mailto:drmiller@c...]
>   Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:44 AM
>   To: cfntherapy
>   Subject: [cfntherapy] Clay's Health
>
>
>   Clay,
>   We haven't heard from you recently' I'm hoping it's because you're
actively pursuing info and treatment re your  prostate cancer.   We're
all excited about your participation here--and especially about
converting you to Naturalism :-)
>
>   It occurred to me that my last posting to the group, which referred
to "the serenity of inevitability" in reference to your cancer, may have
seemed dismissive or uncaring or, perhaps worse, fatalistic.  If so, I
deeply apologize.  It was something I quickly tacked onto the beginning
before sending the email that was already composed, and it came off
as brusque.
>
>   So how are you, and what have you learned about your medical
condition?
>
>   Bob
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   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.

From: Clay Tucker-Ladd

To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:33 PM

Subject: RE: [cfntherapy] Clay's Health

 Thanks Bob for asking about my health. Well, I still don't know the proper treatment...although you can bet it has captured my attention. Without going into details, the biopsy found a small cluster of cancer cells which repeated PSA tests had been there for 6 years which a biopsy didn't detect 3 years ago. So, there is a problem and the Urologist (a surgeon) said surgery was not a good idea but he suggested that I want to consider radiation therapy. OK, there are likely to be unpleasant side effects from radiation but the cancer cells are zapped. So, I talk to my general practitioner and he suggests I should just let it go and observe the cells carefully. Monday, my wife and I will be talking to the radiation oncologist on Monday.

 

This decision takes priority in my hierarchy of needs. If I go with the radiation treatment, it will take about 2 hours a day for 8 weeks or so. So I should have time to work. I'll just watch the cfntherapy progress and see if I can add some comments but I'd rather not make a firm commitment to extensive involvement in writing an article.

 

In any case, my interest in explaining the self-change process in a way that is totally compatible with the laws of behavior (vs. mystical, magical "free will") has been peaked again. So, I'll observe your behavior and the cancer cells. (:-)

 

Clay

Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.

Clinical Psychologist & Author of

Psychological Self-Help

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/

 

 

---

From: Bob Miller [mailto:drmiller@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:44 AM
To: cfntherapy
Subject: [cfntherapy] Clay's Health

Clay,

We haven't heard from you recently' I'm hoping it's because you're actively pursuing info and treatment re your  prostate cancer.   We're all excited about your participation here--and especially about converting you to Naturalism :-)

 

It occurred to me that my last posting to the group, which referred to "the serenity of inevitability" in reference to your cancer, may have seemed dismissive or uncaring or, perhaps worse, fatalistic.  If so, I deeply apologize.  It was something I quickly tacked onto the beginning before sending the email that was already composed, and it came off as brusque.  

 

So how are you, and what have you learned about your medical condition?  

 

Bob