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

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

Ken,

I strongly agree with you that developing a form of therapy, or a school of
therapy (eg, CBT, Interpersonal, DBT, etc.) requires extended
practice/research that is well beyond the realm of this group as the group
now exists.  Howwwwever, by presenting Naturalism as a cohesive school of
Positive Psychology,  I truly believe we could make a real contribution.
Naturalism is enormously therapeutic to the well-being of the individual,
relationships, and society.

But that needn't be this group's goal now or in the future, and probably
it's more suited for the Fellowship group.   Let's keep working toward a
concensus on an initial project.   I love your idea of doing a paper on
rational/irrational thoughts and using this literary device to promulgate
naturalism, and would be enthusiastic to contribute to it.

Your current idea of having each of us contribute to a paper describing how
we incorporate naturalism into our therapy also strikes me as doable and
worthwhile.  It has certainly made my therapy much more effective, and
clients like it to the degree they can understand and accept it.  (Nearly
all find the unblaming aspects irresistible!)  Could you flesh out a little
how you see the structure of the paper, and perhaps give some ideas of
specific journals we might aim for so we could see what structure they seem
to prefer?

Bob

Clay:  Sorry to hear about your health news, I hope everything goes well
for you.

I don't believe Tom or anyone else here dismisses the role our unique
thought processes play in our lives, we just claim that none of the
overall process, from sensory input to thought process to resulting
behavior is contra-causal, that no one could have done otherwise.

I admire and appreciate people who produce acts or objects of
improvement, beauty, intelligence, originality, usefulness, etc. not
because the person had any choice in the matter, but because of the
value of the production to me and others, and hence the value of that
person to me and others.

Good luck and a speedy recovery,

Ken

Bob:  The Positive Psychology approach could be your contribution to
the paper. My perspective would be different, but overlapping because
the ways we see naturalism and therapy overlap.

What I was proposing was that each of us concentrate on how
naturalism influences, informs our therapy or therapeutic ideas. It's a
way for us to each stick with and benefit from what we know. And a
way to avoid the "committee effect" of watering down our individual
approaches to form a single cohesive compromise less interesting than
the sum of the individual approaches.

I'm skeptical that we could develop a cohesive "form of therapy" about
which we would all agree. Forms of therapy are developed over long
periods of time with plenty of clinical experience needed along the way.
But I believe we could each describe how naturalism works for us. I
think it will make the paper more valuable if it has a more modest,
realistic goal. And it will be more believable if it is backed up by our
individual experiences.

Ken



--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <drmiller@c...> wrote:
> Ken,
>
>
>
> I like your idea (if I understand it accurately) of proposing Naturalism
as
> therapeutic, rather as a a type of therapy that can be applied to
various
> problems.  This could (more rightfully, IMOH) place it in the realm of
> Positive Psychology rather than in the realm of Treatment of
Pathology.
> This could be a nice way to incorporate  all the benefits of
Naturalism.  As
> for the self-help aspects, we could even perhaps suggest some
techniques for
> enhancing the benefits, including the list rational/irrational beliefs
we've
> started along with techniques from Positive Psychology (e.g.,
Seligman's
> "Authentic Happiness" and Ladner's "The Lost Art of Compassion"
among
> others).
>
>
>
> So much good stuff has been written by all of us, but most especially
by Tom
> and Clay, that with not a huge amount of time we might put together
a very
> impactful paper.
>
> Bob

Ken,



I like your idea (if I understand it accurately) of proposing Naturalism as
therapeutic, rather as a a type of therapy that can be applied to various
problems.  This could (more rightfully, IMOH) place it in the realm of
Positive Psychology rather than in the realm of Treatment of Pathology.
This could be a nice way to incorporate  all the benefits of Naturalism.  As
for the self-help aspects, we could even perhaps suggest some techniques for
enhancing the benefits, including the list rational/irrational beliefs we've
started along with techniques from Positive Psychology (e.g., Seligman's
"Authentic Happiness" and Ladner's "The Lost Art of Compassion" among
others).



So much good stuff has been written by all of us, but most especially by Tom
and Clay, that with not a huge amount of time we might put together a very
impactful paper.

Bob

In my previous post, after the second section of the introduction I
should have started a new paragraph describing the body of the paper
("Rather than rigidly describing a model we all agree on..") I've
reprinted the post below with the paragraph break.

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

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

Clay:  Thanks for the clarification. I don't think you'll get any
disagreement from this group that people are dynamic, in a constant
state of change, influenced by a huge number of determinants
interacting extremely complexly, beyond our ability to exactly measure
and model. As a butterfly's wings can lead to a rainstorm, small fleeting
events in one's mind can indeed strongly impact the larger system.
Determined doesn't imply (to me) that we know all of the causes, or
even all of the critical causes, or even necessarily any of the causes,
just that we make the assumption that whatever happens is causal. I
think chaos theory explains why we may not and probably will never be
able to totally understand human behavior. But just knowing that it is
deterministic (or lawful) tells us a lot, including that free will is a non-
explanation of behavior and we need to look elsewhere.

I also believe you'll get strong support here for your advocacy of self-
help. I can't think of any reason to be against it, and many reasons to
support it.

Ken



--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Clay Tucker-Ladd" <drclay@c...>
wrote:
> Ken:
>
> Just a quick answer to your question of: "Do you believe self-help is
> enough in all or most cases?" No, no, not at all. I have been a
therapist
> for about 50 years and I very often advise people to seek therapy
AND
> continue to supplement therapy with increased knowledge about self-
help.
> Until some of you persuade me otherwise, I'm going to continue
thinking that
> if a therapist or teacher or group facilitator can help others, then
> self-help knowledge can also be helpful. I've taken therapy methods
into
> self-change methods. In both cases knowledge of behavior can, I
believe, be
> used to change behaviors and feelings, just as knowledge of physics
can be
> used to change and improve space travel or the prevention of AIDs.
>
> Bob:
>
> Thanks for your comments about empathy...I imagine we agree about
that as a
> therapy method and a group enhancer, but maybe we have
differences about an
> individual getting a little credit when he/she uses new knowledge
about
> lawfulness to increase his or her own self-acceptance.
>
> Where can I read about Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" and
his
> discussion of different kinds of responsibility?
>
> Clay
>
> Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.
>
> Clinical Psychologist & Author of
>
> Psychological Self-Help
>
> http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/

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

From: Clay Tucker-Ladd

To: cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:20 PM

Subject: RE: [cfntherapy] Re: A brief introduction and some questions

Ken:

 

Just a quick answer to your question of: "Do you believe self-help is
enough in all or most cases?" No, no, not at all. I have been a therapist for about 50 years and I very often advise people to seek therapy AND continue to supplement therapy with increased knowledge about self-help. Until some of you persuade me otherwise, I'm going to continue thinking that if a therapist or teacher or group facilitator can help others, then self-help knowledge can also be helpful. I've taken therapy methods into self-change methods. In both cases knowledge of behavior can, I believe, be used to change behaviors and feelings, just as knowledge of physics can be used to change and improve space travel or the prevention of AIDs.

 

Bob:

 

Thanks for your comments about empathy...I imagine we agree about that as a therapy method and a group enhancer, but maybe we have differences about an individual getting a little credit when he/she uses new knowledge about lawfulness to increase his or her own self-acceptance.

 

Where can I read about Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" and his discussion of different kinds of responsibility?

 

Clay

Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.

Clinical Psychologist & Author of

Psychological Self-Help

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/

 

As a shrink, I gotta agree with Ken.  Empathy is not only crucial to
effective therapy, it is IMOH the key to the wonderful feeling of connection
with others.
B.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Batts" <ken@...>
To: <cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:51 PM
Subject: [cfntherapy] Re: A brief introduction and some questions


>
>
> Arnell:  I understood those three points and I agree with you on each of
> them.
>
> I hope you'll reconsider your assessment of empathy. To me it's not
> only important to therapy, it's the key. It is a result and in turn
> encourages a deepening of ones understanding of determinism: "There
> but for my determinants go I." We need to also develop self-empathy,
> which involves the healthy part of ourself looking at the unhealthy side
> and understanding that harmful determinants, not free will, are the
> cause of our troubles.  This is the same skill, inseparable, looking at
> the
> world (of which we are part) with empathy.
>
> Once an attitude of empathy shrinks the blame and self-blame, the self
> starts to heal and the other aspects of a healthy individual come
> "naturally". Self-acceptance and self-esteem depend on self-empathy.
>
> Ken
>
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, Arnell Dowret <arnell7@j...>
> wrote:
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.  I liked what you said about the importance
> of
>> offering something to replace what we are "taking away."  It is
> essential
>> that we focus more on what we have to offer which is new and more
>> effective, than focusing on what we are trying to deconstruct.  In
> fact
>> that is the crux of my frustration with the non-faith based movement
> in
>> which I am active.  Carl Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan is someone I've
> had
>> the pleasure of meeting several times, and on this point she says
>> something like - every dollar and every minute we spend trying to
> fight
>> the religious right is far better directed toward creating an
>> irresistible alternative!
>>
>> On my last post though, the main points I was concerned with making
> were:
>>
>>
>> 1. In a therapy based on the reality of determinism it is not
> appropriate
>> to continue to use the term "personal responsibility"
>>
>> 2. In a determined universe the future, while unknown, is none the
> less
>> every bit as "written in stone" as is the present.
>>
>> 3. With an adequate comprehension of determinism neither of these
> facts
>> need pose a problem with regard to supporting healthy productive
>> behaviors in people, and with regard to life retaining its full joy and
>> meaning.
>>
>> Regarding your subsequent post:
>>
>> Maybe a useful way of describing what we want to achieve in therapy
> is
>> "empathy addiction". Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" is an
>> excellent way of putting it, since each element is seen as a highly
>> desirable thing to have. We need people to think "that's good stuff, I
>> want some of that".
>>
>> I think empathy is a tricky concept.  I don't think we need to get
> people
>> hooked on it, because those behaviors that most people single out as
>> empathy it is only a piece of being a healthy fully alive human being,
>> and it is complexly inter-connected to a variety of other emotional
>> indicators or well-being.  When healthy mature humans are not
> subjected
>> to the debilitating pressure of inadequate resources they are, by
>> inclination, conscious of their extended self interests.  Capitalist
>> culture is built upon the presumption that humans are naturally
>> adversarial, and thus when people demonstrate sensitivity for anyone
>> other than themselves we regard it as going against their natural
>> inclination to be self absorbed; there are many humanist
> psychologists
>> that do not hold this view.
>>
>> I don't think empathy is this characteristic which a therapist needs to
>> cultivate.  However to the degree to which people have endured
> neglect
>> and deprivation of their developmental and lifelong needs, they will
> most
>> likely experience a diminution in their ability to realize the fullest
>> range of human experience of which they would have been capable
> had they
>> not been so deprived.  Helping reconnect people to the vital reality
> that
>> as we elevate or diminish the people and the world around us, so do
> we
>> elevate or diminish ourselves, is just one part of supporting emotional
>> growth.  My guess is that recognizing that vital connection between
> ones
>> self interest and everything else is something which first requires a
>> healthy sense of self.  My impression is that most people who have
>> problems which are not organic or some other physical disorder, and
> that
>> can be alleviated or mitigated with a cognitive therapy approach,
>> probably require support around developmental issue of self
> acceptance
>> and self esteem.
>>
>> Fortunately this is where the naturalistic approach that we are all
>> discussing represents a considerable step forward in its enormous
>> potential to facilitate that process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Clay:

As a determinist I observe that people change, sometimes for the
better (healthier) and that their effort to change plays a role in that
change. And, every bit of this process, including their effort, is
determined. If they do get healthier it means they could, and if they
don't, it means they couldn't.

You ask "why can't client A learn to find a better alternative behavior
all by him/herself?"

As in all matters of health, some people improve without professional
help, some don't. Client A will be able to learn "all by himself" if his
determinants allow. The two approaches (therapy and self-help) aren't
mutually exclusive. My clients are fully involved in their own mental
health education and will succeed only to the extent that they learn to
function on their own.

One benefit to seeking professional help is gaining an empathetic
observer's perspective.  It can be very difficult to work through a
mental problem alone since the problem distorts one's perception.
Depression comes to mind. The depressed brain, which would need to
find the focus and enthusiasm to learn something new, may be unable
to without help.

I'm interested to hear your comments. Do you believe self-help is
enough in all or most cases?

Ken

Arnell:  I understood those three points and I agree with you on each of
them.

I hope you'll reconsider your assessment of empathy. To me it's not
only important to therapy, it's the key. It is a result and in turn
encourages a deepening of ones understanding of determinism: "There
but for my determinants go I." We need to also develop self-empathy,
which involves the healthy part of ourself looking at the unhealthy side
and understanding that harmful determinants, not free will, are the
cause of our troubles.  This is the same skill, inseparable, looking at the
world (of which we are part) with empathy.

Once an attitude of empathy shrinks the blame and self-blame, the self
starts to heal and the other aspects of a healthy individual come
"naturally". Self-acceptance and self-esteem depend on self-empathy.

Ken


  --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, Arnell Dowret <arnell7@j...>
wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I liked what you said about the importance
of
> offering something to replace what we are "taking away."  It is
essential
> that we focus more on what we have to offer which is new and more
> effective, than focusing on what we are trying to deconstruct.  In
fact
> that is the crux of my frustration with the non-faith based movement
in
> which I am active.  Carl Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan is someone I've
had
> the pleasure of meeting several times, and on this point she says
> something like - every dollar and every minute we spend trying to
fight
> the religious right is far better directed toward creating an
> irresistible alternative!
>
> On my last post though, the main points I was concerned with making
were:
>
>
> 1. In a therapy based on the reality of determinism it is not
appropriate
> to continue to use the term "personal responsibility"
>
> 2. In a determined universe the future, while unknown, is none the
less
> every bit as "written in stone" as is the present.
>
> 3. With an adequate comprehension of determinism neither of these
facts
> need pose a problem with regard to supporting healthy productive
> behaviors in people, and with regard to life retaining its full joy and
> meaning.
>
> Regarding your subsequent post:
>
> Maybe a useful way of describing what we want to achieve in therapy
is
> "empathy addiction". Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" is an
> excellent way of putting it, since each element is seen as a highly
> desirable thing to have. We need people to think "that's good stuff, I
> want some of that".
>
> I think empathy is a tricky concept.  I don't think we need to get
people
> hooked on it, because those behaviors that most people single out as
> empathy it is only a piece of being a healthy fully alive human being,
> and it is complexly inter-connected to a variety of other emotional
> indicators or well-being.  When healthy mature humans are not
subjected
> to the debilitating pressure of inadequate resources they are, by
> inclination, conscious of their extended self interests.  Capitalist
> culture is built upon the presumption that humans are naturally
> adversarial, and thus when people demonstrate sensitivity for anyone
> other than themselves we regard it as going against their natural
> inclination to be self absorbed; there are many humanist
psychologists
> that do not hold this view.
>
> I don't think empathy is this characteristic which a therapist needs to
> cultivate.  However to the degree to which people have endured
neglect
> and deprivation of their developmental and lifelong needs, they will
most
> likely experience a diminution in their ability to realize the fullest
> range of human experience of which they would have been capable
had they
> not been so deprived.  Helping reconnect people to the vital reality
that
> as we elevate or diminish the people and the world around us, so do
we
> elevate or diminish ourselves, is just one part of supporting emotional
> growth.  My guess is that recognizing that vital connection between
ones
> self interest and everything else is something which first requires a
> healthy sense of self.  My impression is that most people who have
> problems which are not organic or some other physical disorder, and
that
> can be alleviated or mitigated with a cognitive therapy approach,
> probably require support around developmental issue of self
acceptance
> and self esteem.
>
> Fortunately this is where the naturalistic approach that we are all
> discussing represents a considerable step forward in its enormous
> potential to facilitate that process.

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the feedback.  I liked what you said about the importance of offering something to replace what we are "taking away."  It is essential that we focus more on what we have to offer which is new and more effective, than focusing on what we are trying to deconstruct.  In fact that is the crux of my frustration with the non-faith based movement in which I am active.  Carl Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan is someone I've had the pleasure of meeting several times, and on this point she says something like - every dollar and every minute we spend trying to fight the religious right is far better directed toward creating an irresistible alternative! 

On my last post though, the main points I was concerned with making were: 

1. In a therapy based on the reality of determinism it is not appropriate to continue to use the term "personal responsibility" 

2. In a determined universe the future, while unknown, is none the less every bit as "written in stone" as is the present. 

3. With an adequate comprehension of determinism neither of these facts need pose a problem with regard to supporting healthy productive behaviors in people, and with regard to life retaining its full joy and meaning.

Regarding your subsequent post:

Maybe a useful way of describing what we want to achieve in therapy is
"empathy addiction". Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" is an
excellent way of putting it, since each element is seen as a highly
desirable thing to have. We need people to think "that's good stuff, I
want some of that".

I think empathy is a tricky concept.  I don't think we need to get people hooked on it, because those behaviors that most people single out as empathy it is only a piece of being a healthy fully alive human being, and it is complexly inter-connected to a variety of other emotional indicators or well-being.  When healthy mature humans are not subjected to the debilitating pressure of inadequate resources they are, by inclination, conscious of their extended self interests.  Capitalist culture is built upon the presumption that humans are naturally adversarial, and thus when people demonstrate sensitivity for anyone other than themselves we regard it as going against their natural inclination to be self absorbed; there are many humanist psychologists that do not hold this view.

I don't think empathy is this characteristic which a therapist needs to cultivate.  However to the degree to which people have endured neglect and deprivation of their developmental and lifelong needs, they will most likely experience a diminution in their ability to realize the fullest range of human experience of which they would have been capable had they not been so deprived.  Helping reconnect people to the vital reality that as we elevate or diminish the people and the world around us, so do we elevate or diminish ourselves, is just one part of supporting emotional growth.  My guess is that recognizing that vital connection between ones self interest and everything else is something which first requires a healthy sense of self.  My impression is that most people who have problems which are not organic or some other physical disorder, and that can be alleviated or mitigated with a cognitive therapy approach, probably require support around developmental issue of self acceptance and self esteem. 

Fortunately this is where the naturalistic approach that we are all discussing represents a considerable step forward in its enormous potential to facilitate that process.

Maybe a useful way of describing what we want to achieve in therapy is
"empathy addiction". Tom's "Connection Control Compassion" is an
excellent way of putting it, since each element is seen as a highly
desirable thing to have. We need people to think "that's good stuff, I
want some of that".


Ken

Great post, Arnell. Your discussion of responsibility, and why healthy
people don't need to see themselves as causally "free" in order to
behave well, is very good because it uses common language and
appeals to people's common sense.

In practice this is one of the most difficult points to try to get across to
a client in therapy, people are so used to thinking of free will and
(other) supernatural beliefs as a requirement for good behavior. I
imagine a theoretical client who finds out I don't believe in free will or
the afterlife. He proceeds to tell me that believing in heaven and hell
and free will is the only reason he doesn't go on a murderous rampage,
and I reply "well in that case, never mind." But I think we agree that
whatever use these ideas have is outweighed by the harm they do.

I've found that the best approach to rid someone of a false, harmful
idea is to work to provide a better alternative, one which is not only
true but which can provide them with something in the short run, relief
of some sort, the same way nutritionists don't just say "stop eating Big
Mac's", they offer suggestions and recipes for healthy food that's also
tasty, available, relatively easy to prepare, etc., otherwise the
substitution is difficult to make. By strengthening our clients' (or in
your case readers', listeners') sense of cause, we decrease their
reliance on the disconnect-producing concept of free will. Proposing
possible causes for behavior other than "free will" gently nudges people
toward determinism, especially when it produces a positive feeling of
empathy for self and/or others. Luckily empathy feels good, it can
become reinforcing.

Developing narratives like the one you have about responsibility is very
important, to show clients they aren't giving up something they really
need, they are actually going to be better off in some very practical
ways.

Ken






--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, Arnell Dowret <arnell7@j...>
wrote:
> Hi Clay,
>
> I'm more or less a silent member of the CFN therapy group.  I'm not a
> therapist; I am however an active member of the humanist
community here
> in Manhattan, and I'm steadfastly a determinist.  My newest project is
to
> offer a workshop which introduces people with what can be broadly
> regarded as a naturalistic approach to spirituality.  The workshop is
> called Naturalism-A Radical Path to Interconnection, Empowerment,
and
> Serenity.  In it participants become familiarized with some of the
main
> ideas and elements of a naturalistic practice, primarily through their
> participation in a variety of activities.  The activities are designed to
> both convey the naturalistic philosophy and to provide a practical
> demonstration of how to bring the practice of naturalism into their
> everyday lives.
>
> I came across Tom's site after he had found mine first,
> (secularconnections.org) and had been directing visitors to my site
from
> his; the resulting traffic that visited my site from his link was tracked
> by me; hence I came to know Tom.
>
> Your book is really great.  You strike me as being a truly humanistic
> psychologist, and a determinist, this in my experience is a rare
> combination.  Although I've only read a few portions of your book,
> everything I've come across has deeply resonated.   There is one,
well
> perhaps two, statements that I think of somewhat differently.  Both
have
> to do with the paragraph below:
>
> Three hundred years ago Leibnitz, a German philosopher, taught,
"Man
> should accept his lot, and not try to change it." Some people still
> believe we are helpless. Similarly, others believe that determinism
means
> predestination or fatalism--that specific events in the future are
> inevitable and that no one should feel responsible for their future
> behavior. More rot. The determinist rejects all of these ideas.
Consider
> this: Is it already predetermined whether or not we will travel to Mars
> and cure cancer or Aids? No, of course not, according to the
determinist
> (but the fatalist would say yes). Laws don't fix the future; in fact,
> laws and knowledge must be used to change the future, i.e. to
develop
> space travel and cures. How wisely laws are used determines how well
> future problems are handled. Therefore, each of us assumes great
> responsibility for what is going to happen, especially in our own lives.
>
> Before I express my problems with the above passage I'd like to
apologize
> in advance if my points are simply stating things of which you are
> already aware, or have previously heard.  Because I believe that the
> project that this group is developing is of great importance, I think it
> must be internally consistent so that it can withstand critical
> challenge.  There are two aspects of the above passage which seem
to me
> to be possibly inconsistent with a deterministic worldview and so even
at
> risk of stating the obvious I feel the need the make clear the following
> points.
>
> First, I think that if we are promoting a deterministic approach to
> understanding behavior we must find way to describe the mechanism
that
> results in personal motivation and socially desirable behavior, without
> having to invoke the misleading concept of "personal responsibility."
> I'm a bit at a loss to follow the logical sequence which starts with the
> accurate observation that the factors that make us who we are, are
not
> chosen, but the result of a complex set of determinants, stretching
> infinitely back in time, and yet somehow ends up where "each of us
> assumes great responsibility for what is going to happen, especially in
> our own lives."
> Second, I can not see how there can be any aspect of the future in a
> deterministic universe which was not determined.  In my mind by
> definition a determined universe, must be pre-determined, not of
course
> in the conscious Christian god like sense, but in a cause and effect
> sense.  Just as all things in the present are the inevitable result of
> the determinants which caused them, so does the present contain the
> inexorable determinants which will have caused a determined future.
> This is not to say that the infinitely complex and voluminous nature of
> the determinants that will cause the future, can be somehow
adequately
> understood so that accurate predictions could be made.  But our
inability
> to predict the future does not mean that the future is undetermined.
> In my understanding of determinism we are not responsible, and the
future
> is the effect of the trajectories of the determinants of each moment
that
> preceded it.  In such a system there is no room for an "unfixed'
future.
>
> Perhaps you and others feel that for peoples lives to have  motivation
> and meaning there is a need for salvaging the concept of personal
> responsibility and a future which could go in any direction other than
> the one that it is determined to go; personally, I do not think this is
> true.
> Most people assume that if people were to accept that their personal
> behavior was not the result of their own free will it would become a
> rational for an interminable malaise of complacency, total abdication
of
> individual striving, perpetual self pitying and an abrupt abandonment
of
> all efforts to challenge their limitations.
> I believe that such fears of complacency are unfounded.  There is no
> intellectual understanding that we humans could ever adopt regarding
the
> deterministic nature of the cosmos which could diminish our
compelling
> need to act upon our world.  No one is able to just wait and see what
> will happen as the inexorable trajectories of factors affecting our
lives
> play out.  As you point out, recognizing that our behaviors are
> determined is freeing.  It can facilitate what I call "owning your own
> truth."  Being able to observe your own behavior with less self
judgment
> makes clearly examining your behavior less threatening; this results in
a
> greater scope of self awareness, and self acceptance, in turn
increasing
> self esteem and ultimately leading to a higher level of activation and
> empowerment.
> To not believe in personal responsibility and an unfixed future does
not
> mean that we will not continue to grow and change as we interact
with our
> constantly changing environment, and continual stream of new
determinants
> which enter into our lives.  No one can tell what the new
determinants
> will be. Additionally, due to the enormous complexity and subtlety of
our
> past environmental and genetic determinants, even though some
behaviors
> and/or people may be more predictable than others, no one can ever
> absolutely know what future behaviors may be within their capacity.
> Additionally, we can never know when aspects of our genetic and
> environmental history will manifest and what those manifestations
might
> be.
>
> Even understanding that any action that he or she takes, is the only
> action that he or she could have possibly taken, a healthy person will
> still be forever attempting to fully become the person that they are,
and
> always remain open to seeing themselves in new ways, and to the
> possibility of realizing new achievements.
>
> I do not believe that life is pointless if we recognize the fixed nature
> of future events.  The reality is that this moment is all there ever is.
> Understanding that it's how we live this moment that matters, as
opposed
> to having to pretend that it's the end that really matters, is incredibly
> valuable; the reality of determinism shifts our focus from the future
to
> the present. Since the future is unchangeable the meaning is not in
the
> outcome but in the process.  Like any movie or story where the
outcome is
> known, either in advance, or guessed at one third of the way through,
> what matters is how it unfolds not how it ends; after all, we all
already
> know how our individual stories will end- we all will eventually die.
>
> Realistically though, until the very moment we act we can never be
> completely sure what action we might take because we can never be
> entirely aware of all of the determinants involved including those
> determinants which occur simultaneously to our action.  Although in
our
> determined universe each of our stories already has an ending, our
> experience is one of watching a story unfolding whose outcome we
cannot
> predict.  Understanding the chain of causality helps us realize that
what
> is relevant is the process; the journey; the means; the struggle; as
> opposed to the result; the destination; the ends; the outcome.
>
> I've always considered this understanding to be a profound source of
> serenity.  Recently Doctor Herb Korpell, a participant in this group
> poetically referred to this as "The serenity of inevitability," I really
> love that expression.
>
> With regard to promoting a society which functions well and
protecting it
> from harm without saying that people are responsible for their
actions,
> I'm sure we are all aware of some of the following but since it is a
> significant aspect of the issue of "personal responsibility," I'd like to
> briefly discuss it.
>
> Although I think it is misleading to say that we hold people responsible
> for behavior that we fully recognize does not originate from them, I
do
> think that it's completely reasonable that society responds to the way
> people behave, doing all that is required to minimize suffering.  While
a
> causal understanding of behavior does not hold people "responsible"
for
> their actions and does not exact vindictive reprisals, it would not in
> anyway compromise protecting society from abuse.
>
> To people who are known to have "caused' social damage or damage
to
> another individual, society's response should not be violent and
> retributive. Such individuals should be responded to by a "damage
> control" or "harm reduction" approach. This type of response would
be
> designed to enable the prompt cessation of any further destruction or
> harm, including destruction or harm to the person considered to have
> committed the anti-social behavior.  When it's determined that there
are
> limits on the persons abilities to safely contribute to their society we
> should still be no less supportive of facilitating that persons fullest
> activation and contribution within their limits, as we would any other
> member of society.  Clearly in some cases the limits that must be
imposed
> may be significant; some individuals may have to have their freedom
> considerably limited to ensure the safety of society.
>
> Such a highly humane standard for public policy would provide the
> additional benefit of serving as a highly humane "role model" as well.
> Recognizing the decisive role, which determinants play in the way we
> behave, gives rise to a much higher level of social accountability than
> we presently have and will offer a far more effective way to
recognize,
> respond to, and even decrease the likelihood of social pathology.
>
> Finally on a personal note, with regard to you feeling more inclined to
> empathize with a murderer, than your boss:
>
> "Indeed, I am bothered by my own greater empathy for a murderer or
drug
> dealer than for a self-serving, arrogant administrator."
>
> I though it was very human and open to express your ambivalence
about
> having such feelings.  I certainly have had such thoughts myself, and
> very much relate to your experience.  My guess is that those of us
who
> are healthy possess a natural inclination to relate to the world around
> us with an extended sense of self interest.  I think that such an
> extended sense of self interest however becomes weakened to those
who
> actually pose a threat to our having harmonious lives.  I've no doubt
> that if confronted with an arrogant person whom you had to obey,
and
> someone who was trying to murder you or someone close to you, the
> arrogant administrator would seem as relatively benign as he in fact
is.
>
> Okay that's it for now, I'm really pleased to have learned about you
and
> your work, and I thank you for all of it.
> -Arnell Dowret

Great post, Arnell. Your discussion of responsibility, and why healthy
people don't need to see themselves as causally "free" in order to
behave well, is very good because it uses common language and
appeals to people's common sense.

In practice this is one of the most difficult points to try to get across to
a client in therapy, people are so used to thinking of free will and
(other) supernatural beliefs as a requirement for good behavior. I
imagine a theoretical client who finds out I don't believe in free will or
the afterlife. He proceeds to tell me that believing in heaven and hell
and free will is the only reason he doesn't go on a murderous rampage,
and I reply "well in that case, never mind." But I think we agree that
whatever use these ideas have is outweighed by the harm they do.

I've found that the best approach to rid someone of a false, harmful
idea is to work to provide a better alternative, one which is not only
true but which can provide them with something in the short run, relief
of some sort, the same way nutritionists don't just say "stop eating Big
Mac's", they offer suggestions and recipes for healthy food that's also
tasty, available, relatively easy to prepare, etc., otherwise the
substitution is difficult to make. By strengthening our clients' (or in
your case readers', listeners') sense of cause, we decrease their
reliance on the disconnect-producing concept of free will. Proposing
possible causes for behavior other than "free will" gently nudges people
toward determinism, especially when it produces a positive feeling of
empathy for self and/or others. Luckily empathy feels good, it can
become reinforcing.

Developing narratives like the one you have about responsibility is very
important, to show clients they aren't giving up something they really
need, they are actually going to be better off in some very practical
ways.

Ken






--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, Arnell Dowret <arnell7@j...>
wrote:
> Hi Clay,
>
> I'm more or less a silent member of the CFN therapy group.  I'm not a
> therapist; I am however an active member of the humanist
community here
> in Manhattan, and I'm steadfastly a determinist.  My newest project is
to
> offer a workshop which introduces people with what can be broadly
> regarded as a naturalistic approach to spirituality.  The workshop is
> called Naturalism-A Radical Path to Interconnection, Empowerment,
and
> Serenity.  In it participants become familiarized with some of the
main
> ideas and elements of a naturalistic practice, primarily through their
> participation in a variety of activities.  The activities are designed to
> both convey the naturalistic philosophy and to provide a practical
> demonstration of how to bring the practice of naturalism into their
> everyday lives.
>
> I came across Tom's site after he had found mine first,
> (secularconnections.org) and had been directing visitors to my site
from
> his; the resulting traffic that visited my site from his link was tracked
> by me; hence I came to know Tom.
>
> Your book is really great.  You strike me as being a truly humanistic
> psychologist, and a determinist, this in my experience is a rare
> combination.  Although I've only read a few portions of your book,
> everything I've come across has deeply resonated.   There is one,
well
> perhaps two, statements that I think of somewhat differently.  Both
have
> to do with the paragraph below:
>
> Three hundred years ago Leibnitz, a German philosopher, taught,
"Man
> should accept his lot, and not try to change it." Some people still
> believe we are helpless. Similarly, others believe that determinism
means
> predestination or fatalism--that specific events in the future are
> inevitable and that no one should feel responsible for their future
> behavior. More rot. The determinist rejects all of these ideas.
Consider
> this: Is it already predetermined whether or not we will travel to Mars
> and cure cancer or Aids? No, of course not, according to the
determinist
> (but the fatalist would say yes). Laws don't fix the future; in fact,
> laws and knowledge must be used to change the future, i.e. to
develop
> space travel and cures. How wisely laws are used determines how well
> future problems are handled. Therefore, each of us assumes great
> responsibility for what is going to happen, especially in our own lives.
>
> Before I express my problems with the above passage I'd like to
apologize
> in advance if my points are simply stating things of which you are
> already aware, or have previously heard.  Because I believe that the
> project that this group is developing is of great importance, I think it
> must be internally consistent so that it can withstand critical
> challenge.  There are two aspects of the above passage which seem
to me
> to be possibly inconsistent with a deterministic worldview and so even
at
> risk of stating the obvious I feel the need the make clear the following
> points.
>
> First, I think that if we are promoting a deterministic approach to
> understanding behavior we must find way to describe the mechanism
that
> results in personal motivation and socially desirable behavior, without
> having to invoke the misleading concept of "personal responsibility."
> I'm a bit at a loss to follow the logical sequence which starts with the
> accurate observation that the factors that make us who we are, are
not
> chosen, but the result of a complex set of determinants, stretching
> infinitely back in time, and yet somehow ends up where "each of us
> assumes great responsibility for what is going to happen, especially in
> our own lives."
> Second, I can not see how there can be any aspect of the future in a
> deterministic universe which was not determined.  In my mind by
> definition a determined universe, must be pre-determined, not of
course
> in the conscious Christian god like sense, but in a cause and effect
> sense.  Just as all things in the present are the inevitable result of
> the determinants which caused them, so does the present contain the
> inexorable determinants which will have caused a determined future.
> This is not to say that the infinitely complex and voluminous nature of
> the determinants that will cause the future, can be somehow
adequately
> understood so that accurate predictions could be made.  But our
inability
> to predict the future does not mean that the future is undetermined.
> In my understanding of determinism we are not responsible, and the
future
> is the effect of the trajectories of the determinants of each moment
that
> preceded it.  In such a system there is no room for an "unfixed'
future.
>
> Perhaps you and others feel that for peoples lives to have  motivation
> and meaning there is a need for salvaging the concept of personal
> responsibility and a future which could go in any direction other than
> the one that it is determined to go; personally, I do not think this is
> true.
> Most people assume that if people were to accept that their personal
> behavior was not the result of their own free will it would become a
> rational for an interminable malaise of complacency, total abdication
of
> individual striving, perpetual self pitying and an abrupt abandonment
of
> all efforts to challenge their limitations.
> I believe that such fears of complacency are unfounded.  There is no
> intellectual understanding that we humans could ever adopt regarding
the
> deterministic nature of the cosmos which could diminish our
compelling
> need to act upon our world.  No one is able to just wait and see what
> will happen as the inexorable trajectories of factors affecting our
lives
> play out.  As you point out, recognizing that our behaviors are
> determined is freeing.  It can facilitate what I call "owning your own
> truth."  Being able to observe your own behavior with less self
judgment
> makes clearly examining your behavior less threatening; this results in
a
> greater scope of self awareness, and self acceptance, in turn
increasing
> self esteem and ultimately leading to a higher level of activation and
> empowerment.
> To not believe in personal responsibility and an unfixed future does
not
> mean that we will not continue to grow and change as we interact
with our
> constantly changing environment, and continual stream of new
determinants
> which enter into our lives.  No one can tell what the new
determinants
> will be. Additionally, due to the enormous complexity and subtlety of
our
> past environmental and genetic determinants, even though some
behaviors
> and/or people may be more predictable than others, no one can ever
> absolutely know what future behaviors may be within their capacity.
> Additionally, we can never know when aspects of our genetic and
> environmental history will manifest and what those manifestations
might
> be.
>
> Even understanding that any action that he or she takes, is the only
> action that he or she could have possibly taken, a healthy person will
> still be forever attempting to fully become the person that they are,
and
> always remain open to seeing themselves in new ways, and to the
> possibility of realizing new achievements.
>
> I do not believe that life is pointless if we recognize the fixed nature
> of future events.  The reality is that this moment is all there ever is.
> Understanding that it's how we live this moment that matters, as
opposed
> to having to pretend that it's the end that really matters, is incredibly
> valuable; the reality of determinism shifts our focus from the future
to
> the present. Since the future is unchangeable the meaning is not in
the
> outcome but in the process.  Like any movie or story where the
outcome is
> known, either in advance, or guessed at one third of the way through,
> what matters is how it unfolds not how it ends; after all, we all
already
> know how our individual stories will end- we all will eventually die.
>
> Realistically though, until the very moment we act we can never be
> completely sure what action we might take because we can never be
> entirely aware of all of the determinants involved including those
> determinants which occur simultaneously to our action.  Although in
our
> determined universe each of our stories already has an ending, our
> experience is one of watching a story unfolding whose outcome we
cannot
> predict.  Understanding the chain of causality helps us realize that
what
> is relevant is the process; the journey; the means; the struggle; as
> opposed to the result; the destination; the ends; the outcome.
>
> I've always considered this understanding to be a profound source of
> serenity.  Recently Doctor Herb Korpell, a participant in this group
> poetically referred to this as "The serenity of inevitability," I really
> love that expression.
>
> With regard to promoting a society which functions well and
protecting it
> from harm without saying that people are responsible for their
actions,
> I'm sure we are all aware of some of the following but since it is a
> significant aspect of the issue of "personal responsibility," I'd like to
> briefly discuss it.
>
> Although I think it is misleading to say that we hold people responsible
> for behavior that we fully recognize does not originate from them, I
do
> think that it's completely reasonable that society responds to the way
> people behave, doing all that is required to minimize suffering.  While
a
> causal understanding of behavior does not hold people "responsible"
for
> their actions and does not exact vindictive reprisals, it would not in
> anyway compromise protecting society from abuse.
>
> To people who are known to have "caused' social damage or damage
to
> another individual, society's response should not be violent and
> retributive. Such individuals should be responded to by a "damage
> control" or "harm reduction" approach. This type of response would
be
> designed to enable the prompt cessation of any further destruction or
> harm, including destruction or harm to the person considered to have
> committed the anti-social behavior.  When it's determined that there
are
> limits on the persons abilities to safely contribute to their society we
> should still be no less supportive of facilitating that persons fullest
> activation and contribution within their limits, as we would any other
> member of society.  Clearly in some cases the limits that must be
imposed
> may be significant; some individuals may have to have their freedom
> considerably limited to ensure the safety of society.
>
> Such a highly humane standard for public policy would provide the
> additional benefit of serving as a highly humane "role model" as well.
> Recognizing the decisive role, which determinants play in the way we
> behave, gives rise to a much higher level of social accountability than
> we presently have and will offer a far more effective way to
recognize,
> respond to, and even decrease the likelihood of social pathology.
>
> Finally on a personal note, with regard to you feeling more inclined to
> empathize with a murderer, than your boss:
>
> "Indeed, I am bothered by my own greater empathy for a murderer or
drug
> dealer than for a self-serving, arrogant administrator."
>
> I though it was very human and open to express your ambivalence
about
> having such feelings.  I certainly have had such thoughts myself, and
> very much relate to your experience.  My guess is that those of us
who
> are healthy possess a natural inclination to relate to the world around
> us with an extended sense of self interest.  I think that such an
> extended sense of self interest however becomes weakened to those
who
> actually pose a threat to our having harmonious lives.  I've no doubt
> that if confronted with an arrogant person whom you had to obey,
and
> someone who was trying to murder you or someone close to you, the
> arrogant administrator would seem as relatively benign as he in fact
is.
>
> Okay that's it for now, I'm really pleased to have learned about you
and
> your work, and I thank you for all of it.
> -Arnell Dowret

A continuation of my previous comments on "attacking a client's
religion":

I agree with Tom, religious beliefs intersect many other beliefs. This
includes beliefs about ourself. Religion and Free will are just two of the
irrational beliefs nurtured from an early age. Most children are
encouraged to believe that their personal value is contingent on
parental approval, that there are strict rules and punishments applying
to curiosity and autonomous decision-making (religion, sexuality,
authority, are to some degree above question). An overreliance on blind
faith, strict sexual code and harsh authority requires the stifling of
natural healthy impulses including wide-open curiosity. This requires
psychic penalties for breaking the rules, which become part of one's
self-concept and are difficult to change. This all makes questioning
one's religion hard to say the least. As Tom said, the degree to which
we challenge our clients' beliefs depends on how much they are ready
for.

It's probably best to work more generally on creating a stronger more
independent self-concept which is capable of curiosity and independent
thinking, and work with the client to apply it to whatever he or she is
capable of.

Ken


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
>
> Clay wrote:
>
> <What really gets to me are irrational religious views; I'd like to
> challenge them but I read the substantial data presented by Hertzler
> on his well written site and suspect that he probably has little
> impact of most people's religious views. I'd like to know what
> approach might be effective. Any ideas? Moreover, I have some real
> concerns about possible bad outcomes, such as depression and
> meaninglessness, following the destruction of religious beliefs. (I
> would be very reluctant to put strong attacks on religion in my book
> for fear it would turn off a high percentage of people to everything
> I write...and I would wonder if a law suit could be based on
> depression caused by anti-religion comments.) Do any of you have
> concerns about that?>
>
> Clay,
>
> Although I'm not a therapist, from what I gather, direct challenges
> to a client's belief system can be effective *if* the client can
> handle it.   So the therapist's judgment is crucial here.  Regarding
> beliefs in free will, no doubt an indirect approach that gradually
> elicits the basic insight about being fully caused is safest.  To
> the extent that beliefs about free will intersect and overlap
> religious beliefs, a client's belief in god might end up challenged
> by a therapy that includes determinism and naturalism.  But I don't
> see any therapeutic need or warrant to directly question a client's
> religious beliefs.
>
> But this is just my two cents.
>
> Tom
>
> --- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Clay Tucker-Ladd" <
drclay@c...>
> wrote:
> > Tom:
> >
> > Thanks for your first cordial email and for this follow up to my
> post to the
> > group.
> >
> > I just had a humbling experience: I went to Google and searched for
> > "Questioning a belief in God." Of course, there are many hundreds
> of links
> > but the top one was Merle Hertzler's Website "Questioning: An
> examination of
> > Christian Belief"
> (http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/index.html). I
> > was impressed and he, so far as I can tell, is not a theologian or
> a
> > scientist.
> >
> > Anyway, I read for a couple of hours, looked at other Websites,
> and soon
> > realized that much thought has been given to the agnostic or non-
> believer
> > viewpoint. This is humbling because I haven't really studied in
> this area or
> > about determinism.
> >
> > Although I have long had an interest in religion, I haven't been
> driven to
> > read in these areas and I'm not willing to spend the time to
> really become
> > knowledgeable. I started doubting the God-thing in college and
> while
> > studying psychology I thought I saw a lot of reasons why humans
> might be
> > attracted to religious beliefs even if the ideas were not true.
> Other than
> > for a few brief references to religion in my Psychological Self-
> Help book, I
> > haven't thought a lot about it. Some reading about determinism in
> > psychology, including B. F. Skinner's views, just made sense so I
> put in a
> > small section in chapter 14 right after Rational-Emotive Therapy.
> I get a
> > few positive responses to that section but it doesn't seem to
> produce
> > profound change (of course, few things do).
> >
> > What really gets to me are irrational religious views; I'd like to
> challenge
> > them but I read the substantial data presented by Hertzler on his
> well
> > written site and suspect that he probably has little impact of
> most people's
> > religious views. I'd like to know what approach might be
> effective. Any
> > ideas? Moreover, I have some real concerns about possible bad
> outcomes, such
> > as depression and meaninglessness, following the destruction of
> religious
> > beliefs. (I would be very reluctant to put strong attacks on
> religion in my
> > book for fear it would turn off a high percentage of people to
> everything I
> > write...and I would wonder if a law suite could be based on
> depression
> > caused by anti-religion comments.) Do any of you have concerns
> about that?
> >
> > I think I will write Merle about the feedback he gets.
> >
> > Clay
> >
> > Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.
> >
> > Clinical Psychologist & Author of
> >
> > Psychological Self-Help
> >
> > http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/

Hi Clayton and welcome to the group. I've enjoyed reading your website
and have referred many friends and colleagues to it.

As a therapist I wouldn't set it as my goal to take away anything
(religious belief, cigarettes, food, etc.) from a client before we had
explored what purpose that belief or substance is serving. As you say,
removing an irrational belief without replacing it with a more rational
alternative could create a painful hole (somehow an analogy to
dentistry is coming to mind!) As for law suits I'm not worried, it's hard
to imagine how something like that could make it very far through the
courts. We do have an ethical responsibility to be sensitive to our
clients and not proselytize, especially when it could be harmful to them.

I can see a great advantage in teaching clients to question their
irrational thoughts, because irrational thoughts tend to reproduce
themselves, but a more thoughtful approach would be to see if the
client can figure out better, alternative ways of getting what they seek
from religion or drugs (security substitute, love substitute, etc.) and
seeing of little by little they need the substitutes less.

Ken


--- In cfntherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Clay Tucker-Ladd" <drclay@c...>
wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Thanks for your first cordial email and for this follow up to my post to
the
> group.
>
> I just had a humbling experience: I went to Google and searched for
> "Questioning a belief in God." Of course, there are many hundreds of
links
> but the top one was Merle Hertzler's Website "Questioning: An
examination of
> Christian Belief" (http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/
index.html). I
> was impressed and he, so far as I can tell, is not a theologian or a
> scientist.
>
> Anyway, I read for a couple of hours, looked at other Websites, and
soon
> realized that much thought has been given to the agnostic or non-
believer
> viewpoint. This is humbling because I haven't really studied in this
area or
> about determinism.
>
> Although I have long had an interest in religion, I haven't been driven
to
> read in these areas and I'm not willing to spend the time to really
become
> knowledgeable. I started doubting the God-thing in college and while
> studying psychology I thought I saw a lot of reasons why humans
might be
> attracted to religious beliefs even if the ideas were not true. Other
than
> for a few brief references to religion in my Psychological Self-Help
book, I
> haven't thought a lot about it. Some reading about determinism in
> psychology, including B. F. Skinner's views, just made sense so I put
in a
> small section in chapter 14 right after Rational-Emotive Therapy. I
get a
> few positive responses to that section but it doesn't seem to produce
> profound change (of course, few things do).
>
> What really gets to me are irrational religious views; I'd like to
challenge
> them but I read the substantial data presented by Hertzler on his well
> written site and suspect that he probably has little impact of most
people's
> religious views. I'd like to know what approach might be effective.
Any
> ideas? Moreover, I have some real concerns about possible bad
outcomes, such
> as depression and meaninglessness, following the destruction of
religious
> beliefs. (I would be very reluctant to put strong attacks on religion in
my
> book for fear it would turn off a high percentage of people to
everything I
> write...and I would wonder if a law suite could be based on depression
> caused by anti-religion comments.) Do any of you have concerns
about that?
>
> I think I will write Merle about the feedback he gets.
>
> Clay
>
> Clay Tucker-Ladd, Ph.D.
>
> Clinical Psychologist & Author of
>
> Psychological Self-Help
>
> http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/