Awakening From Your Anger

Category: Personal Growth

  • Anger #01 Why Change? Personal Power

    As indicated in the last post, I will gradually post my email anger program so that it is not lost. Although many people signed up initially, and feedback has been positive, there has been little in the way of continuing interest. Hence — this series of posts, one every few days until completion (30 emails) …

    I will add additional posts between the series, with a page under Postings dedicated to the anger program for those who want to follow it without having to sort through other posts.

    AngerBlowDown
    Is this you? Is this how you want to be?

    Why Change? Personal Power

    Welcome again. Welcome to a program that can change your life.

    I believe the above statement is absolutely true, partially because the tools I am offering are powerful, but more importantly because I trust the basic goodness of human beings. I believe in the principle that every human being is ALWAYS doing their absolute best at ALL times, and that when they are unhappy with their lives, what they need is not criticism but better resources, better skills to accomplish what they really need. Email me ([email protected]) if you do not believe me, and I will explain my rationale.

    These first few emails (the first eight or so) will provide simple tasks, but more importantly will give you some concepts that I believe are very useful to your progress. Play with the ideas, and if questions, email me as above. But do not attempt to accomplish the 90-day program in two weeks — it doesn’t work that way. Many questions I will defer until a later email when the answer will become clear.

    Also, be aware that, although this program is designed for anger management, almost all of it is applicable to every other emotional experience of your life. So, if you want to work on something else (low esteem, grief, et cetera), simply use your own word  any time you encounter an “anger” word.

    So, your first task, your first skill development. Take out some paper, and answer these questions: Why are you taking this program? What are you wanting? And if you get this (i.e., what you want), what else will you get? And if you get this next piece, what will you get that is even more important? Expand your answers until you can go no further (either you cannot name anything more important, or you are cycling back into previous answers).

    Now look at your answers, and see if you can answer these further questions about what you want. These questions are called the RPMS! of change. (I don’t expect that you will be able to answer them all — if you could, you would likely have what you want already.)

    • Is what I want realistic? (Can some one person, anyone, get this?)
    • Is it practical? (Can I myself get it?)
    • Is it measurable? (Do I have a way to know when I have it?)
    • Is it specific? (Do I know how to get it, the actions involved?)
    • !? (What is the first step for me to get it?)

    Why are these questions important? Basically for two reasons:

    • these questions are the basis of effective outcomes, and
    • people who set goals (outcomes) are more effective in life than people who do not. The likelihood of you completing this program is higher if you set a goal for yourself.

    Now, to complete this task for now, re-write what you want, using your above exploration.

    What outcome do I want?

    Give your description a two or three word title, and post the title (with or without the details) somewhere where you will read it every day: on the mirror where you brush your teeth, at the head of your bed, et cetera. Make a conscious choice that you will read it every day for the next five days, at least until you receive Email #2 of this series.

    As part of the description, add a brief description of yourself, your self-esteem, your sense of personal power. I want you to be able to look back at this description each month and note how you shift in the next three months. Also, be sure to date when you write this goal. If you wish, you may show this information (and any subsequent information) to another person (your life partner, for example), but think carefully before you make that choice — do not set yourself up to be criticized or judged by another person.

    My reflection of this process: I believe that every human being wants power. But power comes in two forms: it can be external power, wherein I dominate others, or personal power, wherein I influence others by my effectiveness as a human being. With personal power, I have a sense of aliveness, personal integrity, authentic relationships, and the ability to contribute. This form of power is available, but it takes skill development to achieve it. I trust that is why you are here.

    The skill of anger management is the ability to turn your power of domination into personal power whereby you influence. The intention of this program is to honor your anger — it is a signal to you that something is wrong, something is happening that is inappropriate to your current situation. But your anger will not tell you what the problem is! It may be that there is something inappropriate with those around you, or it may be a warning to you that there is something inappropriate within your own beliefs.

    Consider for a moment: Are you worthy of what you want? Do you deserve to get it? Do you deserve to be in charge of your anger? Honestly — you do not need to tell anyone else, just yourself. (I believe you are worthy, but do you? Many people don’t! And therefore, they don’t get what they want.)

    If you are one of these people who hate yourselves, who are constantly criticizing yourself, Or perhaps you are constantly criticizing others, at least to yourself? (It is the same problem!) Explore how you learned this? Who told you? How did you learn this? And what gave these others the right to judge you in this way?

    If applicable, I also invite you to put another sign along with your outcome statement:

    God don’t make no junk!

    (You don’t need to be religious — just recognize what it means! about you!)

    Coming next: What is Anger?

  • The Management of Burnout

    burnout3
    Burnout is best prevented, but still treatable.

    In the previous post The Nature of Burnout — Part 2, I indicated that burnout is the predictable long-term outcome resulting from over-functioning in the third limb of emotional triangles. To describe the management of burnout thus is quite simple:

    • Stop the over-functioning
    • Operate from the principle of: High intention; Low attachment

    However to do this requires that the individual has resolved his or her personal difficulties, those difficulties that pull the individual into the third limb of the triangle. As a therapist, I had ongoing opportunity to explore this process; I used to tell people that I was being paid to do my own personal growth.

    Therapy is a complex process. It is a relationship between two people wherein they explore the personal pain of the “client,” with the therapist as the “resource.” But all clients come with the hidden agenda that the therapist will fix the issue with which the client is struggling. (The long-term clients would say that the client was responsible for the issue, but the hidden agenda was still “fix me.”) And while doing so “fixing,” the client will do his or her best to resist and/or sabotage the therapist. Furthermore, it is relatively easy for the therapist to get caught in this agenda, especially if the therapist is invested in the issue. Sounds complicated, right? Yah!

    therapy1As the therapist, my attitude was essentially that I was there both to support the client and, more importantly, to challenge the client — to create an experience wherein the client had the opportunity to experience the internal conflict associated with the issue. I was not especially interested in talking about the issue, as compared with creating a dynamic which frustrated the client, while at the same time, doing so in an environment of safety. Thus, for me, I treated the third limb (client and issue) as a guitar string. My job was to tweak the guitar string, and make a sound. What the client did with the sound was of little interest to me — that was the responsibility of the client.

    I used to tell people that I had three rules when working with them:

    1. I would do no more than 50% of the work (occasionally more, but not reliably so),
    2. if at all possible we would have fun (people learn better when they are having fun), and
    3. if anyone was to be frustrated, guess who (because it was not going to be me).

    In so functioning, I had high intention (to assist the client), but no attachment that I would do so — I was response-able for my own integrity, but I was not accountable for the client’s outcomes or life.

    The management of burnout requires the following:

    • acceptance of authentic powerlessness
      • I must be clear as to that for which I am responsible, am accountable, and have authority
        • I must be aware and watchful of the enticement to be accountable for the larger system
      • having an appropriate vision of what is my role in a given system
        • my focus must be on my own integrity, even though my contribution may be to the greater good of the system
          • I must be able to congratulate myself for having achieved the outcomes I want, even though nothing happens within the larger system
        • I must provide myself with significant self-care — so that I do not rely entirely on the larger system to provide reward to me
          • this means that I manage my own emotional energy, especially when the system is not functioning effectively
            • if I am angry or frustrated, this means I am invested in the third limb! Clarity is needed, not passion
          • other aspects to which I can attend include:
            • write a lot in a journal, even if just scribbling (writing discharges energy more effectively than typing on a screen)
            • do anything small that makes a difference
            • find a supportive community, one focused on authenticity

    There are other things I can do, but for me, these are the basics.

  • The Nature of Burnout, Part 2

    Burnout1Apologies to my readers — I indicated in the first post The Nature of Burnout, Part 1 that there would be a second, and I got distracted. So here we go.

    To review what I said last time, “burnout occurs when I am overly invested in outcomes I cannot control — sooner or later, I become exhausted, and I call it burnout. Burnout therefore is a measure of the extent that I have not accepted my own powerlessness in life.”

    And: the resolution is effective leadership, in particular that leaders lead others, they manage themselves. In leading others in a particular project or direction, they encourage followers who want to do the work of the project, and therefore do not need to be pushed. As well, the leader manages him- or herself, focusing on the positive features (of self and other) that are controllable, and finding creative ways to utilize the negative features that are always present (again, of self and other).

    My best way of examining both burnout and leadership is via the concept of emotional triangles as described in the last posting The Nature of Emotional Triangles. Burnout occurs because of over-functioning, being inappropriately or excessively invested in the third limb of emotional triangles.

    Self-differentiation versus burnout

    Healthy responses, those of self-differentiation, are responses that are within the control of the individual. The individual (#1) can take a stand regarding an issue, or can extend care (love) into relationships with people (#2), or can work to clarify the nature of the issue (i) for that individual. All of this requires courage, often stepping out of the cultural rules of how to behave “in public.” Alternatively, the individual play with the emotional energy contained within the triangle; learning to play with emotionality is probably the most complex skill to be gained by individuals (it took me about ten years to be satisfied with my ability to play).

    Unhealthy responses to a situation are those wherein the individual (#1) attempts to control others, or the ways in which another responds to an issue (i) — these are interventions into the third limb of the emotional triangle, and in the long term are ineffective. Per se, these types of interventions are common, and as long as the other person (#2) chooses to be cooperative (they are getting paid, they like the outcome, et cetera), there is no problem. The difficulty occurs when the other does not want to cooperate (consider the example of parents interacting with angry teenagers). At this point, an intervention into the third limb becomes ineffective, resulting in resistance, and ultimately a place of stuckness where the first person exhausts him- or herself.

    This is a common source of burnout

    Another major difficulty occurs when three management concepts are out of balance or are misinterpreted: responsibility, accountability, authority.

    • responsibility (response-ability) is the ability to respond — to have the skill to deal with whatever is the issue or task. It can be taught to others (if they are interested), but not given away per se.
    • accountability is the obligated need to accomplish a task, either by oneself or delegated to another. Accountability can be delegated, but not circumvented, to those capable of response-ability.
    • authority refers to permission to accomplish a task. Again, it can be delegated but not circumvented.

    Imagine you are accountable for a project, but have no authority to accomplish it. You need resources, but have no way to obtain them. What will happen, especially to you? Or, imagine you have authority and accountability for a task, but no skill (nor is there anyone available who is skillful). What will happen to you?

    When these three functions are mismatched, the individuals concerned are at high risk of burnout. And in my therapy practice, I encountered many examples “in the real world” where they were mismatched!

    Coming next: The Management of Burnout

  • The Nature of Burnout, Part 1

    Burnout1After a lot of work, I now have this blog set the way I want (mainly). The process has been deeply frustrating, reminiscent of Sometimes I Hate Technology, and illustrative of how I burnout — over-invested in life being the way I want to be, as compared with how it is.

    Burnout. A common phenomenon about which much has been written, but what is it really? It is actually quite simple to describe, and often difficult to resolve, as I well know from my own personal experience (which I will describe shortly).

    Burnout occurs when I am overly invested in outcomes I cannot control — sooner or later, I become exhausted, and I call it burnout. Burnout therefore is a measure of the extent that I have not accepted my own powerlessness in life.

    What I can control

    There are certain things I can control: with discipline, I can control my own behaviors. To a limited extent, I can control my own thoughts and emotions. That is about it. That is actually a lot, because thereupon I can influence others, and I can modify situations. What I cannot control is what other people think, feel, and do in response to me. As noted, I can influence these aspects of life, but after 25 years as a therapist, I am very aware that I cannot consistently and repeatedly get others to do what they do not want to do — I get resistance, and I get sabotaged. And as a result, I eventually get exhausted.

    Especially in the nature of global warming, the incidence of burnout will be high. The dominator forces that have created this dilemma are so powerful and so ingrained in our species that it is very easy to get caught in wanting the problem to be solved. And it is the nature of super-wicked problems that every step forward seems to be followed by two steps backwards.

    Effective Leadership

    So what is the resolution that is needed? Effective leadership — effective leadership of myself by myself, and to the extent that I can influence others, effective leadership of others by me. One of the books that made this clear for me was Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge by Bennis and Nanus. They listed four characteristics of good leaders:

    1. they create attention through vision, their own vision of where the group is to go;
    2. they create meaning through communication — they frame their vision in a compelling fashion, attracting and enlisting the support of followers;
    3. they create trust through positioning — they persist in their vision despite the sabotage that [always] occurs; and
    4. they lead others — they manage themselves, through focus on the positive aspects that they either can control, or can generate within themselves.

    From another sources (The Success Principles), Canfield describes this succinctly as

    High intention, low attachment.

    I’ll have more to say in Part 2.

     

    Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Canfield, J., & Switzer, J. (2005). The success principles: How to get from where you are to where you want to be. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

  • What Is Anger?

    MacQuarrie Email Program #02 — What Is Anger?

    Note: This is a sample of my email anger management program.

    If interested further, please access this link.

    This email is fairly long. Apologies.

    To begin: Are you still reading your outcome title (Email #01), at least once a day? If yes, great. Congratulations. If not, that is the difficulty of discipline — you are not wrong, your behaviour is not wrong, but to the extent that you made a commitment, you did not keep your commitment. And people who do not keep commitments are much less likely to get outcomes that they want. Simple, yes; painful, yes! I did not say this program would be easy; I did suggest that it is effective. Please continue to read your outcome statement each day.

    Task for this email: After reading this email, monitor your emotions for a few days (don’t attempt to change them, just monitor them). When you notice an obvious anger-based emotion, answer the following questions:

    • Do you have a sense of power? Can you move forward with it? If so, likely it is anger.
    • Do you feel overwhelmed? Is there an underlying powerlessness? If so, likely it is rage.
    • Do you feel indignant, determined “it” should not be. If so, likely it is self-righteousness.
    • Where in your body are you feeling this emotion.

    What is anger? Most people know that they are emotional, but often they do not know what emotions are. Most people know when they are angry —  you, for example, wouldn’t be reading this if you weren’t angry, but you do you know what anger is. In this email, we clean up some language. (Suggestion: if you will pay meticulous attention to your language for six months, I guarantee you will change your life for the better. More in another email.)

    What are Emotions? There are many definitions, but my best definition of emotion is “a biologically adaptive action tendency.” What does that mean? Well, you are designed to respond to your environment, and when things change, you as a biologic organism adapt — usually very effectively! When something happens, you (your mind) processes what is happening, usually at the other-than-conscious level and with amazing speed. Your mind then sends a signal to your body to react, to move into action. The very beginning of the experience of action is the felt sense called emotion.

    Another definition of emotion I use is “energy to which I give meaning and direction.” In the so-called pleasurable emotions, I move towards something — I am excited or interested. In the so-called negative emotions, I move against or away from — I am angry, afraid, sad, et cetera. Check it out: notice what you are feeling right now, give it a name, and point to where that feeling is in your body. (Don’t be surprised if you cannot do this — when I first started my own therapy work, I could not do so.) How or to where does this emotion want you to move?(Suppose you are hungry. Where in your body? To where do you want to move?)

    So, what are feelings? Aren’t they emotions also? Sort of. Again many definitions, but I want to make a clean distinction. Examples of emotional words are: angry, excited, afraid, et cetera. Emotions point at my body, and can be described in a single word. Yes, they can refer to something else, but the felt sense is in the body, and can be pointed at. Feeling words point to my relationships: hostile (towards), included (with), ignored (by), etc. Again, one word, but they point outwards. There is usually an underlying emotion, but the feeling points outwards. Then, to make matters more confusing, there are also the feeling judgments — my thoughts about my emotions and feelings: I feel that … (finish with the thought, e.g., “this is wrong.”). There is an underlying emotion or feeling (unnamed), but the description is a thought, and always more than one word is required.

    What is Anger? Anger is an emotion, one that shows that my beliefs have been disrupted, without my intention or permission. Suppose someone in a crowd pushes me — my mind processes this, says this should not be happening (a thought), and sends a signal to my body that I push back: I’m angry. But perhaps I don’t — I also know, perhaps unconsciously, that the consequences might be less than pleasant, so my mind send a second message, very quickly: Stop! Be cautious instead. Angry and afraid at the same time. Did I say emotions, especially anger, were simple?

    Now, suppose the same crowd, only this time we are friends, and we playing football. If someone pushes me, will I be angry? Not likely — because it is expected and allowed as part of the game. Same actions, but different emotions, depending on my beliefs! Complicated, again.

    What about rage? Think about your own rage. Rage is also an emotion, this time more complex. When angry, I feel powerful — I can do something with my anger. But in rage, I feel powerless; I’m overwhelmed, and I puff myself up so as to get back to a state of power. And I don’t think clearly — a dangerous combination. At this point, I am likely to violate others — to violate someone is a behavior — to restrict them without their permission, to hit them, to block them, to scare them, etc. Not fun — for anyone!

    Note carefully! Emotions and feelings are not wrong, or bad; they simply are. They are the way in which my body gives me information, sometimes information that I do not want to recognize. They always have a positive intention — the “negative” ones usually to protect me, in some fashion. What is potentially inappropriate is what I do with my emotions. This behavioral response can certainly be dangerous, unacceptable to yourself or to others, and much else.

    Safety: So, anger and rage can be dangerous, especially if we are unaware of the complexity of what is happening (we will be exploring this in detail over the next weeks). My bottom line is safety, for myself and others — always, and to the best of my ability.

    I sum up safety with two statements: No SAD and STOP. No SAD means:

    • I will not intentionally Scare another human being,
    • I will not Attack another biological creature, and
    • I will not Destroy in anger that which I would not destroy when peaceful.

    My experience, after 25 years of being a therapist (including as I resolved my own issues of anger) is that, if I stay within the parameters of No SAD, I can be fully expressive of my emotions, and both I and those around me are totally safe.

    However, that does not mean that those around me will feel safe (more accurately, they do not feel secure) — my actions may still scare them — what I am doing may remind them of painful times in their own past. I do not intend to scare them, but that does not mean they are not scared.

    STOP responds to this. STOP means that if I am told to stop, I stop immediately (no questions, no argument). Someone is scared — always inappropriate. Then I find another, safer way to deal with my anger. Usually this means I will take a time out  to briefly separate myself from others, and thus allow them to recover from their scare (more about time-outs later).

    Coming next: Awareness and Discipline

  • The Threshold of Anxiety in Global Warming

    As anxiety diminishes, people engage more.
    As anxiety diminishes, people engage more.

    So what are the factors that block engagement in global warming?

    In a recent podcast The Big Man Can’t Shoot, journalist Malcolm Gladwell identifies the need for social approval as a major factor in effective choice. Gladwell tells the story of a legendary basketball player with only one flaw: his success rate at free throws from the foul line was only about 40%. He was coached by a colleague whose success rate was 93%, and was able to improve himself to 87% — a huge advance and one that could make him almost unstoppable. The catch: he had to make “granny shots” — underhand throws rather than overhead shots, that are the standard of the league. And he wouldn’t do so — because he would look “silly.” Nor would other players, again because they would be breaking the unspoken norms of play — even though they would be better players!

    What Gladwell identified was what I call the threshold of anxiety that must be overcome when one’s behavior does not match the common deportment of the peer group, the so-called peer pressure that exists within any group, even when unspoken. The threshold level varies from person to person, but always is a factor in the decision to act. This means that for any individual, a certain number of their trusted peers have to act in a certain way before they themselves will undertake the action.

    Translating this to the need for massive mobilization in response to global warming, there is potentially a large body of the public waiting for others to act before they themselves will engage significantly. Many of these people will be those I identified in my last post as those people who are chronically overwhelmed by too much stuff. Salamon in Living In Climate Truth goes into more depth as to how individuals use intellectual denial, emotional denial, and tokenism to avoid action to maintain the Climate Lie that all is well, and someone else will resolve the issues. Or the individual believes that nothing can be done, and settles into low-grade cynicism, contaminating others in major ways.

    Potentially when enough others have shifted into effective action, there could then be a snowball effect in response. But when? Will it occur soon enough to forestall disastrous effect?

    I suspect not. To use myself as example, I started hearing about environmental issues in the 1960s and 1970s, and had enough background in science (degrees in physics and biophysics by that point) to know that we humans were doing significant damage to the environment. But I was “too busy with other issues” in my life. Fast forward to the 1990s when I had a small acreage in Ontario, land that I actually regarded as sacred — I knew “activists” who were challenging government regulations, but “I wasn’t an activist.” Then in 2009 when I finally got it, I was in deep despair for months, and only in the past year did my resolve crystallize. So if it has taken me this long, what chance do we have as a species?

    Yet, if I accept this line of reasoning, it is likely that nothing effective will happen. I must act into the assumption that many are waiting in the wings simply for the snowball effect.

    There is no question in my own mind that I am angry at the complexity and frequent ineffectiveness of my culture. I am not angry at individuals; I am angry at the systemic morass we have created — but if I allow my anger to take over, I will burnout. It’s a no-win situation. I’m very good at anger management, including my own. So, often I fall back on simple affirmations such as “Let Go; Let God,” or “High Intention, Low Attachment.”

    What I don’t know how to do is how to get people to engage. Currently, I am reading Joe Romm’s Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga for some hints. Many days I’m convinced I am a slow learner.

    Coming next: The nature of acedia.

  • Difficulties: solvable or resolvable?

    A magnet always has two poles.
    A magnet always has two poles.

    When you have a difficulty, is it solvable? Is global warming solvable?

    In this post, I want to explore the distinction between solvable and resolvable. To solve something means that the difficulty it represents goes away — you are complete with it. To resolve something means you are at peace with it — it may still be a difficulty, but you are satisfied that you know what to do about it. (In the last post, I’ll indicated why I talk about difficulties, and the distinction between difficulties and problems, another important distinction.)

    The distinction is important — global warming is not solvable; it is resolvable. The underlying factors of global warming, the acedia of our species, is not solvable; it is resolvable. Both issues likely require ongoing life-long attention to our own growth as individuals and as a society so to be at peace with what life offers.

    An excellent description of the distinction is found in Polarity Management by Barry Johnson — what follows is principally my summary of his paper. I use slightly different language from Barry — solvable instead of right/wrong, and resolvable instead of polarity.

    Solvable (right/wrong): one “right” answer, or two (or more) answers that are “right,” and independent of each other.

    • Right/wrong distinctions are the essential means of transmitting knowledge from one generation to another, e.g., 4 + 4 = 8.
    • Or they contain the cultural messages of right and wrong: “In this culture, we value . . .”
      • Note that if the question is phrased as “Should I value X or Y?” there is the implication that both values are somehow important, and also they are somehow related to each other — they are part of the same dilemma (they are not independent). This is a polarity difficulty, not a right/wrong difficulty (see below) — another example of sloppy language.
    • Solving difficulties creates closure, and eliminates the searching through numerous “wrong” answers.
      • Often the difficulty is phrased: a or b, but only if a and b are independent of each other. Here a and b are facts, such that one is right and the other wrong.
    • >95% of the teachings in formal education are based on solvable (right/wrong) distinctions.
      • Because virtually all our educational experience is in solvable (right/wrong) difficulties, we automatically lock into the possibility of solving difficulties, rather than resolving them.

    Resolvable (polarity): two or more answers that are interdependent on each other.

    • These distinctions are essential in passing the socialization elements of culture from one generation to another, e.g., “In my relationship with my friend, should I be concerned about her, or should I be concerned about myself?”
      • Often the difficulty is phrased as or, even though both a and b are right, and there is possibly a choice to be made.

    Knowing the distinction between solvable and resolvable, and when to apply appropriate tools to each, is very important to the changing of systems. A major difficulty is that, on first glance, solvable (right/wrong) and resolvable (polarity) difficulties look alike. Because we are so attuned to solvable (right/wrong) difficulties, we tend to approach all difficulties looking for solutions. Then we find a solution — but wonder why we are getting resistance from others for our wonderful solution! Well, we have likely found ½ of a polarity difficulty; the resistance represents the other half!

    Polarity-Breathing

    To better identify the character of resolvable (polarity) difficulties, Johnson suggests the metaphor of breathing. Breathing requires the intake of oxygen (inhalation) and the removal of carbon dioxide (exhalation); both are essential, and are obviously interdependent. There are eight components of importance, in pairs: inhalation and exhalation (neutral, the interdependent processes), death and life (outcomes), why we breath (the need for oxygen intake and carbon dioxide removal — the higher purpose), and the consequences of not breathing (too little oxygen or too much carbon dioxide — the deepest fear). In breathing, you cannot just choose to breath in, or to breath out — both have significant negative consequences; they are interdependent.

    The skill of management of polarity difficulties is to find the optimal balance of achieving the positive benefits of both poles (inhalation and exhalation), without the negative consequences of excess of either. With the issue of breathing, the body-mind system does this automatically, generally without our needing to consciously think about the choices or consequences. However most polarity difficulties require careful attention and integration of the benefits of each pole, while minimizing the undesirable consequences of each.

    In this blog, I simply want to make the distinction, principally because global warming, and the deeper management of cultural acedia, are both resolvable (polarity) difficulties — they are not solvable. Global warming is especially complex —we have both caused it, in our unconscious behaviors as a species, and there are many interdependent aspects to be considered. It is possible that, as the consequences of global warming become more apparent, we might stumble into a more mature management of the issues, but to bet on this happening is like buying a lottery ticket with the expectation of winning. Not likely!

  • Digression: difficulties versus problems?

    Problems1

    When you encounter issues that trouble you, are they difficulties or are they problems? Is global warming a difficulty, or is it a problem?

    In this post, I want to clarify the distinction between difficulties and problems — I think it is an important distinction in the issues of cultural maturity. I explain it clearly in my book Acedia, and I am simply going to quote it here:

    In Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, Watzlawick et al (1974) note difficulties simply as an undesirable state of affairs, and problems as issues created and maintained [my emphasis] by the mishandling of difficulties. Difficulties can either be 1) resolved through some common-sense action, or 2) they are “undesirable but usually quite common life situations for which there exists no known solution and which—at least for the time being—must simply be lived with” (pp. 38-39). As example, “death” is a difficulty; there is no solution, only resolution. I also propose that acedia is a difficulty—whereas one can repeatedly choose the path of health, this choice is always between health and acedia (otherwise there would never be internal conflict).

    Watzlawick et al (1974, p. 39) also note that there are basically three ways in which problems arise: 1) denial of the difficulty; 2) change is attempted when, for all practical purposes, the difficulty is unchangeable; and 3) action occurs in a way that sustains the difficulty. I propose that climate change is both a difficulty and a problem. We have not yet reached a resolution, yet alone a solution, and there is great denial, as well as a predominant focus simply on economics and technological change as a solution to climate issues. Technological resolutions may resolve the immediate situation, but I cannot foresee how it will lead to significant change in the underlying issue of acedia, or the fundamental deficits of our society that have promoted climate change.

    To solve something means that the difficulty it represents goes away — you are complete with it. To resolve something means you are at peace with it — it may still be a difficulty, but you are satisfied that you know what to do about it.

    An example. At one point in my careers, I was a specialist anaesthetist, a physician skilled in both caring for patients in the operating room, and also in the intensive care unit. One of the difficulties of intensive care, especially with more prolonged disorders of health, is that death is a frequent outcome, despite good care. Death is a natural outcome of life (a difficulty), sometimes sad but always inevitable for every person — it is just not clear when. What used to amaze me was the number of physicians who were angry that patients died; these physicians somehow were attempting to solve death (death was a problem), rather than be at peace that, despite their best efforts, patients died.

    I also knew that there was a huge financial investment in stopping death — I vaguely recall (~1985) that almost 50% of medical costs (American, but also likely Canadian) occurred within the last three months of life, i.e., preventing death. Much of this cost may have been appropriate; some was not. I knew the factors involved in the choices to continue care in these difficult situations. Broad brushstrokes — patients with failure of more than two organ systems did not survive; patients with life-threatening blunt trauma (car accidents, for example) did not survive.

    So my standard, part of my personal living will, is that if I am unconscious and have more than two systems in failure (e.g., stroke and kidney failure, on a respirator), I do not wish ongoing treatment. Let death be the natural outcome; I do not wish to be a problem.

    Tomorrow:

    Solvable (right/wrong) problems and resolvable (polarity) problems.

  • The factors that determine change

    Math is just a way to represent relationships.
    Math is just a way to represent relationships.

    My second digression — a mathematical formula, perhaps scary to some (or many). Bear with me; this formula is actually quite easy to grasp. And appropriate for envisioning a mature society.

    First, math is nothing more than a way to describe relationships between ideas. The ideas may refer to numbers, shapes, automobiles, or any group of ideas that change in predictable fashion. (It can get complex, but in general people have been scared by the complexity when the simplicity was not explained.) But we do need to grasp the relationships.

    When I first went to university (more than 55 years ago — yikes), I intended to become a theoretical astrophysicist (envision me and Steven Hawking) — my first degree is in maths and physics; little did I realize I would end up studying the inner cosmos rather than the outer.

    I still have an interest in math. About twenty years ago, attempting to grasp the nature of change, I devised the above formula to describe the factors involved in change. It has proven very useful to me in working with people.

    As you read further, think about how changes have occurred in your life. What precipitated the change? What was happening around you?

    Change (the upside triangle) is a continuous process; it takes time. Specific aspects can appear rapidly, and re-organization of the emotional system can happen abruptly, but integration requires time. The change must start from where the individual is (the dot in the middle), not from where they want or should be; these latter locales are wish statements, not reality.

    The individual (p) is always part of a system (Z) of individuals and concepts, of interlocking emotional triangles, usually of great complexity. This complexity can provide support and safety for the individual, and it can also inhibit transformation of the individual, via the “togetherness” factor.

    The individual must have some sense of pain (H), and not be overwhelmed by it — if the pain is too intense, the individual will collapse. He or she must also have some sense of safety (s), as provided by the community or perhaps provided by maturity within the individual. If no pain, the motivation to change is likely to be minimal, and if overwhelmed by a sense of powerlessness in the face of trauma, the individual is likely to move to acedia. The risk of acedia is always present — to an unknown degree (X), depending on the background trauma, and how it is triggered by the current circumstances.

    The individual must also have a sense of vision (V), a vision that fits (f) the circumstances, and provides authentic hope for the future. If the vision does not fit, the individual cannot draw energy from it to move towards the future. This vision can be a simple desire, or it can be a complex myth that provides hope.

    Tools (T) of some kind must be available — this is the primary role of therapy. And there is always risk (r) — some therapists are better than others; some tools have risks greater than their benefits. I suggest that the better tools (both people and concepts) draw upon the skills of playfulness, wisdom, hope, and discipline, allowing the possibility of shifting the balance within the force field of acedia towards that of practical judgment, phronesis.

    Finally, change ultimately depends on grace (g), the synchronicity offered by the universe, God by another language. Panpsychism (my preferred mode of understanding the nature of reality) suggests that God exists (as the totality of sentient beings), and that (as a component of this totality) each individual sentient being possesses free will. We each makes choices about how we live. In addition, God provides the opportunity (e.g., possibilities) for us to live well. Even if God does not exist or even if the universe is eventually found to be meaningless, each individual still has the option to act as if it is meaningful, and to create a myth that will allow him or her to live within what life offers—in a stance of love, in contrast to acedia.

    Each one of these factors will be part of the development of a maturing society.

    Tomorrow: the differences between difficulties and problems.

  • The Force Field of Change

    ChangeFF

    I woke up this morning aware that, for me to continue this discussion of envisioning a mature society, there are a number of digressions that I need to introduce. I want my writing to emphasize useful process, rather than utopian ideas. So —

    • the Force Field of Change,
    • the factors that determine change,
    • the differences between difficulties and problems. and
    • the differences between solvable and resolvable difficulties.

    I need to explore these so as to have clarity of language — clarity of language is so important to me. If I am to make my musings meaningful, I need to write about them in a way that communicates what I want to say.

    One of the difficulties of life is that it is a miracle that human beings are able to communicate at all — there are so many nuances to be overcome. A couple of statements emphasize this for me:

    “I believe you understand what you think I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I said,”

    and (this time with emphasis)

    “I believe you understand what you think I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I said.”

    Onwards and upwards — the Force Field of Change.

    Force Fields are way to indicate that factors that come into a problem, in this case: change. (I’ve described them in a different context in an earlier post.) Effective change requires:

    • honesty as to where I am in the present (best with a sensory-grounded description of what is actually occurring,
    • a detailed vision of what I want in the future (essentially the scenery on the road),
    • a description of the forces that are assisting me in moving forward (the motivating factors), and
    • a description of the forces that are stopping my progress (the deterrent forces).

    Together, all of this determines where I am in the present, balanced within the various forces. But I am not in the future. If I am to get to the future, I need to augment the motivating forWarmingFFces, the driving forces, and diminish the deterrent forces, the restraining forces. From my perspective as therapist, I suggest that diminishing the deterrent forces is more powerful than augment the motivators. But it is more painful to do so, and therefore people often focus on the augmentors.

    Applied to the issues of seeking a mature culture, global warming is only one of the restraining forces. For the most part, climate change is a technological issue, but the underlying forces driving it are emotional. In my PhD, I identified these forces as the acedia of our culture; the force field thus became:

    • diminishing the many ways in which we traumatize ourselves, and
    • increasing the factors that move us to maturity: wisdom, discipline, hope, and playfulness.

    AcediaDeterminants

    Appropriately modifying all of these forces must become intentional parts of daily living in a maturing society.

    Tomorrow: the factors that determine change.