jump to navigation

The Sum of the Whole Is Our Behavior (a Monday post) November 16, 2021

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in Books, Buddhism, Changing Perspectives, Faith, Healing Stories, Karma, Life, One Hoop, Pain, Philosophy, Science, Suffering, Vipassana, Wisdom, Writing, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

This is the post for Monday, November 15th. You can request an audio recording of Sunday’s practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.]

“If we meet other people in a friendly way, they also become friendly. But if we are afraid of them or if we show our disliking to them, they behave in the same manner. These are simple truths which the world has known for ages. But even so, the world forgets the people of one country who hate and fear the people of another country because they are afraid, they are sometimes foolish enough to fight each other.

.

Children should be wiser. At any rate, I hope the children who read this will be more sensible.”

.

– quoted from the November 1958 “Letter to the Children of India” by Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, signed “Yours lovingly, Chacha Nehru”

As I mentioned during yesterday’s practice and blog post, we’ve all been children and, as children, we were given a world/society and taught different ways to understand that world/society. We were given culture (or cultures) and raised to understand our culture(s) and other people’s culture(s) in certain ways. On a certain level, we could say, that we begin life as “passive recipients.” However, children are curious and children play, experiment, and explore in order to learn and grow. With ourselves, our peers, and our toys, we begin to accept and/or reject the world and culture(s) that were given to us and the understanding that was taught to us. That’s part of being a child: questioning our environment; even pushing back at what we are taught about our environment; and creatively considering other possibilities. In other words, part of being a child is figuring out how we fit into the world.

Do we continue to exist as a “passive recipient” or do we become a “co-creator” of our culture and environment?

I don’t remember ever hearing the terms “passive recipient” and “co-creator,” as related to culture, until I met Merrick Rosenberg. He is a consultant, keynote speaker, and personality expert who often works with companies undergoing change. He is the co-founder of Team Builders Plus and Take Flight Learning; the co-author of the parable Take Flight! (Master the DISC Styles to Transform Your Career, your Relationships… Your Life) and Personality Wins: Who Will Take the White House and How We Know; and the author of the parable The Chameleon: Life Changing Wisdom For Anyone Who Has A Personality Or Knows Someone Who Does and the children’s book Which Bird Are You? (recommended for ages 8 – 12). He is also a black belt who practices yoga – which is how we met and how I ended up reading and recommending his first book.

I was already interested in change management; had already looked into Virginia Satir’s Change Process Model and was fascinated by what it takes to shift culture – on an individual, corporate, and global scale. But Take Flight! (which I highly recommend) and my conversation with Merrick Rosenberg about his work caused me to dig a little deeper into the roles we play when it comes to change and the beliefs we hold that, inevitably, shape those roles. As evidence by his books, Merrick likes a good parable and, so, it’s not surprising that when I searched his work, I found more stories.

Just as I shared one of those stories towards the end of Monday’s practice, I’ll share that story towards the end of this post. But first, a little back story. It’s actually several stories, that converge around behavior, belief, culture, and personality.

“There seems to be a single starting point for psychology, exactly as for all the other sciences: the world as we find it, naïvely and uncritically. The naïveté may be lost as we proceed.”

.

–  quoted from “Chapter I: A Discussion of Behaviorism” in Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology by Dr. Wolfgang Köhler

 

Wolfgang Köhler, PhD, born January 21, 1887, was a German psychologist whose field of expertise included phenomenology, the study of subjective experience. Along with Max Wertheimer and Kurt Koffka, he was one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, which focused on the human mind and behavior as a whole, rather than on individual elements. (Since November 15th is National Tree Planting Day in Sri Lanka, think of a Gestalt psychologist as someone who would focus on the whole forest rather than a single tree, or on how the whole world is affected by planting trees in a forest.) Dr. Köhler is remembered because of his research with chimpanzees, which provided insight into human behavior, as well as his lived experience as it related to human behavior during Nazi Germany.

After completing his PhD at the University of Berlin and working with Max Wertheimer and Kurt Koffka at the Psychological Institute in Frankfurt, Wolfgang Köhler moved to the island of Tenerife, the largest of the Canary Islands, and became the director of the anthropoid research station at the Prussian Academy of Sciences. There, from 1913 – 1919, his research included the problem solving skills of chimpanzees, which he choose to study specifically because their brains were structurally similar to humans. In 1917, he published The Mentality of Apes, which described chimpanzees using “insight learning” to access some fruit that was out of reach, rather than trial-and-error.

Remember, when we think of insight from the perspective of Buddhist or Yoga Philosophy, we think of it as wisdom that comes from “[seeing] in a special way” and this is exactly what Dr. Köhler observed. When the chimpanzees realized their food source was out of reach, they paused for a moment and (according to Dr. Köhler’s research) came up with a solution that relied upon an understanding of cause-and-effect. The chimpanzees in the experiments realized that they needed tools to reach the fruit that was too far away or too high and either connected sticks or stacked boxes to make up the difference.

In 1920, Wolfgang Köhler returned to Germany and (eventually) succeeded one of his mentors (Carl Stumpf) as the director of the Psychological Institute at the University of Berlin. He was there as the Nazis came into power in 1933 and while one of his mentors (the physicists Max Planck) criticized the effect Nazi Germany’s policies were having on the field of science, Dr. Köhler was publicly silent for many months. Towards the end of April 1933, however, he wrote an article criticizing the Nazi Party and the practice of dismissing Jewish professors. Then he attempted to organize a resistance movement within the scientific community – but his colleagues erroneously believed the fascist regime would largely leave the universities to their own devices. On November 3, 1933, the Nazi government announced that professors were required to start their lectures with the Nazi salute.

Dr. Köhler refused to passively accept the culture that was being handed to forced on him. Within a month of publicly explaining his refusal to follow the edict, his class was raided and student’s leaving his lecture were forced to show their identification. By May of 1934, he had concluded that there was nothing more he could do and announced plans to retire. By that summer, his interactions with students and other faculty and staff was under investigation. Unable to effectively teach or conduct research, Wolfgang Köhler immigrated to the United States in 1935, where he taught and conducted research at Swarthmore College and (in 1956) at Dartmouth College. He would also eventually serve as President of the American Psychological Association and as a guest lecturer and faculty advisor at the Free University of Berlin.

I know, I know, that’s already a lot of information. So, here are the highlights: Dr. Wolfgang Köhler believed (a) that subjective experience matters; (b) that the human mind and behavior have to be considered as a whole (and that whole includes subjective experience); (c) that, like chimpanzees, humans are capable of problem solving through insight learning; and (d) that people could – and one can argue should – stand up for what they believe to be right and, in doing so, actively co-create the world in which the live.

“Problems may be found which were at first completely hidden from our eyes. For their solution it may be necessary to devise concepts which seem to have little contact with direct primary experience.”

.

–  quoted from “Chapter I: A Discussion of Behaviorism” in Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology by Dr. Wolfgang Köhler

Fast forward to the 1960’s, and we find generations of researchers standing on shoulders of scientific giants like Dr. Wolfgang Köhler. One of those researchers was Dr. Gordon R. Stephenson (at the University of Wisconsin, Madison) who, in 1967, published a paper entitled “Cultural Acquisition of a Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkey.” The paper detailed research that involved 4 male and 4 female “lab-reared rhesus monkeys… about 3 years of age,” a variety of plastic kitchen utensils, a test cage, and air that was blasted on the monkeys under certain circumstances. (NOTE: I’m just highlighting here. Dr. Stephenson’s paper and experiment are more detailed than my summary and include the fact that the monkeys “had much play experience with each other;” were considered “socially normal;”  and had no conditioning prior to the experiment.) 

According to the paper, the monkeys were assigned unisex partners and then one of the pair would be placed in the test cage with one of the plastic objects. Observations included “passive contact,” whereby contact between the monkey and the object was not intentional, and active engagement that ranged from intentionally moving the object to playing with it and/or mouthing or chewing it. For the most part, the interactions were consistent between each group based on the different objects and all subjects tended to manipulate the novel objects more than the familiar. Higher and lower manipulation trends were experienced by all the monkeys during the same periods of time throughout the multi-week experiment. Although, there were some statistically differences in manipulation rates between males and females when they were alone (in general the male rate was twice as high in the first block); between males and females when they were with a partner; and between objects (regardless of sex).

In the first part of the experiment, an individual monkey that intentionally manipulated an object, was “punished” with an air blast. In general, the monkeys stopped manipulating the objects after two or three blasts. Later, when the conditioned monkeys came back to the test cage for the second stage, they avoided the objects without any air blasts. In the third part of the experiment, the (now) conditioned monkey was brought into the cage with its naïve partner. and the plastic object. In the fourth part, the naïve partner was brought into the cage with the plastic object. 

Dr. Stephenson wanted to see if (and how) the conditioned learning would be transferred. He observed the following:

(a) many of the naïve monkeys were cautious about the plastic object when they observed the behavior of their conditioned partners;

(b) most of the conditioned male monkeys (in various ways) intervened when their naïve partners approached the plastic objects and this sometimes altered subsequent (fourth stage) behavior*;

(c) most of the conditioned female monkeys did not interfere when their naïve partners approached the plastic objects; and 

(d) some of the conditioned female monkeys approached the plastic objects when their naïve partners were not blasted with air (indicating that they learned through observation that the “punishment” was not being applied).

Later experiments, conducted with different monkeys and under slightly different – including some that used food, showed a higher (baseline) manipulation rate with the female monkeys, but similar results in the interaction between conditioned and naïve pairs (i.e., male monkeys were more likely to interfere when their partners tried to manipulate the objects). Some of these later experiments found that female monkeys with infants were more likely to pull their offspring away from an object than a naïve peer.

*NOTE: Later experiments also found that the level of interference, with regard to male monkeys, may make a difference in the naïve partners interaction with the test object in the fourth stage. 

“I regard culture as the constellation of behaviors characteristic of a single social group, behaviors which are transgenerational and socially learned by individuals as members of the group. The present report describes an attempt to apply controlled laboratory methods to a social learning situation suggested by the above field and laboratory observations. My particular interest was whether the learned avoidance behavior of a conditioned monkey toward a conditioning object could induce a lasting effect on the behavior of a second toward that same object.”

.

–  quoted from “A. Introduction” in “Cultural Acquisition of a Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkey” by Gordon R. Stephenson, Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Fast forward again, to 2011, when an article entitled “What Monkeys Can Teach us About Human Behavior” appeared as a Psychology Today post. The post was written by creativity expert and author Michael Michalko, who served as an officer in the United States Army and worked with “NATO intelligence specialists and international academics in Frankfurt, Germany, to research, collect, and categorize all known inventive-thinking methods” and then applied those methods to problem solve. He has since extended that knowledge about problem solving into the corporate and public sphere. In his 2011 post, he described the now infamous “5 Monkeys” experiment, which is the story I came across some years ago after meeting Merrick Rosenberg. And, maybe, it’s a story you’ve heard.

The “5 Monkeys” experiment goes like this: Researchers placed 5 monkeys in a cage with a set of steps placed underneath bananas tied to the top of the cage. Whenever the monkeys started using the steps to get to the bananas, the researchers sprayed them with ice cold water until they stopped. Once the monkeys were conditioned to not go for the bananas, the researchers replaced one of the conditioned monkeys with a naïve monkey and observed the four conditioned monkeys intervening, sometimes violently, whenever the naïve monkey headed for the steps. Once the new monkey was conditioned, the researchers replaced another conditioned monkey with a naïve monkey and repeated the steps until the cage contained the steps, the bananas, and 5 monkeys that had never been sprayed with water – but had been conditioned by their peers to not go after the bananas!

It’s a great story. It’s a really great story, especially if you want an easy-to-follow, scientifically-supported business lesson about culture and conditioned behavior. It’s a really great and inspiring story if, as one CPA and Controller stated in 2019, you’re “not a big fan of fiction.”

There’s just one problem.

The “5 Monkeys” experiment, by all indications, is fiction.

“In a comment on Michalko’s blog post, primatologist Frans De Waal expressed some skepticism about the experiment and asked Michalko if he had a scientific reference for this study. In response to the comment from another reader, Michalko posted the following:

.

‘FIVE MONKEYS. This story originated with the research of G.R. Stephenson. (Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.)’ ….

.

… His research inspired the story of five monkeys. Some believe the story is true, while others believed it’s an exaggerated account of his research. True story or not, his published research with rhesus monkeys, in my opinion, makes the point.’”

.

–  quoted from the Psychology Today blog post “What Monkeys Can Teach Us About Human Behavior: From Facts to Fiction – When creativity crosses the line.” by Dario Maestripieri Ph.D. (Reviewed by Ekua Hagan), posted March 20, 2012

By his own words, Michael Michalko knew the published details of Dr. Gordon Stephenson’s experiment  and knew that that experiment did not use food, a ladder, water, or more than two monkeys in a cage at a time. Neither did it include a naïve/community-conditioned monkey that “took part in the punishment with enthusiasm!” as he described. Although, that description kind of parallels Dr. Wolfgang Köhler’s observation that once his chimpanzees came up with a solution, they executed their plan with “unwavering purpose.” Given the similarities and his work in the Army (and specifically in Germany), I think it’s safe to assume that Michael Michalko was familiar with Dr. Köhler work – and most (if not all) of the significant research in the same area. It’s also possible that he knew a little bit about Dr. Köhler’s experience with the Nazis. At the very least, he knew German history and (I imagine) he knew about the papers of Drs. Köhler and Stephenson and the experiments they cited in their work. Regarding those citations, it’s important to note that Dr. Stephenson’s introduction specifically references experiments and field observations that theoretically imply that the conclusions of the hypothetical “5 Monkeys” experiment could exist in a real life scenario. (In fact, those implications were part of Dr. Stephenson’s inspiration. You know, they established a hypothesis.) Finally, we know, based on Michael Michalko’s work in the public and private sectors, that he knows how to communicate and teach ideas.

So, it makes sense, that he would tell the story that he told. It’s a great story and we can easily see the truth of our lived experience with regard to violent conditioning in our own society. The thing is, while some people might focus on that lived truth – and others might focus on the fact that there’s no evidence the experiment ever happened – my focus today is a little different. I’m looking at how and why the story came to be; how it’s become part of some people’s culture; and how the belief that the story is verifiably true plays a part in our actions.

Remember, what we believe bridges the gap between what we conceive and what we achieve. This is true on an individual level and on a community/cultural level.

Some people tell the “5 Monkeys” story as a cautionary tale. Some people use it to underscore the importance of examining why they – individually and collectively – do the things they do. But a lot of people tell the story because they think it’s true. And, given the truth, I find it interesting that the “5 Monkeys” story highlights perceived male monkey behavior, but not the wisdom of observation exhibited by the female monkeys in Gordon R. Stephenson, et al, experiments. I also find it interesting that the “5 Monkeys” story doesn’t highlight the insight exhibited by the chimpanzees in Wolfgang Köhler’s experiments.

In the real life experiments, the chimpanzees and monkeys recognized that things change, from day to day and moment to moment. In the real life experiments, the primates were curious about their environment and their culture. They weren’t ever (really) passive, even when they weren’t directly engaging. Which brings me back to where we started: with childhood and the fact that we’ve all been children who inherited culture(s) and cultural understanding about our individual and collective communities.

Whether we like it our not, our lives are a reflection of our beliefs. Not, I might add, a reflection of what we say we believe or what we want to believe, but what we actually believe. And our beliefs are built around the stories we’ve been told and the stories we tell ourselves.

Stories… that sometimes aren’t actually true.

“If we wish to imitate the physical sciences, we must not imitate them in their highly developed contemporary form. Rather, we must imitate them in their historical youth, when their state of development was comparable to our own at the present time. Otherwise we should behave like boys who try to copy the imposing manners of full-grown men without understanding their raison d’être, also without seeing that intermediate phase of development cannot be skipped.”

.

–  quoted from “Chapter II: Psychology as a Young Science” in Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology by Dr. Wolfgang Köhler

 

There is no playlist for the Common Ground practice.

### “I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.” ~ Rosa Parks ###

 

Uncovering Layers to Reveal Truth (the “missing” Saturday post) March 2, 2021

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Books, Changing Perspectives, Depression, Faith, Healing Stories, Health, Hope, Life, Mysticism, One Hoop, Pain, Peace, Philosophy, Religion, Suffering, Wisdom, Women, Writing, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Many blessings to those observing Lent or the 19-Day Fast!

[This is the post for Saturday, February 27th. You can request an audio recording of Saturday’s practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.]

 

“This can already be seen in the different reception given a new citizen of the world. If the father or someone else asked what ‘it’ was after a successful birth, the answer might be either the satisfied report of a boy, or—with pronounced sympathy for the disappointment— ‘Nothing, a girl,’ or ‘Only a girl.’”

 

– Bertha Pappenheim as quoted in The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Koultun

 

Imagine that, at a very early age, you are exposed to an idea. It doesn’t have to be a big idea, stated and codified in a systematic way. It could just be a statement. It could just be an idea (or a statement) about age, gender, race, ethnicity, religious and/or political beliefs – it could even be an idea about height or weight or hair texture (or length) or skin and/or eye hue. In the moment that you are exposed to the idea, some part of you questions whether it is true and even considers the validity of the idea/statement based on the source. You may not be conscious of this questioning, but it happens – sometimes quickly, in a blink – and then, as you move forward, other things (and people) either confirm the veracity or the idea or invalidate the idea.

Now, imagine that you grow up with this idea and this idea, whether you feel it is directed at you or at people around you, becomes – on a certain level – the lens through which you view yourself and the world. You may not be conscious of this lens. In fact, in most cases, this bias (whether we view it as positive or negative) is unconscious… subterranean. In the Yoga Philosophy, samskaras are mental impressions and they are the foundation or roots of our thoughts, words, and deeds. Neurologically speaking, we can think of them as hard-wired pathways that are such an integral part of us they make habitual responses to certain situations appear instinctual. They are the beginning of the best of us… and also the worst of us.

“The conscious mind may be compared to a fountain playing in the sun and falling back into the great subterranean pool of subconscious from which it rises.”

 

– Sigmund Freud, as quoted in his New York Times obituary (09/24/1939)

We all know that if we want to get to the root of a problem, we have to start at the surface – or start with what we can see – and dig deep. This is obvious, but it’s not easy. It’s not easy because, even knowing this very basic principle about where things begin, we can easily get distracted by fruit flies, rotting trunks, fungi, and beings throwing things at us from the tree limbs because we have worn out our welcome. We can just as easily get caught up in the beauty of the blossoms and the promise of a swing. We can also get defeated by all the work/effort that it takes to get to the bottom of things.

However, being distracted (or defeated) doesn’t change the fact that to get to the bottom of something, we have to literally get to the bottom of something. It also doesn’t change the fact that if we want to grow or build something, that has a chance of withstanding the changing of the times, we have to build from the ground up. Nor does it change the fact the fact that when we run into a problem – as we build a life, a business, and/or a home – we may not have to tear everything down and start over from scratch; but we do have to trace back from the top to the bottom.

This very basic principle is the reason why existential therapists, like Virginia Satir and Irvin Yalom said that the “presenting issue,” “surface problem,” and/or life’s “givens” were not the problem; rather, people’s problems are how they deal or cope with various elements in their lives. This is commonly understood today, but in the 1950’s and 1960’s these still groundbreaking theories. While modern psychotherapists (and even corporate change management specialists) continue to build on the efforts of those aforementioned therapists from the mid-1900’s, the roots of their work can be found in the work of Drs. Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer and in the life and work of Bertha Pappenheim.

She would ultimately become a feminist, education organizer, activist, writer, and translator – whose work and life often appeared in newspapers. She would translate Mary Wollstonecraft’s The Vindication of the Rights of Women; the Western Yiddish memoirs of her own ancestor, Glückel of Hamelnl; the “Women’s Talmud; and other Old Yiddish texts (written for and/or by women) into German. She also founded organizations like Jüdischer Frauenbund (JFB, the Jewish Women’s Association); served as the first president of JFB and a board member of Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (BDF, Federation of German Women’s Associations), when JFB joined the national organization; and also as director of an orphanage for Jewish girls that was run by Israelitischer Frauenverein (Israelite Women’s Association). She even appeared onstage as her ancestor in a play (that she produced) based on her Glückel’s memoirs.  But before she made a name for herself through her efforts to improve the conditions and the world around her – especially the living and working conditions of the women and girls around her, Bertha Pappenheim was known to the psychoanalysis world as “Anna O” or “Only A Girl,” because of the work she did to improve her internal conditions.

 

“Other details of Glückel’s life story doubtless also held great appeal for Pappenheim. As a survivor of mental illness and the inventor of the ‘talking cure,’ Pappenheim may also have been intrigued by Glückel’s disclosure that she started her memoirs as a sort of ‘writing cure’ to ward off ‘melancholy thoughts’ in the sleepless nights after her husband’s death.”

 

– quoted from Let Me Continue to Speak the Truth: Bertha Pappenheim as Author and Activist by Elizabeth Loentz

 

Born in Vienna on February 27, 1859, Bertha Pappenheim was the third daughter born into a wealthy and prestigious Jewish family, with Orthodox roots, and she was born knowing that her family and her community prized sons over daughters, boys over girls. She was raised as was appropriate for her station in life – learning needlepoint and multiple languages and attending a Roman Catholic girls’ school while observing Jewish holidays. At the same time, she had to deal with the understandable emotions that came from knowing that one of her older sisters died in adolescence (before Pappenheim was born) and then experiencing the death of the second sister in adolescence (when Pappenheim was eight). Then there was the normal stress that occurred when her family moved into a primarily improvised neighborhood (when she was eleven); the expected jealousy she felt when her younger brother went to high school (even though she had to leave school at sixteen, despite her curious mind, because of the whole being a girl thing); and then that whole being “just a girl” thing that loomed like a specter over many of her experiences.

Notice, I use words like “understandable,” “normal,” and “expected” to describe Pappenheim’s emotions, but the reality is that her emotions were not recognized, acknowledged, nor honored as valid. In fact, as was common for the time and her station in life, her experiences were largely ignored… until there was a problem. Her “problems” initially presented themselves as physical and mental ailments: “a nervous cough, partial paralysis, severe neuralgia, anorexia, impaired sight and hearing, hydrophobia, frightening hallucinations, an alternation between two distinct states of consciousness, violent outbursts, and the inability to speak German, her native tongue.”

The presenting ailments started when her father became ill, when she was twenty-one, and worsened after her father died. She was diagnosed with “hysteria,” because… well, that was the most common diagnosis given to women at the time regardless of symptoms. As I mentioned on the anniversary of Freud’s birth, Breuer didn’t try to cure or “correct” the patient he would call Anna O. Instead, he started her under a new therapy he was trying out: he hypnotized her and encouraged her to talk in order to reveal the underlying causes of her symptoms. Pappenheim called it her “talking cure” or “chimney sweeping” and reported that it alleviated her symptoms. In theory (Breuer’s theory), it helped her get to the root of her problems.

“Psychoanalysis in the hands of the physician is what confession is in the hands of the Catholic priest. It depends on its user and its use, whether it becomes a beneficial tool or a two-edged sword.”

 

– Bertha Pappenheim (also known as “Anna O”)

 

Breuer’s “theory” became Freud’s “therapy.” But, take a moment to notice that these ideas about how the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious mind interact and manifest in our mind-body can actually be found in ancient texts like Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and even the Ashtavakra Gita – texts on systems and processing “therapies” that predate the births of everyone mentioned above! Patanjali even described obstacles and ailments which match up with Bertha Pappenheim’s symptoms. (Also interesting to note is the fact that modern medical scientists and historians, after reviewing her case, have diagnosed Pappenheim with everything from “complex partial seizures exacerbated by drug dependence” to tuberculosis meningitis to temporal lobe epilepsy.) More important, even, than Pappenheim’s diagnosis is what she was able to achieve once she was able to get to (and address) the root of her problems.

In describing the methods of his therapy in The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud wrote, “The interpretation of dreams is the royal road to knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind.” The entire system of the 8-Limbed Philosophy of Yoga is sometimes called “Rāja Yoga” (literally “king union” or “chief union”), which is understood as royal union. Given her background, Bertha Pappenheim might have equated it with the sefirot (or divine attribute) of Malchut, which is Queenship or Kingship on the Tree of Life and denotes mastery. While the system as a whole is full of tools for introspection, the ultimate tools are the last three limbs (dhāranā, dhyāna, samādhi) which combine to form the most powerful tool: Samyama, which is like a laser beam or a drill that lets you see beneath the surface.

Yoga Sūtra 3.4: trayam-ekatra samyama

 

– “Samyama is [the practice or integration of] the three together.”

Yoga Sūtra 3.5: taj-jayāt prajñālokah

 

– Through the mastery or achievement of Samyama comes higher consciousness or the light of knowledge.

 

Yoga Sūtra 3.6: tasya bhūmişu viniyogah

 

– It is to be applied or practiced in stages.

This week’s sūtras are not only instruction or guidance, but also a warning from Patanjali. In short, no matter how excited or anxious we may get about the powers and abilities that can be achieved through the practice, it is best not to rush the practice or skip steps. Perhaps Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood summarized it best in their commentary when they wrote, “It is no use attempting meditation before we have mastered concentration. It is no use trying to concentrate upon subtle objects until we are able to concentrate on gross ones. Any attempt to take a short cut to knowledge of this kind is exceedingly dangerous.”

The dangers are relatively obvious when we are dealing with certain poses. For instance, we would be ill advised to a Sideways Floor Bow (Pārśva Dhanurāsana) if we have never practiced a regular Floor Bow (Dhanurāsana) – how would we even get into the pose?? And, it would not be very beneficial to attempt Floor Bow if a backbend like Locust (śalabhāsana) is not accessible. While we can easily see that in the physical example, it can be a little harder to see when it comes to concepts and ideas. For instance, when we see something wrong in the world and we can see the root of the problem, we may be in such a rush for other people to see what we see that we skip the steps that allow them to get it. Just as there is great power in the process, there is great power in being able to walk someone through the process.

“It only remains to say that his speech was devoid of all rhetorical imagery, with a marked suppression of the pyrotechnics of stump oratory. It was constructed with a view to the accuracy of statement, simplicity of language, and unity of thought. In some respects like a lawyer’s brief, it was logical, temperate in tone, powerful – irresistibly driving conviction home to men’s reasons and their souls.”

 

– quoted from Herndon’s Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life (Volume 3) by William H. Herndon and Jesse William Weik

On February 27, 1860, the future President Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. The address essentially walked people towards the roots of the problem of slavery and the opposition to ending slavery in the United States. He started with the Declaration of Independence and the “intention” of the Founding Fathers and then elucidated on the differences between Republican and Democratic views at that time. It was one of his longest speeches and one that required a great deal of research. Many historians agree the Cooper Union address solidified Lincoln’s selection as the Republican nominee for President and, possibly, clinched his win. It was even printed in the newspapers and distributed as part of his campaign. (William Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner at the time, stated that while it may not have actually taken campaign workers three weeks to fact check the speech – since most of the facts came from single set of sources – the fact checking was no small endeavor.)

Lincoln’s Cooper Union address has been described as “stunningly effective” and one of the “most convincing political arguments ever made in [New York] City. It did not, however, convince everyone; perhaps, in part, because while he went towards the roots, he didn’t really get to the bottom of the problem. The bottom of the problem being that, while the Founding Fathers recognized the problems and inhumanity of slavery, they compromised on the issue in order to gain the political leverage they needed to unanimously declare independence from Great Britain. Lincoln was also willing to compromise in a similar fashion; however, he was very adamant in his belief that the original compromise was enacted with an understanding that slavery would end on its own (as a natural evolution of the country’s development) and/or that the there were means available for the Federal Government to step in and make the change that was needed for the country to adhere to its founding principles.

“If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that ‘our fathers who framed the Government under which we live’ were of the same opinion – thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes ‘our fathers who framed the Government under which we live,’ used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they ‘understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now.’”

 

– quoted from Abraham Lincoln’s address at Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, February 27. 1860 (during which he repeatedly quotes a statement by Senator Stephen Douglas)

 

Saturday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “05062020 What Dreams May Come”]

 

“This is the testimony of one who was present on that historic occasion: ‘When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, – oh, how tall, and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man. His clothes were black and ill-fitting, badly wrinkled – as if they had been jammed carelessly into a trunk. His bushy head, with the stiff black hair thrown back, was balanced on a long and lean head-stalk, and when he raised his hands in an opening gesture, I noticed that they were very large. He began in a low tone of voice – as if he were used to speaking out-doors, and was afraid of speaking too loud…. But pretty soon he began to get into his subject; he straightened up, made regular and graceful gestures; his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling…. When he reached the climax, the thunders of applause were terrific. It was a great speech. When I came out of the hall, my face was glowing with excitement and my frame all a-quiver, a friend with his eyes aglow, asked me what I thought of Abe Lincoln, the rail-splitter. I said: “He’s the greatest man since St. Paul.” And I think so yet.’”

 

– quoted from Abraham Lincoln and the Downfall American Slavery  by Noah Brooks (published 1888)

 

MAKE SURE YOU’VE SAVED THE DATE! This Friday (March 5th) is the next “First Friday Night Special! Join me (7:15 PM – 8:20 PM, CST) to “give something up” / “let someone go.” Additional details are posted on the “Class Schedules” calendar!

### “The mind is like an iceberg, it floats with one-seventh of its bulk above water.” ~ SF, maybe ###

It’s There (Even When You Can’t See It) June 27, 2020

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Books, Changing Perspectives, Healing Stories, Helen Keller, Hope, Life, Love, One Hoop, Pain, Philosophy, Suffering, Wisdom, Women, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Making contact

I believe

The greatest gift

I can conceive of having

is

to be seen by them,

to be understood

and

touched by them.

The greatest gift

I can give

is

to see, hear, understand

and to touch

another person.

When this is done

I feel

contact has been made.

 

– from the poem “Making Contact” by Virginia Satir

For those of you who missed the memo: I am a huge fan of the work of therapist and author Virginia Satir. Born yesterday (June 26th) in 1916, she is known as the “Mother of Family Therapy” and placed her work in “family reconstruction” and “family sculpting” under the umbrella of “Becoming More Fully Human.” She developed the Virginia Satir Change Process Model, which was adopted by corporations in the 1990’s and 2000s as a change management model, and the Human Validation Process Model. Similar to other existential therapist (although I’m not sure she ever used such a label), Satir found that when people came into therapy the presenting, or “surface,” problem was seldom the real problem. Instead, her work revolved around the idea that the real issue was how they coped with situations in their lives. Additionally, she documented that people’s self-esteem played a part in how they coped with conflict and challenges. So, here again, the issue comes down to functional versus dysfunctional thought patterns and how those thought patterns manifest into words and deeds that alleviate suffering or cause suffering.

When Satir worked with patients she would utilize role playing as well as meditations. The role playing was to get family members to consider each other’s perspectives and, in doing so, cultivate empathy and better understanding. The guided meditations were a way for people to recognize that they already had (inside of themselves) the tools/toolkit – or abilities – needed to overcome challenges and obstacles within their relationships. They also empowered people to use the tools that were inside of them, and to cultivate those tools. However, Satir did not see her work as being limited to “traditional” families; she believed that if her work could heal a family unit, it could also heal the world. They key, again, was offering people that “greatest gift” and figuring out what people really wanted and/or needed.

“It is now clear to me that the family is a microcosm of the world. To understand the world, we can study the family: issues such as power, intimacy, autonomy, trust, and communication skills are vital parts underlying how we live in the world. To change the world is to change the family.”

 

– from The New Peoplemaking by Virginia Satir

Satir was born on the anniversary of the birth of the award winning novelist Pearl S. Buck, who was also known as Sai Zhenzhu. Born in Hillsboro, West Virginia in 1892, Buck spent most of her life in China. Her experiences in China, both as a young child of missionaries and as an adult, resulted in a plethora of novels, short stories, children’s books, and biographies that exposed Western readers to the people, culture, and landscape of China. She won the Nobel Prize in Literature and was the first woman to win the Pulitzer Prize.

Buck was a humanitarian who wrote about everything from women’s rights and immigration to Communism, war and the atomic bomb. Her work was a form of activism, but she didn’t regulate her actions to the page alone. When it came to Asian, mixed-race, special needs, and international adoptions, Buck was more than a writer – she was a parent. In addition to advocating against racial and religious matching in adoptions, Buck adopted six children of various ethnicities and nationalities. (Previously, she had given birth to one special needs daughter. So, she was a mother of seven.) She also co-founded Welcome House, Inc., the first international, inter-racial adoption agency (with author James Michener, lyricist and producer Oscar Hammerstein II, and interior designer and decorator Dorothy Hammerstein); established the Pearl S. Buck Foundation to support children who were not eligible for adoption, and opened Opportunity Center and Orphanage (aka Opportunity House) to advocate for the rights of orphans in South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, and Vietnam. Buck believed that families formed from love (as opposed to blood, race, religion, or nationality) and that they were living expressions of democracy – something she felt the United States could not unequivocally express during the Jim Crow era. In 1991, Welcome House and the foundation merged to form Pearl S. Buck International to continue Buck’s legacy.

“I was indignant, so I started my own damned agency!”

 

– Pearl S. Buck explaining why she started Welcome House in 1949 (after multiple agencies told she could not adopt Robbie, a mixed race 15-month old boy, because his skin was brown)

 

“What lingers from the parent’s individual past, unresolved or incomplete, often becomes part of her or his irrational parenting.”

 

– from Peoplemaking by Virginia Satir

Take another look at the poem at the top of this post. No, don’t read it… just look at it. What do you see? More specifically, who do you see? Granted, your device, your eyes, or even your brain may not see what I see. But, consider what you might see. What if you saw yourself? What if you saw someone you loved? What if you saw someone you didn’t like? Even if you don’t see what I see, the underlying meaning is the same: there is an individual, with open arms, wanting, needing, and waiting to be seen.

“We need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance. We need 12 hugs a day for growth.”

 

– Virginia Satir

 

“We must not allow other people’s limited perceptions to define us.”

 

– from The New Peoplemaking by Virginia Satir

If you want to talk about people who did not let other people’s limited perceptions define them, let’s talk about Helen Keller and the people that surrounded her. Born in Tuscumbia, Alabama, today in 1880, Keller lost both her ability to see and her ability to hear when she was 19 months old. She fell ill with what might have been scarlet fever or meningitis and while she lost two of her senses, Keller was far from dumb. She figured out a way to use signs to communicate with Martha Washington (the Black six-year old daughter of her family’s cook, not to be confused with the 1st lady) and by the age of seven she had developed more than 60 signs – which her family also understood. Furthermore, she could identify people walking near her based on the vibrations and patterns of their steps – she could even identify people by sex and age.

“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us… Happiness is a state of mind, and depends very little on outward circumstances.”

 

– from To Love This Life: Quotations by Helen Keller by Helen Keller (with Forward by Jimmy Carter)

 

Keller’s mother, Kate Adams Keller, learned about Laura Bridgman (who was a deaf and blind adult) from Charles Dickens’ travelogue American Notes for General Circulation. The Kellers were eventually referred to Alexander Graham Bell who, in turn, introduced them to Anne Sullivan (who was also visually impaired, due to a bacterial infection). Keller and Sullivan would form a 49-year relationship that evolved over time. Even when Sullivan got married, Keller (possibly) got engaged, and illness required additional assistance from Polly Thomson, the women worked and lived together. Keller would go on to learn to speak and became a lecturer, as well as an author and activist. Sullivan would be remembered as an extraordinary educator whose devotion and ability to adjust to her student’s needs is memorialized in school names and movies like The Miracle Worker and Monday After the Miracle. Keller (d. 06/01/1968), Sullivan (10/20/1936), and Thomson (03/20/1960) are interred together at the Washington National Cathedral.

“At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him.”

 

– from “How I Became a Socialist” by Helen Keller (published in The New York Call 11/03/1912)

Helen Keller, like Pearl S. Buck, is notable for many reasons, but both women were (and still can be) considered controversial when you think about their family histories and some of their views. Buck was described as “a thorn in the side of the welfare establishment” and her award-winning novel The Good Earth is considered by some to be literary propaganda. Keller’s father, and at least one of her grandfathers, served in the Confederate Army and she was a related to Robert E. Lee. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, a radical socialist, an advocate for people with disabilities, and a supporter of birth control – but/and she also believed in eugenics. Yes, history has shown us some pretty messed up examples of people believing in eugenics, the idea that we could genetically pre-select character traits in order to create a better society. Besides the basic humanitarian issues, one of the problems with eugenics is that at its core there is a lack of faith in humanity.

In referencing the coincidence that she was related to the first teacher of the deaf in Zurich, Keller wrote in her autobiography, “… it is true that there is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his.” There is clarity in knowing, deep inside, that you are connected to both sides of the coin. That clarity comes from going deep inside one’s self. If we pay attention to what’s going on inside of our own hearts we have a compass that steers us right – at least, that is the message of contemplatives.

“After long searches here and there, in temples and in churches, in earths and in heavens, at last you come back, completing the circle from where you started, to your own soul and find that He for whom you have been seeking all over the world, for whom you have been weeping and praying in churches and temples, on whom you were looking as the mystery of all mysteries shrouded in the clouds, is nearest of the near, is your own Self, the reality of your life, body, and soul. That is your own nature. Assert it, manifest it.”

 

– from “ The Real Nature of Man” speech, delivered in London and published in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Volume 2, Jnana-Yoga) by Swami Vivekananda

 

Yoga Sutra 2.26: vivekakhyātiraviplavā hānopāyah

 

– “The clear, unshakeable awareness of discerning knowledge (insight) is the means to nullifying sorrow (created by ignorance).”

Please join me for a little discernment in the form of a 90-minute virtual yoga practice on Zoom today (Saturday, June 27th) at 12:00 PM. You can use the link from the “Class Schedules” calendar if you run into any problems checking into the class. Give yourself extra time to log in if you have not upgraded to Zoom 5.0. You can request an audio recording of this practice via a comment below.

Today’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. (This playlist is dated 06032020.)

 

 

### STILL HUMAN ###