I lost a piece of my history

Freedom from inner limits?

2005-01-16T14:19:00.000-08:00

I do believe, that psychodynamic therapy provided the freudian way is by all means overruled by cognitive therapy.
However, I also mean, that cognitive thinking alone is meaningless if not followed up by the insight that existentialism provided us with. In recognition of histories talking from the past trying to interfere with the present regarding understanding consciousness – it is not enough to talk about the past in psychotherapy while focusing on the present in order to get a more realistic view in recognition of this fact as they present them self for most people. As soon as there is interference in the self-understanding and or of understanding of meaning, a serious problem present it self.
It has always been a problem to measure the quality of therapy, and of course a therapy that is measurable would be preferable, and somehow it is what cognitive therapy present it self with. The results surrounding anxiety and scientific research shows good results. However, in cognitive therapy the therapist is – if not careful and very considered in danger of overlooking the history as contributor to anxiety and because of that depression as a follow up to anxiety. There is no easy way out regarding treatment of mental diseases or lifecrises, it has to do with hard work and a lot of willingness to reconsider life and make the changes it takes to overcome the difficulties that leads to anxiety and depression.

However I came across this page "Do any of these common anxiety symptoms sound familiar?"

Listed on the page is a lot of symptoms, for instant these:

Rapid heartbeat
Headaches
Trouble sleeping
Sweaty palms
Fatigue / low energy
Stress or tension
Light headedness
'Skipped' heartbeats
Chest pain
Acidic stomach
Shyness
Introversion
Nervousness
Insecurity
Fear of rejection
Fear of embarrassment
Dwelling on mistakes
Feelings of isolation
Loneliness
Sensitivity
Constant worry
Fearing the worst
Slight paranoia
"What if" thinking
Depression / sadness
Perfectionism
Self-criticism
Very analytical
Deep thinking
Spaciness

I know for sure, that at least 10 of them I can relate to. Very analytical , deep thinking , what if" thinking", fear of rejection, fear of embarrassment, loneliness, and of course sensitivity – is just a few of the ones I can recognise. I also know for sure that I do not suffer from panic attach, agoraphobia or hypochondria for that matter. Everybody I know has at least ten or more of these "symptoms." And it seems to me, that it has almost become an epidemic in society to suffer from some kind of anxiety. I think that presents us with a serious problem. If everything is to be diagnosed with some kind of disorder- sign in order to avoid life as it is, and anxiety as a bug instead of a feature, anxiety is suddenly something to overcome instead of something that in a natural way points and guide us in the right direction the existential way and lead us toward a better lifestyle the authentic way. For now it seems to me that all the cognitive offers stands alone and is not supplied with rational thinking regarding the question what is life, and what is disease?

So – of course the symptoms sounds familiar. They damn well better do. If not I would really consider my self sick. The problem is, the day the symptoms doesn’t ring a bell we have by all means a situation, where life is to be considered a decease it self. For now, it is a possibility to treated against life itself and that concerns me quite a bit.

The Basic Problems of Phenomenology

2005-01-14T14:16:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Source: The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (1954) Published by Indiana University Press, 1975. Introduction, p 1 - 23 reproduced here.

Karl Jaspers

2005-01-14T14:06:00.000-08:00

According to Jaspers, philosophy was not a matter of any particular conclusions on any particular set of issues, but rather a specific type of thinking about the way the world is and how the world works. An important concept in his works is that of das Umgreifende ("the encompassing"), which he used to refer to the ultimate limits of being, an indefinite horizon in which both subjective and objective experience is made possible, but which we cannot understand rationally.

Contributions to Psychiatry

Bibliography

Major concepts in existentialism

2005-01-12T07:12:00.000-08:00

"Existence precedes and rules essence"

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves. Since Sartrean existentialism does not admit the existence of a god or of any other determining principle, human beings are free to do as they choose.

Challenging patience

2005-01-12T04:46:00.000-08:00

I believe, that all emotions has to be balanced by one another – positive emotions are understood in the present of negative feelings. Otherwise there were would no reason to have them separately in the first place. We only understand the consequence of the negative outburst, because we understand the feeling that surround the positive attitude – not containing the negative and unpleasant outburst.

If it is true, that feelings are reflected in the recipients mind, it is only in a situation when repairing the mind the statement is valid. In a balanced mind, it would come naturally to participate with a drop of for instance anger in order to keep the balance between the feelings when confronted with something unpleasant, that would naturally ask for angry response- one some level.
However, the lack of willingness to respond to someone confronting you comes the lack of understanding. If the response could also have something to do with what Heidegger calls "Bad Faith . If the recipient during the conversation does not respond in a way that are corresponding with the intentional meaning, it doesn’t make sense to respond at all (unless of course the unconsciousness intention is to start a argument) If the responsiveness is measurable and noted by constant and bitter resentment, there are no command ground up on where the mutual conversation can take place in harmony.

It doesn’t make sense for the self –esteem only to be balanced in ones own consciousness. If conversation is between two people, there must be a command ground of understanding, where the faith has to do with two participants and not just one. Otherwise the one participant in bad faith be the one with the loudest voice. Who will willingly be part in a conversation where the one of the participants is constantly trying to push the limits for the
spontaneous expressions within the conversation?

Choice or bad faith?

2005-01-10T13:19:00.000-08:00

"Existentialism is a philosophical movement characterized by an emphasis on individualism, individual freedom, and subjectivity. Existentialism emphasizes the idea that existence precedes essence, i.e., that one must be alive in order to create meaning, and that each person is therefore gifted with individual moments to make choices."

"Bad Faith is noted by constant and bitter resentment. Those in Bad Faith, also known as "Falleness", have come to be such due to their knowledge of Transcendence (to use the Heideggarian term), but their inability to choose it. This bitter resentment is characterized by characters such as The Underground Man (Dostoyevsky) and Jean-Baptist Clemance (Camus)."

Especially the last one made me wonder, whether bad faith has anything to do with the ability to understand and care for responsiveness to spontaneous expressions. If never understood in natural responsiveness, the conversation is by all mean meaningless.

I came across this article - again that is !

2005-01-09T14:57:00.000-08:00

"The true self flourishes only in response to the repeated success of the mother's optimal responsiveness to the infant's spontaneous expressions. If the mother is "not good-enough," she does not facilitate the infant's omnipotence and repeatedly fails to meet the child's spontaneous gestures with appropriate responsiveness. Instead she substitutes her own gestures with which the infant complies; thereby, this repeated compliance becomes the ground for the earliest mode of the false self existence due to the mother's inability to sense and respond optimally to her infant's needs. "

The false Dasein

Published in the Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1997

It’s a bug - not a feature

2005-01-09T14:14:00.000-08:00

I was told the other day, that all feelings are reflected in ones own reaction when confronted with for instant something unpleasant coming from another person. I don’t know whether, I agree. If that is the case, there are no "in between" feelings and the understanding of a possible "in between" There are no transcendent reception of feelings, and we are domed to accept every interaction between people as if we were the only ones when in a conversation and confronted with each other. If it is true, every meeting with another person would be a test of ones integrity and self-esteem in a psychological way.

Another problem as I se it is, that if feelings are reflected in a emotional reaction within receiver, there are no room for thinking feelings free of emotional interaction. And further more feelings are then bound to a pattern of reactions that always points toward oneself when resonding. And has to do with cooping with whatever one meet as a reflection of ones self-esteem. The self-esteem is then the bearer and measurer of how well one response up against that particular feeling that arises in the consciousness when meeting and communicating with another person. The consequence is that every time one is in a situation, that is difficult – emotionally that is, it always has to do with how high the self-esteem is when responding.

By all means it provoked me quite a bit – the statement. That itself is a good marker when wanting to figure out whether it is or is not the case in my understanding of the mind. Could it be, that the self-esteem is measurable and contains a direct correspondent within the feelings surrounding all emotional meetings ?
If I am my own reflection whenever I meet a person that provokes me, it should be possible to stand up to every situation whether it is good or less good. And still be authentic.
That is not the case. It doesn’t take much to figure that one out either.

Still wondering what to think of the matter.

I lost a piece of my history

2005-01-09T02:30:00.000-08:00

I am thinking through my fingers and you may easily find it boring and narcissistic. In that case, you are free to go elsewhere.

I have been searching for something within my mind for many years. The problem was, that I didn’t know, what I was searching for. It was, as if only a force of unhappiness surrounding a conscious feelings in my mind, forced me to look for something else than what was already conscious there. It didn’t have to do with just unhappiness and anxiety, feeling somehow different from other people – or lack of self-esteem – I never doubted my self! It had to do with feeling distend from my self. Not being my self. The problem with that statement is, that one is always one self. I mean: whom else could one be? It had to do with being authentic and not betraying the ability to understand, what I understand. It had to do with understanding my own understanding and in the end understand understanding itself hopefully.
Within the sound of silence I found my answer. The moment I realised, that my own understanding of my self were the ground upon where I should build the answers – the authentic answer that is – in a part of my understanding, that I didn’t betray by being not- authentic. Thinking features – being curious and discovering and recognising my own features, were the answer.

Investigation of struggle for authenticy, despite Heidegger's apathy toward psychoanalysis

From Heidegger to Sartre and Psychoanalysis.

Anxiety, it's a feature, not a bug.

2005-01-02T05:16:00.000-08:00

Heidegger speaks about anxiety as life’s way of calling itself back to itself. From a existentialistic point of view it leaves the human kind with great responsibility for it’s own existence – of what Sartre would speak. However being able to do something about the anxiety that is not healthy, one is also left with some options regarding the ability to form and create a life that rules out anxiety as a decease. And no ! I am not trying to tell people that it has to do with choosing a lifestyle where anxiety is a question of "pulling one self together" It is not that easy. In order to understand one has to understand the mechanism that rules beside anxiety and constantly is trying to overcome the more authentic life. It has to do with balance and understanding of the mechanism that is constantly pushing the limits for ones self-esteem. It takes a lot of consciousness doing that. And it has to be done repeatedly.

We "hover" in anxiety. More precisely, anxiety leaves us hanging because it induces the slipping away of beings as a whole. This implies that we ourselves — we who are in being — in the midst of beings slip away from ourselves. At bottom therefore it is not as though "you" or "I" feel ill at ease; rather it is this way for some ‘‘one.’’ In the altogether unsettling experience of this hovering where there is nothing to hold onto, pure Dasein is all that is still there. Martin Heidegger

The feeling of emptiness or nothing that surrounds anxiety makes us "hover". However something comes before the "hover" and something is trying to prevent the self-esteem from falling apart and into anxiety. If it wasn’t so there would be no reason for anxiety to be present at all.
Only by being authentic it is possible to escape from the disease anxiety and "being a whole" is being authentic. But what is being authentic then?
Not being authentic is betraying something – However it is not possible to claim that not being authentic is not being oneself. More accurate it would be to say: It is betraying a part of oneself that removes one from the authentic into a less authentic state of mind.

Status anxeity

2005-01-02T04:31:00.000-08:00

I do believe that it is completely possible to be without anxiety as a sickness.

In the sense that all people need anxiety in order to survive – everyone needs anxiety as a part of the human state of alert to warn in case something is wrong - However anxiety as the sickness of the mind not corresponding with reality as it shows it self is not a necessary in order to survive. The last few years it has become a command understanding that anxiety is related to fear, and because of that it is treated as fear. Somewhere along the way the philosophical understanding of anxiety was lost. It developed from consensual and mutual historical understanding of a phenomena that no one thought they could understand without asking the philosophers, into a biochemical phenomena related to cognitive understanding of the mind. The consequence sadly remains.

Trying to understand anxeity;

"The nothing reveals itself in anxiety — but not as a being. Just as little is it given as an object. Anxiety is no kind of grasping of the nothing. All the same, the nothing reveals itself in and through anxiety, although, to repeat, not in such a way that the nothing becomes manifest in our malaise quite apart from beings as a whole. Rather we said that in anxiety the nothing is encountered at one with beings as a whole. "

Martin Heidegger

A point of view

2005-01-02T01:32:00.000-08:00

Heidegger and anxiety

Fear and anxiety are differentiated by that in the face of which and that about which fear fears and anxiety is anxious – it makes sense!

To be studied in "What Is Metaphysics?"

The question awakens expectations of a discussion about metaphysics.

The description of moods in Sein und Zeit/ Being and time by Martin Heidegger

Knowing what to do

2005-01-01T15:23:00.000-08:00

The greatest task in life is to figure out what to do and how to do it. Once you figure that out, there is nothing more to do except figuring out what to do next and how to do that, knowing that things have a way of repeating themselves without you noticing it.

Being conscious is knowing what not to expect and when to expect it – without knowing what to do and still knowing when to do it - and then balance the silence in between.

Understanding understanding

2004-12-28T15:03:00.000-08:00

Do you understand me?

By saying so one reveals that there is something beyond what is spoken out. It has to do with understanding what is or - what is not understood during the conversation. When asking a question like that the intention is to find out whether the other part has caught the intended meaning of the words. Without asking the recipient is left alone in the process figuring out whether she caches the tune and respond in a way that keeps the conversation on track regarding the subject. During a conversation the participants are left with equal responsibility trying to understand what the recipient may or may not understand regarding the understanding of the consciousness and the way it understands one self. It is absolutely no problem to say: I do understand what you say. However most people have been in the position where words have been spoken and things have been said with the innermost sincerity and yet the mutual understanding is not present. I wonder if the problem lies with the recipient and has to do with receptiveness?

If it is a command responsibility as I am sure Lögstrup would suggest, I wonder which ability it takes to ensure mutual understanding in order to avoid the question: Do you understand me?

What is that something in between the words?

Trying to die

2004-12-23T15:14:00.000-08:00

A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die.
(Franz Kafka)

It seems to me, that some people are trying to die all their life. Deliberately that is.

It seems to me that some people never fully understands what lies before them regarding possibilities in life. It seems to me, that it is possible dying without ever waking up and discover anything but the present. It is as if their hole life is a struggle just being without conscious understanding of what is possible if they were aware of their own consciousness and what lies within having one.

Sometimes I stand beside people thinking, why do you do that? It is obvious that doing it different would bring you much more pleasure.
I wonder how many people there are beside me thinking the exact same thing?
I wonder if the difference lies in how much self consciousness one possesses and if it is possible to push the limit towards greater self-esteem?

Having said so, I must add: I do not think that one can be forced in a direction that makes the therapy more effective or faster. It has to be voluntarily. The moment a therapist chooses to be the bearer of answers the patient is without silence and therefore not in touch with the feelings that lies around the problem and therefor the solution.

Being conscious of consciousness

2004-12-20T08:57:00.000-08:00

This chronicle concerns my thoughts regarding human consciousness, I am thinking through my fingers and you may easily find it boring and narcissistic. I case you do you are free to go elsewhere.

No matter what I think it always involves another feeling as if it wants to tell me where to go next. I newer think without considering what is going to come up an how I am going to place that particular feeling beside the present feeling. It is a network of feelings communicating with one another while organising the next thought and preparing the one after.

Being in therapy for a very long time combined whit a philosophical mind has brought me some answers regarding how the feeling of the mind is structured. These answers are my answers.

If we in time could structure thoughts about feelings in a way so that more people could have the pleasure of being well without having to consider on every day basis whether they are going to be sane or not. It would have an enormous impact on the curing of mental diseases.
Of course there are a lot of thinking to do in the area of what belongs to the chemical part of the brain and what does not. But one thing we already know is, even though there are some things we cannot change regarding the physics of the mind, we can chance the way we think and respond to the thoughts that are expressed in and through our language.

Another thing on my mind is how one could meet people without having to consider whether the structure of the feelings has to do whit a subjective understanding of the consciousness or a less subjective understanding of consciousness.
It seems to me that most people consider consciousness being a question of what one chooses to believe in opposition to what all people believe– the ground upon where people think, believe and feel the same has been transformed into an existential question of having a choice to think whatever one wants rather than finding the common ground on where we think and believe the same about the things we think and believe. If we did the last thing many questions could be answered and many problems solved and more people could be in a position where the daily thoughts regarding saneness could eliminated along whit the search for so called normality.

For many years I have been in therapy. Most people I know have some kind of therapeutic experience and a lot of them conclude that therapy is individual an experience and contains completely individual answers that cannot find its equal on command ground any where. For me that points toward narcissistic thinking rather than the possibility that the consciousness is structured in a way that properly exposed and understood individual interpret could point toward a common understanding of a possible universal structure. It seems to me that the privacy of the mind has taken over regarding therapy and the possibility of people being constructed the same way whit regards to the problems concerning a depression is not an option in most peoples mind.

When it comes to the consciousness and the feelings surrounding the mind, it strikes me that especially one philosopher has suggested the possible ground on where we could understand the mind whit out having to consider whether it has to be interpreted individual or not. Heidegger provides us as the only philosopher with an understanding of the mind that points towards an ontological understanding rather than individual understanding. He does this without turning it in to psychology or psychiatry for that matter.
Take anxiety, it you interpret anxiety most people will (the people I have meet and talked whit in Heidegger terms) se the perspective in understanding anxiety the way he does as a feeling that calls people back to life in stead of understanding anxiety as an incurable decease that clams for only medicine or medicine combined whit cognitive therapy – and only that.
Understanding anxiety the way he does opens up the possibility that anxiety and the sickness surrounding it is to be understood not only as a decease but also as the consciousness offering a way of repairing it self. The difference between understanding anxiety as a decease or understanding it as the mind calling it self to understanding life and consciousness is enormous.

In my own therapy I have been given the opportunity to understand anxiety as a way of understanding life and consciousness. And not because the therapist knew about these things and aware of the consequence pointed me in that direction. I once asked him whether he knew anything about this particular way of thinking anxiety, he didn’t! What he did understand was the silence that made it possible for me to do my own thinking without disturbing my consciousness whit his own thoughts. After knowing me for almost twelve years and never once talk about his own feelings I one day came out knowing that the silence made it possible for me to have a life whit out having to be concerned about my mental position in life. I doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that everyone could go to him and be understood in silence but it has lead me to the conclusion that it is possible to make people understand their own consciousness and the way it probably works for all of us.
One could now accuse me of trying to make general conclusions that only can be related to me and my way of thinking consciousness. If so concluded please take the time and ask yourself why that should be the case? I am to be honest tired of the argument: every case of therapy has its own ontology and it´s own truth. That is not the case rather than the fact that most people likes to be understood as individuals rather than one amongst many regarding consciousness and therapy. A completely different thing is whether it is possible to transfer my experience into an universal understanding of for instance anxiety. That I am willing to discuss but trying to discuss whether the mind understands it self on command ground or not - given the right opportunity in life is ridiculous and waste of time.

"Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects. What incongruous state of affairs reveals itself here? With this reflection on our contemporary existence as one determined by science we find ourselves enmeshed in a controversy. In the course of this controversy a question has already evolved. It only requires explicit formulation: How is it with the nothing? "

By Martin Heidegger

My consciousness

2004-12-20T04:04:00.000-08:00

his chronicle concerns my thoughts regarding human consciousness, I am thinking through my fingers and you may easily find it boring and narcissistic. In that case you do you are fr
It is obvious that anyone could listen to me and resume normal day life after listening to a story coming from my mouth. What is not obvious is the fact that sometimes I think so fast that it is far away from rationally thinking when it comes to normal people and the way they think. Because of that I sometimes find people around me i a position where they dont understand, what I am thinking and sometimes talking about.
Perhaps I am intelligent and perhaps it is a possibility that that particular thought comes into peoples mind after a meeting whit me? Most of the time I end up being amazed of how people look at me. It is not uncommon that I end up concluding, that people don’t understand what I understand. They don’t know what it means to understand the things I understand and they certainly don’t realise how high the price is. I am not talking about understanding normal things like how things works when you put them together, how to behave at social events, how to be well educated, get a diploma and things like that. It is not the things I know, it is the way I know the things I know. It is not the things I know that bothers me, it is the things I understand that sometimes bothers and concerns me.
I can go to a session of existential analysis and analyse my self even before I arrive, I come with practically all the answers my self and don´t even consider if my conclusions are right or wrong. Every conclusion I make on the spot that do not communicate in a deep level whit what the analyser may or may not think is not at all taken into consideration. And unless I can feel an empathic mode in the room where we are I dont talk about anything important regarding my self. The silence must be there as well and respect must be the number one factor before I open up my mind. Getting access to my consciousness on the level where I trust people is very difficult and only two people have succeeding doing it. The ting they have in common is the ability of complete silence when asking. There is as fare as I am concerned no agenda except the one of being present. I have never discovered anything but the moment with both of them. There are no time beyond the one present, and there are no moment beyond the place where they listen to my mind. There are only neutral feelings field whit words concerning my consciousness and the way I think. Thinking is for me synonymous whit feeling and because of that I need the silence when asked. On a rational level I am amazed that they don’t slip from time to time and bring them self into the conversation when asking, but they don’t. That makes the ground safe on where the access to my consciousness is very wide and safe. It doesn’t mean that I doesn’t listen to them because I do, but not at the same moment where they listen to me. It is not a possibility if you wants my attention on that level. Because of that I am apple to stay sane whit out having to consider whether I will stay sane or not.
I have lived in a way and long enough in a peace of my own history to understand the danger in having to consider whether it is dangerous or not to have a mind that understands complex thoughts and the depth of the consciousness. I understand the consequence of having to consider every day if it were the last. I know how to balance between knowing things and feeling things so they become synonymous whit out being dangerous . And I understand what it takes to be concerned of these mechanisms when you have to balance them in order to stay sane. It is not a question of being right or wrong regarding the human consciousness and behaviour, and it is not a question of knowing one self. It goes beyond that, it has to do whit being present with out understanding anything beyond what is right here right now regarding the mechanisms of the consciousness . The moment the present becomes the past one is forced to understand with an awareness that does not consider what is going to come up at the next moment. In order to do that one have to sense and understand the understanding of sensing while being aware of the influence the past has on you. In order to stop the influence from the past in being the prime contributor to your present thoughts one need to balance the gab between now and then while knowing that the consciousness is able to and cable of remembering and disturbing you while understanding the thing you understand about yourself in a present mode.

Being conscious about therapy
13 years of therapy gives you plenty of time to consider what makes the difference.
I could have chosen another therapist along the way at any time. I often asked my self why didn’t I? The answer is: the silence. The silence that surrounded me at all time made the difference. I never once took into consideration finding another therapist. I wasn’t necessary. From time to time someone complimented him. But all the time he held the strongest part of the rope and I never felt unsafe. There were years where the contact where limited – I didn’t need the silence but even then I was always conscious about him being there somewhere in my life.
What was inside the silence? For obvious reasons I can’t answer what he was thinking. And frankly I don’t want to know. It must be his privilege to think whatever he want’s
I never doubted whether I was on the right track or not. He has a way of saying things without saying them.
From my point of view the silence was the bearer of the innermost respect for my mind.
I was trying to get out from somewhere my I could make sense to me. Thinking back I remember some of the many words my lips formed while being sure, that I was one the right track.
And I was on the right track but at the same time also at the wrong. On the right because all the thoughts needed to come out - when they did. Looking back those thoughts contained words and thoughts coming from a part of my consciousness that had nothing to do with the actual healing.