Gandhi: BE the change you want to see in the world. What does this mean? And what are some implications in terms of mental, moral, spiritual health?
I take it to mean that each person, individually, is required to act in ways that embody the principles of health and welfare, not merely for themselves alone, but for the larger good of the "community" as well. Jesus: love they neighbor AS THYSELF. This isn't an either/or proposition, but a joint venture. Loving myself - truly, not the version we commonly see that is founded on self indulgence and greed - is a foundation upon which I can hope to built and enact love of other. We're all included.
These principles are consistent with the principles of mental health that I routinely see in my practice, in my clients, in recovery from addictions and from trauma, for example (which includes basically all of us). The importance of community in the healing process is well known and well established in recovery treatment. Health is not an isolated experience. It occurs in community, in relationship. Social health, the health of society, is inextricably linked to individual health, family health, business health, political health, and cultural health. And vice versa. The notion that I can be healthy and whole, morally, spiritually, mentally, emotionally or even physically, without a direct connection to and with a larger society is a delusion. In Systems Theory, the health of the individual and the health of the larger "system" within which she functions are recognized to be linked. We see this in stark and often difficult terms in therapy when an individual, for example, attempts to become sober from alcohol or drugs within the context of an actively addicted or drug abusing family structure. It doesn't happen. Imagine a young man of, say 20 years, addicted to heroin, sent to "counseling" by the court, let's say. This young man's family has made their living from the sale of drugs for at least a couple of generations, and still does. His father, let's say, died from a heroin over dose. He remains very closely connected with his family. He will not be able to become healthy within this context. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be.
Moral health, spiritual health, and mental health, all require consideration of the dynamics of relationship. And not merely the relationships closest to me: my spouse, my children, my extended family. These of course are of great importance, and at the same time they are not sufficient to circumscribe the measure of health. When people come to therapy (voluntarily), it is always because they are in some distress, and they want relief from the symptoms of this distress. Naturally. They often do not make the connection between what they are seeking, and the nature of their relationships. But of course everything we do is within the context of relationships (this includes one's relationship with oneself), and so trying to understand one's own health/welfare/well being without understanding its connection to ones relationships is absurd.
It is not a big leap, in my view, to begin to understand that ones relationships are limitless. I am related to and with everyone else, ultimately, and so in some genuine way these relationships have to be taken into account. This understanding and this consideration is the intersection of social and personal heath.
http://www.mdavid-lpcc.com
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Accumulation Of Wealth As Mental/Moral Illness
Lately I've been thinking, again, and talking more actively, about the fundamentally diseased nature of our capitalist economic structure (E.F. Schummacher talked about small, localized capitalism as viable, and I tend to think he was right; he was also basing this thought on a fundamentally spiritual/Christian model of values, including justice and service, but any spiritual path worth its salt would, and does, say the same) based at its core on the exploitation of natural resources and of people, and on the active oppression of people for the direct and exclusive benefit of a tiny elite. This has certainly been the history of the United States from its inception, and of the colonization of the New World before its inception. The current "affluent" way of life of many North Americans would be impossible without these activities. What we take for granted is only possible at the expense and misery of enormous populations around the world, endless wars and the incalculable suffering that they entail, and the systematic and clearly unsustainable pillaging of someone else's "property", land and culture. It has never been any different under the similar social and economic models of any previous empire's rule. We have historically supported, and we continue now to support, either overtly or covertly, brutally oppressive puppet regimes. We justify this by declaring that otherwise some "socialist" or "communist" or "people's" or "populist" regime would gain power and threaten the sacred American way of life ( by which we mean the obscene profits of American based multi-national corporate conglomerates). Too bad for those folks who may have democratically elected one of those populist regimes.
My focus recently has been on the "ordinary" accumulators/controllers of wealth: the so called middle class. My hypothesis is that - and I thank Howard Zinn for the inspiration for this line of thought - the middle class relentlessly pursues the same set of values and beliefs that energize the elite, engages in the same self indulgent feelings of entitlement that they do, makes the same kinds of assumptions about wealth and poverty and opportunity and responsibility that they do, and thereby directly supports and actively collaborates with the injustices and atrocities which are consistently perpetrated by the ruling elites. As with any addictive system, denial, delusion, and deception - both self deception and the deception of others - flourish. The usual smoke screens are employed in order to divert attention from the real, and ultimately very personal, issues. It's the politicians' fault. And making any corrections is their job, not mine. My responsibility
is limited to casting my ballots at election time, or to giving charity to those "less fortunate" than I. I see this as no different from the perhaps apocryphal quote attributed to Marie Antionette regarding the poor of France: if they have no bread to eat, then let them eat cake.
In a just economic structure, there would be no need for charity, for the casting of self-redemptive crumbs to the poor. In a healthy economic structure, with mental and moral development recognized, valued and supported, all would live comfortably and well, poverty and oppression would not be necessary and required components of the social system, and, recognizing the direct and unavoidable connection between my excess accumulation of wealth and your misery would engender self imposed, internally generated limits on the level of superfluous luxury that I "enjoy".
I'm not talking about entering into poverty. This is not required. It is clearly possible for you or I to live quite comfortably, to get all our material needs met, to enjoy a graceful and fluid way of being in the material world, without the accumulation of excess. My current, admittedly arbitrary number is a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot see why anyone would need more than this. Ok. Keep your house, if you're among the fortunate who have one, and have another quarter of a million dollars besides. If you disagree with this number, please explain to me how you justify having more. Is it fair to say that 90%, or 95%, or more, of the people on the planet could never dream of having this much "capital" at their disposal? Why should you? Doesn't this make you one of the elite, with all that that implies? By doing do, I suggest, you are selling your soul - and your mental and moral health - to the devil of delusion, self indulgence and complicity. Why not keep enough to live well - a quarter of a million, let's say; and you can even build back up to that level as you spend, or not - and give the rest away? Radical, I know. But given the realities as I've described them, what real choice is at all viable?
I'm not so naive, or stupid, that I think that by doing this an over night miracle would occur in which all economic disgrace and suffering would be eliminated. That's not the most immediate point. More to the point is the personal recognition that one's own current economic/financial circumstances may well be contributing directly to that disgrace and suffering, and that it is within one's power to make a choice for full spectrum health, a concept that includes not only one's personal health, but that recognizes that one's personal health is intimately tied to the health of the planet and that of "the least of these". Otherwise, certainly one has no grounds to stand on from which to complain, and I'd suggest that the possibilities for well being in general are severely compromised, if not made impossible.
In the Buddhist tradition this way of looking at things may be analogous to the distinction that is sometimes made between the Hinayana (or "lesser") path, and the Mahayana (or "greater") path. In the former, one's concern is for one's own enlightenment/liberation/awakening/deliverance alone, where as in the latter, one vows to renounce one's final liberation until all sentient beings are liberated and delivered from suffering (along with the intention/vow to actively contribute to this liberation and deliverance), thus recognizing that one's own happiness and in fact sanity, is ultimately and inextricably tied to everyone else's. In the Jewish tradition there is the teaching of Tikkun Olam, or "repairing the world". Each of us has a responsibility to contribute, in genuine and meaningful ways, to this repair, again, recognizing the full implications of how our own actions, beliefs and assumptions affect all others.
http://www.mdavid-lpcc.com
My focus recently has been on the "ordinary" accumulators/controllers of wealth: the so called middle class. My hypothesis is that - and I thank Howard Zinn for the inspiration for this line of thought - the middle class relentlessly pursues the same set of values and beliefs that energize the elite, engages in the same self indulgent feelings of entitlement that they do, makes the same kinds of assumptions about wealth and poverty and opportunity and responsibility that they do, and thereby directly supports and actively collaborates with the injustices and atrocities which are consistently perpetrated by the ruling elites. As with any addictive system, denial, delusion, and deception - both self deception and the deception of others - flourish. The usual smoke screens are employed in order to divert attention from the real, and ultimately very personal, issues. It's the politicians' fault. And making any corrections is their job, not mine. My responsibility
is limited to casting my ballots at election time, or to giving charity to those "less fortunate" than I. I see this as no different from the perhaps apocryphal quote attributed to Marie Antionette regarding the poor of France: if they have no bread to eat, then let them eat cake.
In a just economic structure, there would be no need for charity, for the casting of self-redemptive crumbs to the poor. In a healthy economic structure, with mental and moral development recognized, valued and supported, all would live comfortably and well, poverty and oppression would not be necessary and required components of the social system, and, recognizing the direct and unavoidable connection between my excess accumulation of wealth and your misery would engender self imposed, internally generated limits on the level of superfluous luxury that I "enjoy".
I'm not talking about entering into poverty. This is not required. It is clearly possible for you or I to live quite comfortably, to get all our material needs met, to enjoy a graceful and fluid way of being in the material world, without the accumulation of excess. My current, admittedly arbitrary number is a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot see why anyone would need more than this. Ok. Keep your house, if you're among the fortunate who have one, and have another quarter of a million dollars besides. If you disagree with this number, please explain to me how you justify having more. Is it fair to say that 90%, or 95%, or more, of the people on the planet could never dream of having this much "capital" at their disposal? Why should you? Doesn't this make you one of the elite, with all that that implies? By doing do, I suggest, you are selling your soul - and your mental and moral health - to the devil of delusion, self indulgence and complicity. Why not keep enough to live well - a quarter of a million, let's say; and you can even build back up to that level as you spend, or not - and give the rest away? Radical, I know. But given the realities as I've described them, what real choice is at all viable?
I'm not so naive, or stupid, that I think that by doing this an over night miracle would occur in which all economic disgrace and suffering would be eliminated. That's not the most immediate point. More to the point is the personal recognition that one's own current economic/financial circumstances may well be contributing directly to that disgrace and suffering, and that it is within one's power to make a choice for full spectrum health, a concept that includes not only one's personal health, but that recognizes that one's personal health is intimately tied to the health of the planet and that of "the least of these". Otherwise, certainly one has no grounds to stand on from which to complain, and I'd suggest that the possibilities for well being in general are severely compromised, if not made impossible.
In the Buddhist tradition this way of looking at things may be analogous to the distinction that is sometimes made between the Hinayana (or "lesser") path, and the Mahayana (or "greater") path. In the former, one's concern is for one's own enlightenment/liberation/awakening/deliverance alone, where as in the latter, one vows to renounce one's final liberation until all sentient beings are liberated and delivered from suffering (along with the intention/vow to actively contribute to this liberation and deliverance), thus recognizing that one's own happiness and in fact sanity, is ultimately and inextricably tied to everyone else's. In the Jewish tradition there is the teaching of Tikkun Olam, or "repairing the world". Each of us has a responsibility to contribute, in genuine and meaningful ways, to this repair, again, recognizing the full implications of how our own actions, beliefs and assumptions affect all others.
http://www.mdavid-lpcc.com
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Sacrifice In Healthy Relationship
I keep being reminded, or is it confirmed in my conviction that, in order for an intimate relationship to be successful and for it to last - you can call this "marriage" if you're so inclined, or "partnership", or whatever other designation seems meaningful to you - the two parties involved will need to come to understand the nature of commitment. And then, having developed a new understanding of commitment, they will need to be motivated to learn how to provide for the "care and feeding" of the relationship as a living, vital, vulnerable organism which has needs and requirements that at times will be different from those of either of the individuals involved in its care. Understanding this concept leads quite naturally to the idea that a sustainable and healthy committed intimate relationship requires sacrifice. For some, perhaps nowadays for many, this will be the kiss of death.
There. I said it. The "S" word. If we think of sacrifice at all, perhaps we think of it in terms of service to country. Of course there's a lot of emotion connected with the sacrifices that members of the armed services make. They are, in our national rhetoric, "heroes". Their sacrifices are matters of public record and laudability. They epitomize the very nature of sacrifice. Then there are the religious figures who make sacrifices in terms of poverty, chastity, celibacy and service to others, and again, we tend to be able to recognize these, and to respect them, or even to be awed by them. While both of these examples clearly represent qualities of sacrifice, they may also seem removed from our every day lives. They may seem remote or extreme.
The sacrifices that I'm referring to in terms of intimate relationships consist of a range of behavioral and emotional responses and interactions that might not automatically occur. They might not automatically occur because we tend to become positional when there is conflict; because we feel strongly the need to be right; because we aren't able to defer our own immediate gratification in the service of the larger picture; because we are all conditioned, and this conditioning very often works counter to healthy relationship rather than in its service.
Example: This couple likes to drink. They have always done so, and often they drink to excess. When this occurs they not uncharacteristically devolve into meanness, saying things that they later recognize as destructive and hurtful, and that they regret. This pattern is long standing, and much damage has been done to the relationship. They are presented with the idea that they cannot continue this pattern and also expect any improvement or repair in the relationship. The idea of a new commitment arises: they are both clear that they will not give up drinking, but they are both willing, for the first time, to articulate a commitment to drinking moderately when they are with each other in social situations, which is where the destructive behaviors occur. An agreement to try this "experiment" for two months is made. The good news is that they both recognize that when they do not drink to excess, they are much better able, routinely, to communicate well, to nurture the relationship, and to experience the benefits of these behaviors. This new agreement can be said to constitute a sacrifice on both of their parts, in that they will need to give up something - excessive drinking - that they like to do, in the service of the health and welfare of the relationship, which is coming to be seen as a higher priority than it has previously been.
mdavid-lpcc.com
There. I said it. The "S" word. If we think of sacrifice at all, perhaps we think of it in terms of service to country. Of course there's a lot of emotion connected with the sacrifices that members of the armed services make. They are, in our national rhetoric, "heroes". Their sacrifices are matters of public record and laudability. They epitomize the very nature of sacrifice. Then there are the religious figures who make sacrifices in terms of poverty, chastity, celibacy and service to others, and again, we tend to be able to recognize these, and to respect them, or even to be awed by them. While both of these examples clearly represent qualities of sacrifice, they may also seem removed from our every day lives. They may seem remote or extreme.
The sacrifices that I'm referring to in terms of intimate relationships consist of a range of behavioral and emotional responses and interactions that might not automatically occur. They might not automatically occur because we tend to become positional when there is conflict; because we feel strongly the need to be right; because we aren't able to defer our own immediate gratification in the service of the larger picture; because we are all conditioned, and this conditioning very often works counter to healthy relationship rather than in its service.
Example: This couple likes to drink. They have always done so, and often they drink to excess. When this occurs they not uncharacteristically devolve into meanness, saying things that they later recognize as destructive and hurtful, and that they regret. This pattern is long standing, and much damage has been done to the relationship. They are presented with the idea that they cannot continue this pattern and also expect any improvement or repair in the relationship. The idea of a new commitment arises: they are both clear that they will not give up drinking, but they are both willing, for the first time, to articulate a commitment to drinking moderately when they are with each other in social situations, which is where the destructive behaviors occur. An agreement to try this "experiment" for two months is made. The good news is that they both recognize that when they do not drink to excess, they are much better able, routinely, to communicate well, to nurture the relationship, and to experience the benefits of these behaviors. This new agreement can be said to constitute a sacrifice on both of their parts, in that they will need to give up something - excessive drinking - that they like to do, in the service of the health and welfare of the relationship, which is coming to be seen as a higher priority than it has previously been.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Occupy Wall Street - The Revolution Is Love
Here's a video that you might want to see. It articulates, in a brief clip, the connections between the social/economic disaster that our culture has permitted, and the psychological/spiritual foundations of a sane society. Have a look.
mdavid-lpcc.com
mdavid-lpcc.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Trauma 101, Part Three
So we have some context. Nothing happens in a vacuum, does it. No one is immune from the effects of his/her culture, even though many people believe that they are. And this applies whether that culture is one's country, one's religion, one's family, one's social network, one's vocation, one's friends, one's economic class.
But let's take these in turn, or the whole thing can become a bit overwhelming. People are used to thinking in terms of family when they think of psychotherapy, and this is for some good reasons, of course. We are born, most immediately, into a family context (defining "family" rather loosely), and it is this immediate and original context that will have some of the most influential effects on us. Some of the most personal effects. Even though the family is a carrier of the culture(s) within which one operates, a microcosm of the macrocosm of larger culture, the relationships between family members is the most intimate and effectual, right from the start. We are fed, cleaned, warmed, protected - or we are not - by some person or persons who constitute our original "family". We are completely dependent, incapable of survival without this connection.
Child rearing practices vary. Relationship dynamics vary. Mother/child and father/child norms vary. Expectations vary. Values vary. Ideas about what constitutes health and propriety and right and wrong vary. A look at some of the historically normal treatments of children in Western culture might suggest that children - like women - have been considered possessions,
liabilities or assets, depending on what work they could or could not be put to, just another mouth to feed, sent out to fend for themselves or to contribute to the family's survival as soon as possible. This sort of thing has multiple and often damaging implications.
We are accustomed to giving great lip service to the value and care of children, but the realities seem to tell the true story of our basic values. We dump our children into industrialized pre and public schools even before they can sit up on their own. We chronically under fund our public educational system and under pay our children's teachers. We squirm at the thought of providing basic, decent housing, health care, food or higher education to our children. Etc., etc., etc. Just look at where the money in our society goes, and where it does not go, and the value system we operate by becomes pretty clear.
All of this has profound implications for families, and thereby for children, and thereby for you and for me. I'm calling the value system that we operate by a system of inherent trauma. A value system that inherently traumatizes. A value system that undermines the fundamental psychological, emotional and spiritual needs of all of us. And we are all effected deeply, and negatively, by this.
mdavid-lpcc.com
But let's take these in turn, or the whole thing can become a bit overwhelming. People are used to thinking in terms of family when they think of psychotherapy, and this is for some good reasons, of course. We are born, most immediately, into a family context (defining "family" rather loosely), and it is this immediate and original context that will have some of the most influential effects on us. Some of the most personal effects. Even though the family is a carrier of the culture(s) within which one operates, a microcosm of the macrocosm of larger culture, the relationships between family members is the most intimate and effectual, right from the start. We are fed, cleaned, warmed, protected - or we are not - by some person or persons who constitute our original "family". We are completely dependent, incapable of survival without this connection.
Child rearing practices vary. Relationship dynamics vary. Mother/child and father/child norms vary. Expectations vary. Values vary. Ideas about what constitutes health and propriety and right and wrong vary. A look at some of the historically normal treatments of children in Western culture might suggest that children - like women - have been considered possessions,
liabilities or assets, depending on what work they could or could not be put to, just another mouth to feed, sent out to fend for themselves or to contribute to the family's survival as soon as possible. This sort of thing has multiple and often damaging implications.
We are accustomed to giving great lip service to the value and care of children, but the realities seem to tell the true story of our basic values. We dump our children into industrialized pre and public schools even before they can sit up on their own. We chronically under fund our public educational system and under pay our children's teachers. We squirm at the thought of providing basic, decent housing, health care, food or higher education to our children. Etc., etc., etc. Just look at where the money in our society goes, and where it does not go, and the value system we operate by becomes pretty clear.
All of this has profound implications for families, and thereby for children, and thereby for you and for me. I'm calling the value system that we operate by a system of inherent trauma. A value system that inherently traumatizes. A value system that undermines the fundamental psychological, emotional and spiritual needs of all of us. And we are all effected deeply, and negatively, by this.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Trauma 101, Part Two
This is by way of pointing to the unidentified, every day traumas that we routinely experience as an integral aspect of the culture in which we live. I was once asked what I thought the most common unidentified trauma in American society was. I didn't have a ready answer, but the questioner suggested that it was medical trauma. You know, those routine and not-so-routine medical and dental procedures that we've all experienced throughout our lives. Those assaults to the body-mind that we're not supposed to be bothered by. (The one that comes immediately to my mind as one of the most disturbing medical traumas that I've experienced in the last few years is a prostate biopsy. When I asked the urologist who would perform the procedure if it would be painful, he said no, it wouldn't be any worse than a rubber band snapped on your wrist. Why then was I unable to sit up on the table when the chipper nurse assistant said "You can get up now"?. My reply was "No, I can't").
Having a tooth pulled or a cavity filled. Any surgery. Pokings and proddings of one kind or another. "Screenings" of various kinds. Of course, there are any number of other, non-medical every day traumas that we live with. I might suggest that even the very pace of life in the modern industrialized/digitized/cyberized world is itself traumatic. Have you ever stopped to think about the effects on your body-mind-spirit of driving your box of metal on the high speed freeways? We simply assume that this is somehow "healthy". But what kinds of psychic, mental, physical, emotional and spiritual adaptations are required in order to be able to do this regularly? And is it possible that at least some of these adaptations can be understood as traumatic? I would say yes.
This doesn't get close to the nature of intimate family relations, for example, which, given our cultural values and priorities, tend strongly, in my opinion, toward being abusive, neglectful, injurious, and, yes, traumatic. Yet we take this all for granted. We assume that our cultural mores are healthy. After all, isn't this the land of the free and the home of the brave? Isn't America (for example; the kinds of things I'm talking about seem to be at least somewhat universal) the best country on the planet? Isn't it the land of opportunity; the destination of the planet's disenfranchised, poverty stricken, sick, rejected and oppressed? And as the entire world has become Americanized, as our culture has become the model of desirability for the rest of the world ("The American way of life MUST be preserved!", we were told by our illustrious Secretary of Defense upon the impending invasion of Iraq), as the levels of industrial and consumer waste and environmental destruction have grown exponentially around the world, as the levels of air, water, and atmospheric pollution have risen to planet-obliterating proportions, are we still willing to assume that our "norms" are healthy?
mdavid-lpcc.com
Having a tooth pulled or a cavity filled. Any surgery. Pokings and proddings of one kind or another. "Screenings" of various kinds. Of course, there are any number of other, non-medical every day traumas that we live with. I might suggest that even the very pace of life in the modern industrialized/digitized/cyberized world is itself traumatic. Have you ever stopped to think about the effects on your body-mind-spirit of driving your box of metal on the high speed freeways? We simply assume that this is somehow "healthy". But what kinds of psychic, mental, physical, emotional and spiritual adaptations are required in order to be able to do this regularly? And is it possible that at least some of these adaptations can be understood as traumatic? I would say yes.
This doesn't get close to the nature of intimate family relations, for example, which, given our cultural values and priorities, tend strongly, in my opinion, toward being abusive, neglectful, injurious, and, yes, traumatic. Yet we take this all for granted. We assume that our cultural mores are healthy. After all, isn't this the land of the free and the home of the brave? Isn't America (for example; the kinds of things I'm talking about seem to be at least somewhat universal) the best country on the planet? Isn't it the land of opportunity; the destination of the planet's disenfranchised, poverty stricken, sick, rejected and oppressed? And as the entire world has become Americanized, as our culture has become the model of desirability for the rest of the world ("The American way of life MUST be preserved!", we were told by our illustrious Secretary of Defense upon the impending invasion of Iraq), as the levels of industrial and consumer waste and environmental destruction have grown exponentially around the world, as the levels of air, water, and atmospheric pollution have risen to planet-obliterating proportions, are we still willing to assume that our "norms" are healthy?
mdavid-lpcc.com
Monday, November 14, 2011
Trauma 101, Part One
Well, it's been a long while since I've posted anything. It now seems like there's something about getting "back to basics" that's important in making a new blog entry. The basic theme that I refer to is that of trauma and its effects, as well as the virtually ubiquitous nature of emotional, physical, and spiritual trauma in our culture. I see it as the elephant in the living room that doesn't get mentioned. Or, perhaps it's more like the unnoticed object which is hidden in plain sight. It's so "normal" that we don't identify it for what it is. Rather, we surround it with priorities, values, expectations and accepted norms so that it disappears from view. If it effects nearly everyone, it goes unnoticed as anything other than what's ordinary. We lose any reference point which would allow it to stand out from the background. The emperor is stark naked indeed, while we all insist that he is wearing the most stunning new set of clothes.
Boys don't cry. Girls are emotional. Families keep their private business to themselves. Spare the rod and spoil the child. Don't be so sensitive. Everything you need to know is in a literal interpretation of the authoritarian version of the Bible. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Patriotism means my country right or wrong, before all else. National geographic boundaries and borders are to be taken very seriously. Police are here to protect us. What's good for business is good for America. Right and wrong are obvious and simple, and something we can all agree upon. Etc.
A friend of mine who is a retired journalist, and with whom I frequently disagree about the importance of following the latest news reports, replied with "that's not considered news" when I pointed out that all we seem to get from the media is negative information, while there of course are other things going on in the world - positive, inspiring things. These other things are "not considered news" by our illustrious media, and are therefore not reported. Just take a moment to consider the implications of this "norm". It isn't difficult to see what a constant barrage of horror, war, violence, greed, corruption, crime, brutality, scandal, and other forms of power grabbing and self indulgence might produce. Did I say "might"? Sorry. I mean to say
"will".
This alone is a form of psychic trauma that we live with every day, simply by keeping up on the news. Do we call it that? Of course not. Do we recognize it for what it is? No. Do we take steps to protect ourselves from it? Mostly, we do not. Culturally we do not. In fact we do the opposite. Like my friend, we believe it is important to continue to abuse ourselves with this important information. We need to "know". We need to be informed. It's our civic duty. And so who in their right mind would suggest that we are being repeatedly traumatized by reading/watching/listening to the important news of the day? Nonsense.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Boys don't cry. Girls are emotional. Families keep their private business to themselves. Spare the rod and spoil the child. Don't be so sensitive. Everything you need to know is in a literal interpretation of the authoritarian version of the Bible. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Patriotism means my country right or wrong, before all else. National geographic boundaries and borders are to be taken very seriously. Police are here to protect us. What's good for business is good for America. Right and wrong are obvious and simple, and something we can all agree upon. Etc.
A friend of mine who is a retired journalist, and with whom I frequently disagree about the importance of following the latest news reports, replied with "that's not considered news" when I pointed out that all we seem to get from the media is negative information, while there of course are other things going on in the world - positive, inspiring things. These other things are "not considered news" by our illustrious media, and are therefore not reported. Just take a moment to consider the implications of this "norm". It isn't difficult to see what a constant barrage of horror, war, violence, greed, corruption, crime, brutality, scandal, and other forms of power grabbing and self indulgence might produce. Did I say "might"? Sorry. I mean to say
"will".
This alone is a form of psychic trauma that we live with every day, simply by keeping up on the news. Do we call it that? Of course not. Do we recognize it for what it is? No. Do we take steps to protect ourselves from it? Mostly, we do not. Culturally we do not. In fact we do the opposite. Like my friend, we believe it is important to continue to abuse ourselves with this important information. We need to "know". We need to be informed. It's our civic duty. And so who in their right mind would suggest that we are being repeatedly traumatized by reading/watching/listening to the important news of the day? Nonsense.
mdavid-lpcc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)