Bamboozled, hornswoggled and hoodwinked?

I would argue with Peck that most of the personality disordered people that I meet swing back and forth between the "toomuch " and "too little" poles, if you will pardon the use of the phrases, FZ Often there is a fear of the too much (overwhelm if you will) that swings to the too little (disavowal) in defense simply because you can't deal with all the anxiety. anyway, that's the PD gospel according to Lonegael Inability to regulate the pain rather than tolerate it.

I would also point out that there seems to be a problem in today's society when it comes to diferentiating healthy shame from toxic shame. Shame is like guilt. It is built into us to make sure that we live up to the image of wh we feel we should be and who the society around us demand we should be. Afterall, we are soical beings. The problem is that it seems that all forms of shame have become toxic to an extent. there are very few ways to fix, handle or cope with issues where earlier, II would have clasified the feelings attached to them as guilt. Now, I would have to call them shame, because they are being handled as attacks to the being of the person themselves as opposed to the actions of the person.

It is very hard for people to ask for forgiveness often in a convincing manner. It is amost as if forgiveness is a concept that people don't feel is possible anymore. If a politician asks forgiveness for a mistep, how often is he or she forgiven? Criticism is leveled in a meeting or even on the boards here, how often is it met with an aopology or even a decent explanation? And here it is more often done so than on other boards! Guilt, an emotion for when someone has violated his own code for how one should act, has been replaced by toxic shame, a feeling for when one feels one isn't how one should BE, and criticism has become an attack against BEING, not action.

You can't be forgiven for how you ARE, only for what you do. That's what makes toxic shame so destructive. The only way to make it better is to get rid of the existance. Shame about behavior can be changed. You don't want others to see you acting like a selfish pig, then don't act like one. Healthy shame and guilt together help us live together in society. Toxic guilt can tear a society into pieces.

Don Miguel Ruiz in his book, The Four Agreements, talks about not taking anything personally:

Whatever happens around you, don’t take it personally… Nothing other people do is because of you. It is because of themselves. All people live in their own dream, in their own mind; they are in a completely different world from the one we live in. When we take something personally, we make the assumption that they know what is in our world, and we try to impose our world on their world.

Even when a situation seems so personal, even if others insult you directly, it has nothing to do with you. What they say, what they do, and the opinions they give are according to the agreements they have in their own minds…Taking things personally makes you easy prey for these predators, the black magicians. They can hook you easily with one little opinion and feed you whatever poison they want, and because you take it personally, you eat it up….

But if you do not take it personally, you are immune in the middle of hell. Immunity in the middle of hell is the gift of this agreement. http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...ng-personally/

For years I frequently was told I take things too personally. Despite talking about taking things too personally in therapy, I still get worked up when someone tells me, "You are slow and do terrible work." My reaction has been attributed to defensiveness:

Defensiveness is often a reflection of insecurity in individuals. It tends to distort questions into accusations and responses into justifications. [1] There is a little wonder that effective communication often ends when the speaker or listener becomes defensive. In response to defensiveness, "attack or avoidance" replaces "fight or flight," in a self-perpetuating cycle of events, leading to more threats and accusations, and more defensive behaviors and counterattacks.

The reference here is not to physical threats to safety. It is the threat of challenge, the fear of losing the ability to control, predict, or know ourselves. Ego and prestige are threatened. Our self-image may include the perception that we are honest, ethical, reliable, trustworthy, truthful, responsible, intelligent, congenial, generous, etc. A significant threat to a self-image leaves us with basically two alternatives--accept or ignore the threat, or protect the self-image by defensive behaviors.

Defensiveness makes us feel uncomfortable, hostile, and/or guilty. It causes obvious emotional and physical tension. It can make us perspire and speak in a rapid, higher pitched voice. We are likely to become angry, aggressive, or withdrawn. If defensiveness is excessive, the outcome is predictably bad. Not only does the communication process end, but interpersonal relationships are injured, feelings are hurt, and the underlying cause of the conflict remains unresolved.

We attempt to construct an image of ourselves that is often unreal. It is an exaggeration, or a type of distortion of the truth. We do everything to protect that image, consciously and subconsciously. This tendency to protect our self-image is not always undesirable, especially when threats have a malicious or cruel intent. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...16/ai_9009902/

So, how did I become inappropriately defensive? Ruiz suggests a genesis:

The first chapter of The Four Agreements describes a process that Ruiz calls domestication. Domestication refers to what psychologists usually call socialization, the process by which uncivilized children become fit to live in society. I rather prefer Ruiz's term because it implicitly compares adults to domesticated animals who no longer live by their wild instincts but have become dependent on the care of human masters. Tame and docile, domesticated animals are, in a sense, slaves. In a similar way, children are brainwashed and indoctrinated into the belief systems of adults and therefore become slaves to those beliefs. Furthermore, most of those beliefs are false. This is precisely the image portrayed by Plato with his allegory of the cave. In the cave, shackled prisoners watch shadows of puppets and mistakenly believe that these shadows of artificial objects constitute reality. Similarly, parents tell their children what to believe about themselves and the world, and most of these beliefs have no more reality than shadows.

Psychologist Eric Berne referred to the lessons that children are taught as life scripts. The script tells you what kind of character you are (good, bad, smart, stupid, graceful, clumsy, etc.) and how you are supposed to act. Whether positive or negative, most of the messages we send to our children about what kind of people they are fall short of the complex reality of what children are really like. Not knowing any better, children believe the lies they hear about themselves. Furthermore, they quickly realize that if they do not follow their parents' scripts, they will be punished. Therefore, they deny any real feelings they might have in order to receive approval and love from their parents and to avoid rejection and punishment. What Berne referred to as the internal Parent within us (and Freud called the superego), Ruiz calls The Judge. The Judge is that critical voice within us that reminds us when we behave in socially unacceptable or inadequate ways. The target of The Judge is what Ruiz calls The Victim. The victim is that portion of us that feels hurt and helpless and incompetent. People create their own suffering by continuously taking to heart the criticisms of others and of their own internal Judge.

An important, central point of the first chapter is that our emotional suffering is largely self-inflicted because we implicitly agree to accept the beliefs of others. If someone tells us that we are stupid or ugly and with agree with that person's belief, we feel bad. This process corresponds to the ABC model of rational-emotive therapist Albert Ellis. Ellis points out that it is not events in the world that make us feel bad, it is our beliefs about the event, what we tell ourselves about these events, that creates our bad feelings. The sequence follows the pattern below:

A (activating event) -> B (belief about the event) -> C (emotional consequence of belief) http://www.helium.com/items/1704669-...ychology/print

It seems being brainwashed and indoctrinated into the belief systems of adults as children and becoming slaves to those beliefs is not a mitigating circumstance: "... our emotional suffering is largely self-inflicted because we implicitly agree to accept the beliefs of others."

Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., offers another view:

Moreover, whether or not we might feel at choice (as do--most of the time, at least--the overwhelming majority of us), what we choose, and how and why we choose it, is still governed by (1) our DNA, (2) our nine months in utero, and (3) all the situations and events we've subsequently been exposed to (or, you could say, "chose"--but then only as an inevitable result of our inborn propensities, and experiences that go all the way back to the womb.

Or, to reduce this equation to its fundamental elements, all behaviors can be perceived as an outcome of some combination of nature and nurture. And, from the very beginning, the former impacts on--or "shapes"--the latter (i.e., nurture works through nature). So whether what controls behavior comes mostly from within or without, individual volition--as discrete from what's been biologically inherited or environmentally conditioned--is something that humans (alas) have been taking on faith all along.

At any given moment, then, your behavior isn't really freely chosen so much as "arbitrated" by forces existing outside your conscious will. And, as I've already suggested, your will itself can be logically understood as a product of your genes, in utero circumstances, and early programming.That said, if ultimately you live in a deterministic universe where even your behaviors are decided by dynamics having nothing to do with free will (at least as conventionally defined), are you "at liberty" to change your behavior? I believe that the curiously affirmative answer to this seminal question is--and has to be--steeped in paradox. For yes, you're free to change the way you think and act--but only in ways that are controlled, constrained, or circumscribed, by some mixture of non-chosen characteristics of mind formulated earlier by both chemistry and conditioning. It could even be said that the less rigid the structures of your mind, or the less firmly entrenched your dysfunctional inner programming, the more likely major personal change will be possible for you . . . and, unfortunately, vice versa. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...blame-part-2-3

In addition to what Dr. Seltzer says, the shame of viewing myself as defective and unworthy in times of distress is another complication. Even so, I will not abnegate my responsibility for my wellness. I simply must accept the challenge and work harder at it.

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/mindfu...are-not-facts/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...grudges-gossip
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...020815,00.html

As children.

As adults, though, we usually have access to a wider selection of influences, other people, other constraints that are different than our original ones. As is shown by people here on PC: we don't have to stay the same. As we become aware of the automatic reactions we have developed in childhood, and learn how to mitigate the fears that accompany them, we are less constrained by fear and more able to choose on the basis of thinking things out, rather than reacting according to the same old patterns.

I think the term "world view" is important here, as it is the current watch-phrase of our times, but quite relevant to such inquiry.

With regards to the OP, I suggest that it is/was our world view that taught us to rely upon doctors as having a higher understanding of things, and thus required us to follow for our own benefit. It allowed us to learn to trust, and grow up with a sense of safety.

I think it's still important to remember that though we each do at some point (I hope) realize that "our" truth is not necessarily "the" truth. I trust in an absolute truth, and this "world view" changed when I became a believer in a higher power. But for each of us, as adults, well, we would be in trouble if we kept our childish world view instead of developing and recognizing an adult world view--whether that includes a power beyond ourselves or not.

I never liked the term or the idea of "your" truth vs "my" truth vs an absolute truth.To me, the absolute truth encompasses all other (reality-based) truths! There is but one absolute truth and the closer we bring our world view to it, the more adjusted we are, imo. Again, it's the definitions I disagree with mostly perhaps, semantics always in my mind. (For truly reality-just-is...and one's truth cannot truly contradict another's truth, not if both are true.)

Ah hopefully I've spoken like a true philosopher

Hello, (JD). My worldview is a personal one influenced by my genetics, experiences and perspective. It is constantly evolving. I make no claim that my worldview is free of distortions or is in any manner more insightful.

I rely on doctors and other professionals to have more knowledge and competence in their chosen fields than I do. Professionals, however, are not immune from fallibility just like the rest of us.

I also recognize my worldview may not encapsulate the whole truth, in an objective sense. There are things that are true even if I at this time do not believe them to be. Our perceptions are subjective and subject to change as better information becomes available.

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Who decides what is an absolute truth? By what criteria is a perceived truth made objectively absolute? These are troubling questions for me. Philosophers have debated the concept for centuries. The answer is beyond my capabilities.

Now why is that? Does the universe have to adhere to certain rules?

The Byzantine - thanks so much for quoting from Don Miguel Ruiz. I have struggled with that very issue - feelings being hurt, being on the defensive, etc. I see myself moving away from that kind of reaction slowly but surely and your post sheds even more light on the situation. Muchisimas gracias

Byz, your comment about no square circles and no round squares sparked something for me that I'd like to try running by you.


First of all, you seem to be basing your conclusion in one very special frame of reference: what is and isn't possible in a plane. If you were to start with a cube, stick the point of a compass into one of the corners, and draw an arc across each of the three nearest faces of the cube, you'd end up with an odd sort of three-dimensional curve that was always at the same distance from a point, the way a circle is, but also had 90-degree corners (three of them) the way a square does.

You could also draw on the surface of a sphere a figure that had four equal sides and four equal angles. If you made your lines run precisely north-south and precisely east-west, you could say they were perfectly straight. Because you were drawing on a sphere, though, each of the sides would also be 3-dimensional -- curved -- and together they'd form a "round square".

Each line in this second example could actually be described as the intersection of the sphere with a plane. Whether we called our lines "straight" or "curved" would depend on the frame of reference that we were using at the moment. Considered in terms of the sphere, they'd be straight (meridians or parallels, for example); considered in terms of the intersecting plane, they'd be curved (arcs of circles). As your frame of reference changes, so do the rules and so does what is and isn't true.


If I haven't lost you yet, I'd like you to consider another frame of reference, about as different as could be from those geometrical ones. This will be the frame of reference where, at any given moment, you either are or are not thinking of... a jelly donut. How many times a day do you think of jelly donuts? I don't like them that much myself, and often go for months without thinking of one. Chances are pretty good that you weren't thinking of a jelly donut a minute ago. The other day, though, I came across this passage in a chapter by Steven Hayes, part of the book Mindfulness and Acceptance:

"Suppose I tell you right now, 'I don't want you to think about... warm jelly donuts! You know how they smell when they first come out of the oven... the taste of the jelly when you bite into the donut as the jelly squishes out the opposite side into your lap through the wax paper... the white flaky frosting on the top of the soft, rounded shape? Now it's very important, DON'T THINK ABOUT ANY OF THIS!' What just happened?"

In this frame of reference where you either are or are not thinking of jelly donuts, I submit that it would be absolutely true that you're either thinking of a jelly donut or you aren't. You can't think of a jelly donut and not think of a jelly donut at the same time. You can't neither think of a jelly donut nor not think of a jelly donut. If you're only thinking a little bit about a jelly donut -- you're thinking about a jelly donut. If you notice yourself apparently thinking about a jelly donut, sort of, but you might just be imagining it -- you're thinking about a jelly donut. If you're thinking of a jelly donut but you're terribly embarrassed about it and really, really wish you weren't -- you're thinking about a jelly donut. If you hypothesize that you might still somehow be thinking unconsciously about a jelly donut, only you're not aware of it -- you're not thinking about a jelly donut. In this particular frame of reference, the absolute truth is: either you are, or you aren't.

When you ask who decides what is or isn't an absolute truth, then puzzle over the criteria to be used in determining it, you're choosing to operate in a frame of reference where such questions (a.) make sense and (b.) are impossible to answer satisfactorily. In a different frame of reference -- who decides if you're thinking of a jelly donut or not?

My thesis, ladies and gentlemen, is that we get to choose from moment to moment what frame of reference we're going to use, what we're going to use to establish absolute truth (or the frustrating lack thereof) -- so we might as well choose the frame of reference that suits us best. If we should ever find ourselves seemingly trapped in some frame of reference that isn't working for us -- let's take a good close look at what's keeping us there!

Fool zero, you coud in fact, be talking about a mistake in translation which could lead you to talk about being a jelly donut when infact you were not even thinking about the donut in question, as happened to a famous president of ours in Berlin. That aside.

I believe that there is a universal truth or truths. I don't think that there are as many of them as people assume, and I will readily admit that I am not absolutely sure that my understanding of them is correct, but I believe in them. Otherwise I would not be what I am, I would not do what I do, and I would not be willing to risk what I have to follow them. Among them is not that I have to bang them into other people's heads until one or the other breaks into splinters:-)

Wasn't this the discussion Pilate tried to start with Christ at the trial? I don't think it got very far HUggs all!

When I was in the seventh grade, my teacher while standing next to a globe asked me how far I could go north. I asked the teacher if true north is a straight line. Her answer was "yes." I said I could go north for as long as I had the energy. My teacher smiled and told me I had failed to take into account the curvature of the Earth. I reminded the teacher of my question and stated straight is not curved. We argued a bit before my teacher silenced me. I had to stay after school for being arrogant and disrespectful to the teacher.

When I got home from school, my mother already knew why I was late. She told me I knew better, should not give teachers such a hard time and it better not happen again. So much for my perception of truth.

Thank you for your comments, Fool Zero and Lonegael. The reasoning behind my "north" has some similarity with your formulation of a "round square," Fool Zero. While I accept there are objective truths even if I do not believe them to be so, I am ambivalent about the concept of absolute truth.

Truth -- Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for its belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, a person believes that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe, but that this belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he might be justified in subsequently holding that he knew the bridge had been safe enough for his passage, at least at that particular time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Truth can have a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities.[1] It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common archaic usage it also meant constancy or sincerity in action or character.[1] The direct opposite of truth is "falsehood", which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings.

However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Since truths are used in planning and prediction (such as scientific truths being used in engineering), the more reliable and trustworthy an idea is, the more useful and potent it becomes for planning and prediction. Those ideas which can be used anywhere and anytime with maximum reliability are generally considered the most powerful and potent truths. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criteria of truth. Since there is no single accepted criteria, they can all be considered "theories".

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for a "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative. As such, the word "Absolute" signifies a negative concept: non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else. This is reflected in its Latin origin absolūtus which means "loosened from" or "unattached." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_%28philosophy%29

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.[1][2] The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.[1]

The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. It may be used to refer to a particular religious tradition or to religion in general.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[5] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.[6] Informal usage can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, while truth is an objective state independent of the individual, i.e., a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological

Many of my therapists told me I make things too complicated. Maybe just a smidgeon?

So the lesson from this is? That sometimes "big people" can be wrong?

Truth: there may be some absolute ones, but can we know them for certain-certain? May the best we can do is to try to get as close an approximation as we can understand, knowing that in the future we may have a better approximation?

Why is truth so important? I think truth provides comfort and calm. The absence of truth would be chaos. The search for truth is a chaotic process. We need personal truths and social truths to be perfectly in sync sometimes. A red light means stop. A green light means go. In Canada we drive on the right side of the road. If one or more individuals decides to challenge any of these truths they may cause an accident. These truths are not stagnant. It can be changed by either a dictate or consensus. Changing a truth causes chaos until it has become a norm. Truth is based on values taught and values found.

My dad is God. He can do no wrong. He is the wisest man on earth. He will never let anything bad happen to me or my family. He will always protect us. My dad loves me. In the mind of a child these are valuable truths. They provide a level of safety, comfort and calm in the life of a child. They also provide a basis from which the child establishes other truths for themselves. All dad's are loving, kind, God-like.

The absence of comforting truths in a child's early development can mean the presence of distressful truths. My dad is scary. He hits me. He yells at me. He hurts me. My dad is mean. Dad's are evil.

Finding a common truth between debators or changing a social truth within a populous requires individual willingness to have individual assumptions influenced and even modified by another's perception of the truth. A great value must be preceived on a new version of the truth before it can be adopted as the new enlightened truth. Value needs to be established before it can influence how, if and when a truth may be modified for the purposes of the time, place and interests of the individual and the group within which the individual lives.

Awwww! You ran up against a frame of reference where teachers are always right and kids get in trouble for challenging them. I wasn't there, but I don't understand why the teacher didn't ask you to demonstrate your proposed journey on the globe (including what would happen after you passed the north pole). Maybe she had other priorities.

When I was in the fourth grade, my teacher explained to us that a continent is a large area of land surrounded by water. I was a bit puzzled why Greenland wasn't a continent while Europe and Asia both were, but I think the idea was that we needed to learn what we were taught and not ask why. I noticed just recently that the Wikipedia article on continents does address my questions.

In the bridge example you quoted, the person believes (if he's thinking about it at all) that the bridge is in some condition ranging from safe to unsafe. The absolute truth (if you like) is that that's how he experiences the bridge in his frame of reference.

Meanwhile, in another frame of reference, the absolute truth is that the bridge is physically in whatever condition it's in, and will respond to stress in whatever way it does. We may note that a girder is half rusted away and calculate (in an engineering frame of reference) how that might affect its load-bearing capacity, but until something actually bends or breaks, we'll know for sure only that it's been able to withstand every load placed on it so far.

I'd say, in that connection, that you (along with the sources of Wikipedia's information) might be illustrating what I said earlier:

lonegael, I did think of JFK in passing while writing that, but ich bin kein Berliner*.

I'd say the absolute truth is that (a.) those laws are on the books or they aren't and (b.) at any given moment, either someone is challenging them or they're not. If you see someone driving toward you on the wrong side of the road, you may think for a second or so, "They can't be doing that, it's against the law," but I'd hope you'd reconsider in time to take evasive action.

That sounds like what I'm calling choosing (and/or getting stuck in) a frame of reference. If your dad is/was like one of those examples, it feels like something of a stretch to consider that other dads may not be. How you respond when you encounter someone unlike your dad, though, will still depend on your latest frame of reference and your willingness to adapt. If you're used to only nice dads and you encounter a not-so-nice one, you could get into a predicament from not having learned to run when you saw him coming -- or you just might win him over by treating him as if he was nice. If you're used to not-so-nice dads, you'll miss out on a lot of good experiences if you keep clinging to the same old frame of reference in which all dads are evil.

I think of that as people getting together and expanding their frames of reference to include more of each other's.

------------------------
*Tr.: "I am not a jelly donut."

“We are told about the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we experience them. and those preconceptions, unless education has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception. They mark out certain objects as familiar or strange, emphasizing the difference, so that the slightly familiar is seen as very familiar and the somewhat strange as sharply alien …” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion

Even before we are told about the world, our lives are being profoundly influenced:

What makes us the way we are? Why are some people predisposed to be anxious, overweight or asthmatic? How is it that some of us are prone to heart attacks, diabetes or high blood pressure?

There's a list of conventional answers to these questions. We are the way we are because it's in our genes: the DNA we inherited at conception. We turn out the way we do because of our childhood experiences: how we were treated and what we took in, especially during those crucial first three years. Or our health and well-being stem from the lifestyle choices we make as adults: what kind of diet we consume, how much exercise we get.(See 5 pregnancy myths debunked.)

But there's another powerful source of influence you may not have considered: your life as a fetus. The kind and quantity of nutrition you received in the womb; the pollutants, drugs and infections you were exposed to during gestation; your mother's health, stress level and state of mind while she was pregnant with you — all these factors shaped you as a baby and a child and continue to affect you to this day.

This is the provocative contention of a field known as fetal origins, whose pioneers assert that the nine months of gestation constitute the most consequential period of our lives, permanently influencing the wiring of the brain and the functioning of organs such as the heart, liver and pancreas. The conditions we encounter in utero, they claim, shape our susceptibility to disease, our appetite and metabolism, our intelligence and temperament. In the literature on the subject, which has exploded over the past 10 years, you can find references to the fetal origins of cancer, cardiovascular disease, allergies, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, mental illness — even of conditions associated with old age like arthritis, osteoporosis and cognitive decline.

The notion of prenatal influence may conjure up frivolous attempts to enrich the fetus: playing Mozart to a pregnant belly and the like. In reality, the shaping and molding that goes on in utero is far more visceral and consequential than that. Much of what a pregnant woman encounters in her daily life — the air she breathes, the food and drink she consumes, the chemicals she's exposed to, even the emotions she feels — is shared in some fashion with her fetus. The fetus incorporates these offerings into its own body, makes them part of its flesh and blood.

Often it does something more: it treats these maternal contributions as information, biological postcards from the world outside. What a fetus is absorbing in utero is not Mozart's Magic Flute but the answers to questions much more critical to its survival: Will it be born into a world of abundance or scarcity? Will it be safe and protected, or will it face constant dangers and threats? Will it live a long, fruitful life or a short, harried one? http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...020815,00.html

The window I looked through as a child showed me a world I did not understand; a world that overwhelmed and deeply distressed me. I was an angry child alone with my thoughts. For awhile I would walk the floor praying my Dad would come home sober. But no. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? I thought God too had left me to muddle and muck as best I could.

"One of the most pernicious qualities of childhood trauma is often its veil of secrecy: the hiding of the known, and the not seeing of what is." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ildhood-trauma Occasionally, I would be sent to a cleric for guidance -- a lecture on the consequences of not appreciating the goodness and love in my home. Lie. I wanted to yell, "LIE!"

It took me a long time to empathize with, forgive and love my parents. The process is ongoing. Too is the process of culling from my perception the need to cling to childhood choices which now impede.

For me, there may or may not be absolute Truth but I don't feel it "matters" because I am Me and can only perceive what I perceive. If I "want" round squares, there will, by Goodness be round squares? The only problem one really has in life is meeting up against gravity in the guise of physics and other people.

I may think I can fly/have flown when I jump off cliffs and that will be True to Me and, since it's my life and thoughts, that's all that matters to me. Or, I may choose to believe, like the majority of other people, that individuals don't fly/have not flown when they jump off cliffs.

I liked the idiot teacher's how-far-north example; I see the teacher's point of view, there is a perceived/actual "straight" line; but I think she cheated with mixing them so you go north straight until you hit some part of the curve taking you back toward the south again, even though you still perceive you are going straight/north; who knows what she would have said if you'd mentioned the Earth is at a slant on its axis so "north"/"up" is not the way we imagine, straight or otherwise?

One thing that interests me is how "Truth" changes as more is learned, especially in the school. I have always been a good/voracious reader but in tests in elementary school would get really rotten scores in reading comprehension which use to rankle. Just a couple days ago I read about a study that confirmed what I always believed; that children do better on comprehension reading tests if you have them read something of interest to them! Yes, I did poorly on boring reading, I admit that! I've also recently read about how older people are similar; of course they don't remember things they don't want/need to; that doesn't mean their memory is that much worse; you be 80 and have had all the experience one of that age has had and see if you want to keep every single little detail of every day (who cares what I had for dinner last night?). They say if you have trouble remembering names, repeat them 2-3 times in the first couple minutes of meeting the person (same with jokes, tell them a couple times and they're easier to remember) but who wants to bother with that when they're 80; the other people can remember me, I don't care about them; most of them I'll never see again.

The point is, that point of view is All to me; I perceive/interpret things the way I perceive and interpret them and suspect you do too. So, if I care about relating to you, I'm going to be curious about how you perceive/interpret things but not necessarily expect you to ever perceive/interpret them the way I do. You have your own life to live.

Thanks, Perna. I perceive you speak much truth.

(((((((((Byzantine))))))))---------------------couldn't get through the whole thread-------but I will.

Utterly perfect topic for discussion.

".....My Fathers' house has many mansions...."--am I being appropriate???

Soooo much to discuss here--I am unable to grasp the words to reply with my own thoughts.

I, too, am "treatment resistant"--and the guinea pig meds make it worse.

Indeed, we must all take accountability for ourselves, and advocate for ourselves---

I must, at any rate--I love that quote-----

soo great to read all of this and relate on so many levels!!!!!

----------------------as always----theo

Good to see you theo. Hope you are safe and well.

To more information and affection.

i just love this thread~! and you who post on it,, Thank YOU~!!

My latest diagnosis. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/aty...1/METHOD=print

The Mayo Clinic article says that atypical depression, despite the name, "isn't uncommon or unusual." I wonder if it should be called "common atypical depression"?

Causes

It's not known exactly what causes atypical depression. As with other types of depression, a combination of factors may be involved. These include:

• Brain chemistry. Neurotransmitters are naturally occurring brain chemicals that are thought to play a direct role in depression. When these chemicals are out of balance, it may lead to depression symptoms.
• Inherited traits. Depression is more common in people whose biological family members also have the condition.
• Life events. Events such as the death or loss of a loved one, financial problems and high stress can trigger depression in some people.
• Early childhood trauma. Traumatic events during childhood, such as abuse or loss of a parent, may cause permanent changes in the brain that make you more susceptible to depression.

Nothing unusual about the speculative causes. I asked the psychiatrist why the new diagnosis. He told me it was a good fit. I asked if my other diagnoses seemed to fit. He thought so. I asked why I only was being treated for depression. He said treating the depression seemed to allow me to be functional. I asked if my other symptoms were treated whether I would have a better chance of functioning at a higher level. He said I already had tried a lot of things which had not promoted higher functionality.

I asked why I simply could not be diagnosed as flawed but functional at varying degrees. He said, "It is not in the DSM IV."

And so it goes in the world of trying to make sense of what I and those who treat me do not really understand.

What is a mind? How have you defined yours?

Mind:

• that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason; "his mind wandered"; "I couldn't get his words out of my head"
• the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness.
• that which thinks, reasons, perceives, wills, and feels. The mind now appears in no way separate from the brain. In neuroscience, there is no duality between the mind and body. They are one.
• the intellectual or rational faculty in man; the understanding; the intellect; the power that conceives, judges, or reasons; also, the entire spiritual nature; the soul; often in distinction from the body. "By the mind of man we understand that in him which thinks, remembers, reasons, wills." (Reid) "What we mean by mind is simply that which perceives, thinks, feels, wills, and desires." (Sir W. Hamilton) "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. Xiv. 5) "The mind shall banquet, though the body pine." (Shak)
• the state, at any given time, of the faculties of thinking, willing, choosing, and the like; psychical activity or state; as: Opinion; judgment; belief. "A fool uttereth all his mind." (Prov. Xxix. 11) "Being so hard to me that brought your mind, I fear she'll prove as hard to you in telling her mind." (Shak)

Dr. Silvia Helena Cardoso says in her article: "It is amazing to verify that even after several centuries of philosophical ponderations, hard dedication to brain research and remarkable advances in the field of neuroscience, the concept of mind still remains obscure, controversial and impossible to define within the limits of our language." http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/editori4_i.htm

Quote:

The study of human biology paved the way for great strides in medicine and continues to inspire innovative treatments. However, treating disease strictly on a biological level has its limitations, as reflected by the growing number of individuals turning to treatments outside of modern medicine. http://healthletter.mayoclinic.com/e...%20the%20body/

Quote:

Who owns the mind? Is it the believers in spirit, that illusive "thing" that isn't a thing, but somehow resides in the brain . . . or is it the heart? Do scientists own the mind? Those dissectors and understanders who deny something just because they haven't seen it yet? Before Wilhelm Wundt opened the first experimental psychology laboratory in 1879 there was no academic discipline of psychology separate from philosophy and biology. Perhaps it should have stayed like that for a while longer at least: the study of mind from a physiological perspective as a subfield in biology and the study of mind from a conceptual perspective as a subfield of philosophy. Although there are more psychological issues today that can be significantly and reliably treated by a particular psychological approach than there were one hundred years ago, it remains the case that for most psychological complaints, schools of thought or academic orientation are not related to successful treatment. Rather it is similarity of background and values and the creation of a trusting rapport that are most correlated with successful psychotherapy. Furthermore, for common "neurosis," talk therapy with a skilled practitioner (or even trusted family member) is more effective over the long run than an equivalent-length treatment with any pharmaceutical. Especially since many pharmaceuticals begin to backfire after prolonged use-backfire due to tolerance and side effects, where the benefit begins to be outweighed by the drawbacks. The current tendency to prescribe a pharmaceutical, simply because it works at first, is mistaken. We must find combinations of treatments that are explicitly chosen to be effective without relapse when the chemical is finally withdrawn. There is an important role played by healing professionals who fight to stop pathology and the damage it incurs. There is also a huge role to be played by those who try to guide healthy, mature living in order to forestall the advent of pathology, especially pathology caused by lifestyle choices, using harm reduction, not moralizing. The psycheology approach I describe next is mostly oriented toward facilitating and guiding healthy maturation and to a lesser extent toward fighting true pathology, except during emergency circumstances. http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/50606

One of my brothers is an excellent salesman. When he was asked about his success, he affirmed what he had been taught: "You have to be innovative and creative." I think we are seeing more of that from those who study the mind and body when attempting to discover the causes and workings of mental illnesses. We need more of those who are innovative and creative.

Zeno's paradox: he proved that one cannot go from point A to point B. That is, to go from one to the other, one has first to go half way, and then half of the remaining distance, and then half of that remaining distance, and then... and therefore you never quite get there.

Of course, if you set up the matter that way, you get that answer. The result depends to a great extent how you set up your formulation of the problem.

And then there are some, like me, who would gladly take half than none.