Yes, he put all his attention on the rosy glows, apparently forgetting that most people just trudge through dull and enervating lives before falling off their perches with relief. The experiences that shape personality are mostly early in life, often acquired preverbally but still very influential.
Do those people live dull lives because of themselves or as a result of ‘society'?
After a huge trauma and the fallout of that trauma many people end up in a situation that leaves nothing and life then also gets dull.
In a way i agree with Reich that experiences are stored phisically stored / expressed in the body. And then Maslows ‘peak experiences’ make sense.
I know that the first years in life shape most of our personality. The baseline. But later experiences in life can modify us for rest of our lives. And that affects personality exactly how Reich described.
And here i struggle with the views of Jung. Yeah, I still need to learn many things. And i sometimes take strange shortcuts as internet is awesome in that sense.
I like your expansive model. It's more dynamic and makes for a more realistic picture of how life works. What about the day-to-day attrition of being ME? just turning up day after day and working on life?
If ME is doing a job that doesnt feed my mind that eventually could be felt as a trauma as well, one thats slowly taking shape in the body?
Drained of 'life energy'.
Just like burnout? But slower if that makes sense...
I recently posted a few things on Freud and Reich how I look at them. And im about to post a few more controversial ones if i can wrap my mind around it.
Keep in mind im just a regular guy reasoning out loud while making my own silly mistakes.
🤔 Hhmmm. Unclear how to respond to questions of spirituality in this posts. Brought to mind is an old ‘joke’: A group of scientists summoned the Higher Power HP)for some, doG spelt backwards. Informed doG that they had reached such advances that they no longer required the author of creation. “Okay “ said doG/HP
Maslows hierarchy of needs is clear and farly simple, yet Freudian tend to ignore that.
WHY do Freudian psychologists ignore Maslow, even when one points out to them that its impossible to get to layer 3 as they assume while they act as layer 1 doesn't exist.
Is that incompetence, ignorance or something deeper?
Freudians ignored everybody, they weren't picking on Maslow personally. They believed as a matter of faith that their system explained everything and critics simply needed deeper analysis to cure them of their neuroses. As Maslow said, psychoanalysis was directed at the darker side of human behaviour, they had no interest in anything that wasn't gross. In fact, they were a cult, nothing less.
There's a lot worth discussing in such an article, but I want to just mention one of my recent findings here: Religion is delusional, but it's often socially endorsed and ratified. It contains impossible or at least unproveable beliefs (including the existence of God) and, since humans are so bad at managing their truths, risks endangerment far greater than spirituality does. I never said that religion is inherently useless, but in the status quo of the world generally, it's generally unfeasible.
My general notion is that spirituality is more generic and more practical and realistic than religion. It's the lighter side of a really dark set of possibilities, and is more often used wisely to generate an ethical framework on virtues such as benevolence, kindness, and peaceability.
Correct, the concept of "spirituality" simply says that humans have mental/spiritual lives. Religion is a social institution built on a dominance hierarchy which grants power to the priesthood at the expense of the general population. The first thing they do is publish a book known as "holy scripture" that justifies their power and which everybody has to memorise and any doubters are led to the chopping block. But it never allows the flock to explore their own ideas as that could lead to priests being kicked out.
I think that Maslows 'peak experiences' are things like love, joy, trauma, death of a loved one, etc. The experiences that shape personality.
The most prominent ones
Also think of burnout, earthquake, war, rape, robbery, abuse. Different for everyone, and therefor named it vaguely as 'peak experiences'?
Just my take... i'm an electro technician.
Yes, he put all his attention on the rosy glows, apparently forgetting that most people just trudge through dull and enervating lives before falling off their perches with relief. The experiences that shape personality are mostly early in life, often acquired preverbally but still very influential.
Do those people live dull lives because of themselves or as a result of ‘society'?
After a huge trauma and the fallout of that trauma many people end up in a situation that leaves nothing and life then also gets dull.
In a way i agree with Reich that experiences are stored phisically stored / expressed in the body. And then Maslows ‘peak experiences’ make sense.
I know that the first years in life shape most of our personality. The baseline. But later experiences in life can modify us for rest of our lives. And that affects personality exactly how Reich described.
And here i struggle with the views of Jung. Yeah, I still need to learn many things. And i sometimes take strange shortcuts as internet is awesome in that sense.
I like your expansive model. It's more dynamic and makes for a more realistic picture of how life works. What about the day-to-day attrition of being ME? just turning up day after day and working on life?
If ME is doing a job that doesnt feed my mind that eventually could be felt as a trauma as well, one thats slowly taking shape in the body?
Drained of 'life energy'.
Just like burnout? But slower if that makes sense...
I recently posted a few things on Freud and Reich how I look at them. And im about to post a few more controversial ones if i can wrap my mind around it.
Keep in mind im just a regular guy reasoning out loud while making my own silly mistakes.
🤔 Hhmmm. Unclear how to respond to questions of spirituality in this posts. Brought to mind is an old ‘joke’: A group of scientists summoned the Higher Power HP)for some, doG spelt backwards. Informed doG that they had reached such advances that they no longer required the author of creation. “Okay “ said doG/HP
Off topic question that jumped into my mind
Maslows hierarchy of needs is clear and farly simple, yet Freudian tend to ignore that.
WHY do Freudian psychologists ignore Maslow, even when one points out to them that its impossible to get to layer 3 as they assume while they act as layer 1 doesn't exist.
Is that incompetence, ignorance or something deeper?
Freudians ignored everybody, they weren't picking on Maslow personally. They believed as a matter of faith that their system explained everything and critics simply needed deeper analysis to cure them of their neuroses. As Maslow said, psychoanalysis was directed at the darker side of human behaviour, they had no interest in anything that wasn't gross. In fact, they were a cult, nothing less.
There's a lot worth discussing in such an article, but I want to just mention one of my recent findings here: Religion is delusional, but it's often socially endorsed and ratified. It contains impossible or at least unproveable beliefs (including the existence of God) and, since humans are so bad at managing their truths, risks endangerment far greater than spirituality does. I never said that religion is inherently useless, but in the status quo of the world generally, it's generally unfeasible.
My general notion is that spirituality is more generic and more practical and realistic than religion. It's the lighter side of a really dark set of possibilities, and is more often used wisely to generate an ethical framework on virtues such as benevolence, kindness, and peaceability.
Correct, the concept of "spirituality" simply says that humans have mental/spiritual lives. Religion is a social institution built on a dominance hierarchy which grants power to the priesthood at the expense of the general population. The first thing they do is publish a book known as "holy scripture" that justifies their power and which everybody has to memorise and any doubters are led to the chopping block. But it never allows the flock to explore their own ideas as that could lead to priests being kicked out.
….. let’s see how you do it”. One of the scientists then picked up a handful of dirt. HP/doG said, “hey! Get your own dirt that’s mine “.