Relationally truth

From those of us who grew up in a theist faith context (or maybe just Christian… or just me?), we are taught to orient ourselves to something beyond the self from an early age. Many of my peers seem to find meaning through connecting with peers or “being relational.” This desire to “be relational” has not occurred in a vacuum - although if it did, then how ironic would that be, I digress. Contemporary philosophical moves towards relational understandings of personhood/ the self were influenced through the field of psychology – particularly Freud and those who came after him. Freud was born into a Jewish family, and although he distanced himself from his religion-of-origin, his worldview was shaped from an early age by the language of community. It was in his view that the ego and superego emerged from interactions with others. Although he had wanted the ego to distance itself from others, there was still a fundamental recognition that a person is relationally mediated. Followers like Winnicott and Kohut expanded upon this to the extent that current trends in psychoanalysis indicate that all meaning is relationally constructed. Interestingly enough both these figures were members of religious communities throughout their lives.

Would this relational understanding of truth occur without the subtext of a worldview that assumed that meaning occurs outside the individual instead of within? I am struck by how many of my friends who grew up in similar contexts that, despite being culturally-aware and relatively open to new ideas, seem to assume that there are universal principles - often moral principles - that everyone knows “deep down in their hearts.” I wonder if we cannot move beyond our experiences to see another perspective and consider it as a valid alternative. I personally can consider other perspectives, but typically, a “relational” answer to a question ultimately “wins out.” Yet, what if I came from a different tradition, would this be the case? If my culture said, look within to find the answer or do not look for an answer and it will come, would my “answers” come to the same conclusion. Perhaps if I were in Descartes position, I would find it equally logical to look within and assume truth. To this end, I am curious how to continue to grow, elaborate, or innovate when moving beyond the initial assumptions of thought are so woven into my worldview that I find only one answer. Thus, I have a rambling that I am putting out to the world so that I may find some feedback in the only way I can understand something – relationally.

Affect

Affect regulation is all the rage in psychotherapy. Entire theories have been born out of the necessity to attune to another person’s affective state. However, what is affect? Is it a nonconscious process, a physiological response, a primitive social communication system? The jury remains out in this regard. Affect can still be seen as a way to know another person. The crook of a smile or the gaze of an eye often provides a better picture of another person’s state than that person’s own words. Throughout the ages we have created idioms based around affect – the fiery eyes, downcast, etc. There is something central to our basic understanding of communication that affect is able to communicate. However, many people continue to begin conversations with “the right words.” I find it difficult to speak to a friend who is in pain because I just don’t know what to say. Words seem like they unlock the door, but their absence reminds us of that they may not be the only door. This exaltation of words over affect continues to manifest in the digit age. People will “text” or “message” their friends throughout the day as they walk down the street with their head down away from the world around them. I sometimes wonder if this is a defensive move on their parts. It’s hard to become affected by other’s affect when you never have to leave your own world.

An open letter to university admissions board

Hello, I am writing as a young, adjunct professor at a small, liberal arts university. You say implicitly - and often explicitly - to each student who you grant admission into your institution, "the collective wisdom of those within this institution believes that you have the characteristics and qualities necessary to develop in this setting, and we are committing to your academic development." Yet, most of my 3rd and 4th year university students do not produce work that reflects an adequate proficiency in the English language or a conscientiousness to turn in error free work. I enjoy fostering professional and personal development in my students, and I would prefer to spend my time doing so in ways that use my (quasi/limited) expertise in psychology and theology. Honestly, as an adjunct professor, I do not have the time or resources to teach basic grammar to my students. However, I feel the obligation to teach them these skills because we, as an institution, have made a commitment to educating them to skills necessary to succeed in their lives and careers. Instead of fulfilling the role of an Adjunct Professor of Psychology, I take up the role of my 7th grade grammar teacher. This role confusion wastes resources (e.g., time, money, emotional energy) and, obviously, increases my frustration. We must reexamine curriculum or admission policies to provide appropriate options for students. We can no longer waste our resources. Thank you,

starting over

Many of the people I care about are in a transitional period.

Transitional periods are usually time people become reflective. They use their reflection to promote growth or change within their life. But is this a healthy process?

Transitions already are loaded with pains, uncertainty, and change. Why must we be masochistic by bringing entire new worldviews into our lives? This question comes from a realization that their is only a limited change which can occur in one's personality. True change is never so drastic or immediate. But we think we can do it on the drop of a hat. Then, we become disappointed when it does not happen in the immediate desire of change. Eventually we return to our previous disposition without change.

What is the answer here? Why do we keep doing this? Is change ever permanent?

Starting over happens every day; and yet, it never really happens.

heart with a duncecap.

The mind can learn something just by reading about it. We read an instruction book and 9 times out of 11 we are able tot then achieve said objective.

However, the heart does not work like that. It must go through an experience to learn it. It has to go through the motions. Feel the way it is impacted. That's the only way it can grow.

Why... why oh stupid heart must you be so dense. If you just were able to get over yourself, things would be better.

We don't touch the stove because it will burn us.

Why must we burn our hearts in order make them grow!!!

I love this roller coaster. It's way better than the merry-go-round!

An apology to St. Augustine.

I don’t always like the words you say.
You have done much to influence the world.
Everyone falls in love with your heart.
But, still, I never knew you. And don’t want to.

Then I found the words you spoke
Which cannot fully be contained by small letters
No, it reaches beyond my heart to a place which may never have existed before you.
And, yet you do not even attempt to make it yours.

You glorify God for it.
You seek the Divine presence.
But it’s not really about you at all.
Even though I thought it was.

It was about my lack of knowing truth
My lack of being comforted
My lack of being held when everything goes wrong.
My lack of present, physical grace…

It is my heart that does not accept
It cries out for that of which you speak
Yet, it does not want to believe it.
What is this divide in it?

“A man full of faith hope and charity has no need of the Scriptures…” St. Augustine On Christian Doctrine.

to enjoy or to use

Augustine caused global warming.

Everyone wants to blame for the environmental crisis; I think I found our man. Augustine long ago created a theology of enjoyment or utility for things. He came from a Platonic perspective that suggested that the essential stuff in existence are the unseen, spiritual forces, and the material things are jacked up. Augustine baptizes this into the church and spins it in a new light. He suggests the only things which we are suppose to revere, find rest in, meditate on, "enjoy" is the spiritual stuff. And everything else is at best a utility to find the spiritual stuff.

The world is now utility. This means we can do whatever we want with it because its not important. Augustine as one of the most influential figures in Western thought was able to set in motion his ideas that permeate political, economical, religious, and personal ideologies. Nobody was safe from his ideas.

So, next time you get frustrated by the whole in the ozone layer, acid rain, lack of oxygen thing. Just remember its from your good buddy who also decided to create the whole sinful nature thing.

One step to going green. Get rid of Augustine.