Yipee, a new post!!

So, it's been a while since I last posted anything on here and I won't lie, laziness has played a big part in that. However, I've also been struggling to think of things to write about.

Then it occurred to me - I've finally started my diploma and as part of that, I have to write a journal entry every week (what we learnt and how it impacted us)  and it seems a shame that no one except my tutor will ever read them. My raging intellect (being what it is) came up with a solution - post the journal entries! Eureka!

Some of them probably won't be interesting enough to post and some will have to be edited  if I feel that I'm talking about something which is a bit too personal for public reading. Also, if you're not interested in psychology/philosophy this might not be your cup of tea. Anyway, you never know until you try!

So without further ado...

  [It is] knowledge, consciousness, in a word – that lifts man above nature. But this achievement brings him into a tragic position between animal and God. Because of it, he is no longer the child of mother nature; he is driven out of paradise, but also, he is no god, because he is still tied inescapably to his body and its natural laws… (Jung, 2004: 8).

I’ve chosen to start this journal with the above quote as I feel that it encapsulates the view that I am starting to take of the world and what it means to live in it as a human being. I stumbled across it last year when I was coming towards the end of my studies for my level 3 certificate and it stuck with me (partly because it feels very poignant but also because it’s the only bit of Jung’s essay which didn’t go over my head). At any rate, I wanted to get it into one of my earlier journals so that I can establish its importance and return to it if need be.   

Briefly then, I agree with the notion that being human means that we’re different from the rest of the animal kingdom (through our higher knowledge and consciousness of the world) and yet too similar to them to ever really escape all of the pain and misery that comes with living in a world which in my view, is totally indifferent to our existence. 

I remembered this quote in class the other day during our discussion on humanistic counselling. I feel that the humanistic approach has a lot going for it because of its emphasis on the client as

Autonomous and self determining…[and] that each of us contains within us the seeds of our own growth and healing (Wilkins, 2010: 169).

The further I go through life, the more I believe in free will. I am starting to believe that with our superior sense of awareness, comes accountability about the choices we make. We might not always realise that we have a choice and the choice might be rotten, but it’s our choice none the less.

I alluded to this during the discussion at the end of class (as well as in last week’s journal). When I was growing up, I believed that I did not have many options open to me because I believed that I was unintelligent. I believed this because I chose to believe it. Granted, I was put in a position where believing this was the easier option. Indeed, at the time it felt as though it was the only option but I know now that it wasn’t and I feel as though the lesson to take from this forms one of the aspects of humanistic counselling which I really want to use in my own work.

If people are to really change, I believe that they need to understand that they have the power to do so. They might not be responsible for some of the things that life throws at them, but I believe that they have control over how they react to it.

However, what I see as the limitations of the humanistic approach come into play when I consider the second half of Jung’s quote. Being human may involve being free but like everything else in the animal kingdom, it also involves dying.

I don’t feel as though I’m being pessimistic even if I am being blunt. Whatever one may think about what comes after death, the fact remains that death is inescapable and part of being human is trying to come to terms with this.

So, whilst the optimism of the humanistic approach is refreshing, it seems to me that Roger’s idea of people containing

The urge to expand, extend, develop, mature – the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, or the self (1967: 351)

needs to be kept within the realistic context of our finitude. Yes, we should strive to be the best that we can be but it’s also crucial that we remember how frail and mortal we really are. I feel that it is all well and good to have a philosophy that people are fundamentally good and the world can be a better place if we all just work together but realistically, I believe that the nature of existence means that the world being a better place has to be viewed in the light of harsh reality. That is to say that true perfection seems impossible when all of humanity’s weaknesses and limitations are taken into account.

Once again, I feel the need to emphasise the fact that I’m not trying to be bleak so much as I am pragmatic. I feel that it’s far too easy to bury one’s head in the sand when it comes to the subject of mortality but as Yalom puts it

Most of us, most of the time, live comfortably by uneasily avoiding the glance of death…But there is another way…that teaches us that full awareness of death ripens our wisdom and enriches our life (1991:7).

Again, this is something that I would like to incorporate into my own work as a counsellor because I feel that it is important. It’s ok not to like the fact that death is a part of life. It’s also ok to be scared of it.

 Even so, I think that working with people and truly empathising with them using a humanistic approach has to involve a willingness to confront the basic issues of being human. Sometimes these issues will not be pleasant but that feels to me like something a counsellor needs to get over just as much as a client does and that is something that I would like to explore more, at least in terms of my own development as I progress through this diploma.  

REFERENCES

• Jung, Emma (2004), Animus and Anima (reprinted), USA, Spring Publications
• Rogers, Carl (1967), On Becoming a Person, Great Britain, Constable
• Wilkins, Paul (2010), Person-Centred Therapy. 100 Key Points, London and New York, Routledge
• Yalom, Irvin D (1991), Love’s Executioner and Other Tales of Psychotherapy, Great Britain, Penguin  

The Moral Landscape

It's not often that I read a book (at least a non fiction one) which makes a lasting impression on me. At least not to the degree where it challenges the way I think to any meaningful extent. I can read books which reinforce what I already think or which are of general interest. But to have one's world view challenged by a book feels like a very different thing altogether. I've always thought it sounds a little over zealous when people refer to a book as 'life changing' and so I won't use those words. Even so, Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape' has certainly impacted on me to the point of making a lasting impression.

 It also feels a bit like I'm about to just write a book review - and if the good people at Transworld are reading this, don't worry, there's no charge ;-) - but people are moved by different things at different points in their lives. The way I see it, all you can really do is process it and then put it in some kind of context within your own life.

I'm not going to waste too much time going into detail on the finer points of Dr Harris' argument - if only because it's complicated and however long it took me to struggle through this book (it's not the easiest of reads) it would take me even longer to try and summarise them in any real detail. The crux of it is that whilst moral relativism has become a popular stance among some people when discussing moral issues, it could be the case that there are in fact objectively 'right' and 'wrong' answers to these issues. These answers can be determined by establishing how certain courses of action can impact the well-being of an individual and the morality of an action and the way we live our lives should be based on this level of well being. In essence, there are some social/religious/cultural practices that are just wrong (or so the argument goes) and the fact that they're time honoured or revered is irrelevant.

Now, when you get right down to it, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I might make the odd joke in poor taste and yes, I am one of those people who thinks that political correctness is getting a little bit excessive but when all said and done, I'm usually one of the people who argues that morality is too complicated a thing to define to any degree of satisfaction.

From what I understand, Sam Harris is also firmly a part of 'the liberal agenda' and so I'm not accusing him of bigotry or conservatism. However, Dr Harris is also firmly a part of the new wave of atheism which seems to be increasing in popularity along with Richard Dawkins et al and here is where my own delicate sensibilities were in danger of being wounded.

Don't get me wrong, I'm basically an atheist and I agree with most of the arguments put forward for atheism as a concept. However (and yes, I am  finally coming to my point) when I read 'The God Delusion' and some of the other arguments against organised religion I experienced a definite feeling of discomfort.

Sure, I don't believe in God, at least not in the Abrahamic sense of the term and so I don't appreciate the idea that morality has to come from a divine source. I also don't appreciate being dictated to about what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do solely because it doesn't correspond with someone else's faith (abortion, sexual conduct etc). But if I'm going to be truly liberal, can I really judge someone else's sense of what is right and wrong? I can disagree, but can I or anyone else, honestly make such a judgement without being a hypocrite? And the answer I would have given up until reading 'The Moral Landscape' would have probably been 'no'.

Does this mean that I'm now going to start strutting around with a holier than thou attitude? I hope not. I start my counselling diploma in September and I can't wait. Having said that, any halfway decent counsellor will stress the importance of maintaining a non-judgemental attitude when working with clients. Indeed, the brief time that I have spent working with young offenders is a constant reminder that whilst morality is arguably very simply on paper, life is too complicated to hold onto a polarised view of good and evil.

However, even bearing all that in mind, if you asked me if there was such thing as a moral absolute, I think I'd be a lot less certain about my answer than I once was. And therein lies the point of this post. I still believe that people can only change when offered a non judgemental environment (in as far as that is possible) to safely explore their feelings. But if morality is more universal than I had previously considered, I worry that being non-judgemental may become that little bit more difficult.                      

            

And so it begins

Having written my introduction, I half thought of biding my time before writing my next entry, waiting for a truly poignant moment to occur, so that I could start my off my blog on a poetic note. Alas, as poetic as life can be, it's also balanced with a healthy dose of mundaneness (yes, apparently that's really a word. One truly does learn something new every day) and boredom has gotten the better of me.

Also, writing this seemed preferably to watching the recent 'Clash of the Titans' remake which is what I was doing and is shit in that special kind of way that only Hollywood can deliver.

And don't get me wrong, I love a good bit of Hollywood tripe. Even as someone who tries to take in as broad a range of world cinema as possible, I still like to kick back every now and then and indulge in a bit of testosterone fuelled, macho bullshit, high octane action. I mean let's face it, as much as I love a bit of Bergmanesque existentialism or that unique brand of surreal melancholia that only Jim Jarmucsh seems to be able to deliver, it's just not quite the same as watching Schwarzenegger or Stallone blow the shit out of people.

This should be borne in mind when I say that 'Clash of the Titans' is one of those films which was so shit, I couldn't actually finish it. Some might argue that if I'm going to set out to systematically undermine someone else's hard earned attempt at artistic expression, I should really watch it all the way through in order to make a fully informed opinion. And perhaps they're right. But honest to God, I'm just not that masochistic. There is only so much of Sam Worthington barley concealing his Australian accent (in an ancient Greek epic for fuck's sake) that any reasonable man can or should be willing to take. Indeed, we've established that a ridiculous plot isn't necessarily a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned and I sure as hell wasn't expecting an Oscar winning performance, but I'm only human.

On the plus side, this experience has highlighted one of the definite benefits of blogging. As forums for indulging my passive-aggression go, this is actually quite good. I feel nice and safe, sitting here behind my laptop, basking in knowledge that Sam Worthington is fairly unlikely to read this and beat me up. Some might wonder about the mentality of a person who genuinely entertained such a thought, even if it was only for a fleeting moment. With that in mind, I do feel the need to point out that just because an event is highly improbable, that doesn't mean you can't take comfort in reassuring yourself it probably won't happen (and yes, I will be checking under my bed before I go to sleep, just in case Sam Worthington is lurking under there. Deal with it).

*Ahem* Anyway, moving swiftly on, while I'm on the subject of films, I was finally able to catch 'The Dark Knight Rises' the other day (don't worry, no spoilers). As an all round geek/huge Batman fan, I was pretty impressed. It was no where near as good as 'The Dark Knight' but hey, it was never going to be. But Mr Nolan stayed true to form and there now exists a super hero trilogy where the final film isn't a complete let down (although I've still got my fingers crossed for 'Iron Man 3).

We can mock Christian Bale for his cheesy Batman voice (and hate him a little bit for his role in finishing off the ruination of 'The Terminator' series) but he all things considered, he made a pretty good Dark Knight. I also appreciated seeing Catwoman and Bane handled properly - as a femme fatale with a wonky moral compass and an criminally insane but genius turned terrorist respectively. The set pieces are a little OTT but it is based on a comic book and as long as one keeps that in mind, it's a lot of fun.

I guess next on the list of films to flap over with nerdy gusto is 'Skyfall' and even putting my slightly unhealthy man crush on Daniel Craig to one side and looking at it objectively, I think I can safely say that it's going to be pretty good.

So there you have it dear reader (if indeed I have any)! I promised my deepest, darkest and most trivial thoughts for your perusal and I have delivered. What riveting things shall emerge from the deepest recesses of my psyche for my next post? You'll just have to wait and see...   

Well apparently I am

I've often had people tell me that I should write something. Perhaps that sounds a little arrogant, but they have. I suppose it makes sense. I'm reasonably articulate. I love reading. I enjoy writing things when I have something to write about. And therein lies the problem I suppose. What do I have to write about? I don't have any ideas for a novel. And God knows, I don't have any grand scientific theories or revolutionary socio-political discourses floating around in this head of mine. I guess that just leaves blogging.

I've always been a bit dubious about this whole blogging thing. I know there's nothing wrong with it. Not really. I suppose I've always just wondered what kind of narcissist feels the need to share their trivial thoughts with the world (and who'd be bored enough to read them)? But that seems a bit dismissive really. Who am I to judge someone for something harmless that they do in their spare time? Especially if I'm not willing to try it before I knock it (anyone who knows me knows that's not really my style).

Even so, that thought is still floating around in the back of my head 'Am I really going to be a blogger? One of those people who thinks total strangers and friends will give a shit about whatever mundane thing happens to be on my mind at any given point'?

I voiced this question to my friend (albeit very drunkenly in the early hours of the dawn) to which he drunkenly slurred back 'Might as well'. And so I shall.