A Worrying Trend

The Conversation

What if the sole purpose of conversation was to reduce or assuage our worries? Well that is what I believe is the actual purpose of conversation.

Maybe all mental sickness occurs because we don’t get all that help to ease our worries that we need. Why? Because we haven’t made that agreement explicitly to help each other to ease all our worrying.

But imagine if we explicitly agreed to this principle to use conversation to help ease all our worries, together, then their would be no limit to what we could talk about and when, where, how and why. The only limit would be with WHO we have not made the agreement with.

Having a conversation with whomever we have not gotten such an explicit agreement with could, instead of easing our worries, potentially give us even more. Without such an agreement we are open to the pregnant or ignoring pause we can receive when we try broach difficult subjects that are causing us worries or to be told that we “think too much” or “talk too much” or “you are over thinking it” or “get over it” etc etc. In other words “I am not your camel” to carry your worries, which is what a previous friend would say to me.

There even seems to be a self perpetuating system already in place to prevent us making any such an agreement to help each other ease our worries. Simply by broaching this subject of conversation and asking for the reason or purpose for conversation can cause such consternation, as I have found over the last 30 years. Rarely, if ever have I met someone that has had this conversation before ie the reason for conversation. Strange but true. The one thing that we do more than anything else in our life, converse, and yet no one I have met has been asked this question directly. The playwright Bertolt Brecht said that as soon as something seems the most obvious thing in the world, it means that we have abandoned all attempts to understand it. And this from Wikipedia:
” No generally accepted definition of conversation exists, beyond the fact that a conversation involves at least two people talking together “

Maybe everyone has given up all attempts to understand the actual purpose of conversation and the trend seems to be to resign ourselves to carrying certain burdens that worrying causes us, forever.

Domestic SewerRage

Untitled-2

Around 1850 in London it became apparent that using the Thames River as an open sewer had disastrous consequences for public health, including cholera epidemics. Although the contamination of the water supply was correctly diagnosed by Dr John Snow in 1849 as the method of communication, it was believed that miasma, or bad air, was responsible right up to the outbreak of 1866 (WIkipedia).

Eventually the Parliament realized the sewerage AKA shit, was disastrous  for city dwellers in epidemic proportions, killing over 10,000 Londoners in one outbreak. So a plan was enacted to clean up the Thames by means of creating a sewerage system which transported the public waste away from London city river, diverting it to the east Thames estuary, where it is now treated.

Today, in 2018 it is also time for us to realize that domestic rage, like domestic sewerage is killing us in the tens of thousands globally and needs to be treated and dumped. From domestic rage and domestic violence in Australia, some 2 women a week are killed by their partners and it is the leading cause of hospitalized assault for girls and women in Australia. Countless families suffer at the hands of this scourge of rage and anger or more commonly called domestic violence, yet anger and rage does not appear to be singled out by governments and NGOs as the major cause of this violence.

Strange as it may seem but I have found it difficult to find an advocate for cleaning up this SewerRage. Most seem to believe that anger is natural just like shit and we are stuck with it and that “power & control” to be the causes of domestic violence. Well, it is true that anger has been part of our nature for thousands of years and has been used to as power and control to coerce others, but like the sewers of London we can treat rage and dump it where it does not harm.

How Do WE Treat Domestic SewerRage
After some 15 years of testing and developing I have a number of solutions for firstly treating our SewerRage and also how to dump it. My suggestion is…..
Firstly: Create a shared reality where we agree that anger or rage is distasteful and very disruptive in a domestic environment and that we really want to do something about it.
Secondly: We form an agreement like the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Climate Agreement where they can be updated at a later time but we are moving to make these changes a reality, together.
This agreement can be called what you want, let’s start with calling it the Anger Agreement. And simply agree that “although anger or rage is understandable it is unacceptable without and acceptable or agreeable apology”. This is what my brother and I have used.
Thirdly: I have found that two other sub-causes need to be apologized for also and they are for lies and ignoring. I am sure you will agree that they too are distasteful and also a general cause of anger.
Forthly: What we deem or agree is an acceptable apology will depend upon what you ultimately agree upon but for example we use, the following but with no blaming of anyone in the content.

  • What I did
  • Why I did it
  • And what I will do next time

The acceptable apology will allow us to “treat” our SewerRage and through practice allows us to dump it.

The treatment and dumping of sewerage in cities changed the world for the better saving millions of lives and making it possible to live together by the millions. I am suggesting the treatment and dumping of our Domestic SewerRage will change the world for the better, likewise. Worth a try, I say.

 

He’s Dreamin’!

maxresdefault.jpg

It seems to me that delusion has an intricate part to play in mental illness. If this is not delusional, then, the less delusional, or more factual or accurate we are, the healthier, in our own mind we are going to be…maybe.
Is it possible that the more surety we are continually seeking, the less likely we are to be mentally unstable.

I believe this idea could be tested.

Making Sure We’re Making Sure

9224879

For the last 100,000 years people have been in the information era. Since we began to converse and share information with each other we have been assessing or making sure of  the information’s integrity. Making sure of its accuracy, consistency and that we are ultimately understanding it.

If this is true and we agree with this axiom then it changes everything,  I believe, as we become conscious of it. As we become aware of making sure and we are continuously making sure that we are making sure we are forming a singularity or an incidence of exponential growth that might explain where we are today and where we are heading.

Of course, as with anything some people are making sure more than others. Some have already made sure, their own, usually, what we call dogma or tradition or are making very little, more sure. Whereas others can be making sure on a daily basis, creating or discovering new ideas, concepts, systems and inventions during the process of making sure.
How does one, by making sure, make us also more creative?
Maybe it doesn’t, maybe it just leads us into a greater truth of discovery.

Some things become much clearer with this idea of Making Sure, in my view such as the opposite of making sure. Prejudice or prejudging is not helpful when making sure. Anger is not helpful either when we are making sure. Lying and ignoring also hinders the making of sure. And finally laziness is probably the number one enemy of making sure.

So if you want to be more creative, and who doesn’t these days, why not start making sure you are making sure..

 

Singular Distinctions

 

MSocStud

Just finished reading The Certainty of Uncertainty by Bernhard Poerksen and it was a very good read on Constructivism, ie. the only thing that seems certain is uncertainty as the title implies.

In the first chapter, Poerksen interviews Heinz von Foerster  who’s opinion I probably like the most. Anyway worth a read in my view and a great find for me as I have been re-constructing for the last 33 years and only learned by reading this book that I could be called a constructivist.

So, Von Foerster suggests that the observer views the world through the lenses of distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, calm/angry, logic/illogical, reason/unreason or agree/disagree, etc etc. These are usually called dichotomies.

It seems to me that a way around this issue of polar views or distinctions and the conflict they can cause through dogma and absolute thinking, is by constructing a singular view.

We can do this by using right/not right, good/not good, calm/not calm, logic/non logic, reason/non reason or agree/not agree.This is just a slight tweak of the use of our language and thinking. With right, good, calm, logic, reason and agree being the object or absolutes or objective, that we presume or assume may exist, however are unknown to us as the subject or observer or subjective.

So, we are all in the state of not good, not right, not calm, non logic, non reason and not agree, but to different levels obviously, and we can use conversation for continually making sure where those level lie and letting our “non logic” stand to “non reason” for now…..maybe.

I Object to My Anger

Untitled-2
Here is a thought experiment we all can try …..
Next time you get angry ie say WTF to yourself or swear under your breath. Object to it by giving our self an apology of what I did, why I did it and what I will do next time.
I have just started this and already have given 2 within an hour. One where a car mounted the path and nearly mowed me down…(I live in Vietnam….ha!)
Maybe if we stop or reduce getting angry within ourselves first, it will be easier to not to get angry with someone else. Simple and logical I know but I have never actually consciously tried apologising to myself for getting angry.