Simple Pleasures Include Financial Security
by Ben Stein
A few weeks ago, one of my favorite human beings, a handyman in Malibu, was fixing a balky kitchen cabinet door when he told me excitedly about his new car. "It's a Bentley," he said. "I've always wanted a Bentley. It's about 20 years old and needs so work, so I got it pretty cheap. I got it online at eBay."
"Great," I said. "Did you sell your Corvette or your Chrysler Sebring?"
"Neither," he said "The Bentley is my third car."
Consumer Debt Peonage
My heart sank. This fellow is a great handyman. He's a great guy in general. But he has no regular income of any size, works freelance, has either no savings or almost no savings, and isn't young.
Buy that car is placing himself into a form of peonage. He's made himself drastically more susceptible to downward mobility by having an extra monthly bill to pay for car costs, and he's deprived himself of money he could have saved. In a word, he's harmed himself.
If the Bentley breaks, as it will, his repair bills will be astronomical. I tried to gently point this out. He answered simply, "I love cars."
"Then good luck to you," I said and shrugged.
Lives Well-Lived
On the other side of the spectrum, I dined last night with an old friend from the glorious street of my childhood, Harvey Road in Silver Spring, Md.
Gene Daumit, who was accompanied by his beautiful wife, DeeDee, is a super-smart guy with a Ph.D. from MIT, a major job at a huge chemicals company, a spouse with a great job in real estate, a home and a vacation condo that are both paid for (or mostly paid for), a substantial pension, and impressive savings.
As they told me about their life, especially their wildly successful daughters, I said to them, "Your lives have been exemplars of prudence."
"No," said DeeDee. "We just kept it simple."
This showed staggering wisdom. People who can keep their lives simple are so far ahead of the game it's ridiculous: a steady job or a good business; saving money regularly starting at an early age; great self-discipline about health (Gene and DeeDee are thin and fit); instilling the same discipline in your kids -- it all adds up to a life well-lived.
Set Yourself Free
Gene and DeeDee's example weighed on me heavily, because in my own life and in the lives of those around me there's so much complexity: too many cars, too many houses (my main curse), too much of an image to have to show off, too much keeping up with the Joneses.
All of this keeps you stuck behind the eight ball for too much of your life, working and slaving to support a lifestyle that starts out as a pleasure and becomes a burden.
How do you get back on track? Call a family meeting or just sit down with your financial advisor. Make a list of your monthly obligations. How many of them do you really need? How many of them are freeing you and how many are enslaving you?
Generally speaking, with the exception of a home and a vacation house, if it's eating money and not paying out, you have to question if you really need it. Do you need that time share? Do you need those three cars? Do you need a $20,000 TV? (If you do, please tell me what's on that makes it worth paying that kind of money for.) Illiquid assets that you rarely use enslave you unless you have so much money that their cost is incidental.
The Liquid Life
On the other hand, liquid assets equal freedom, as my old dad used to say. Liquid assets that pay good dividends and have capital gain potential, such as index funds weighted toward companies that are financially strong, are especially lovely.
The XLU, the REIT, and the ICF are all lovely as well. Any form of broad index fund that tracks the larger markets at home or worldwide is a darned good thing -- and for most of us, far better than a third car.
The fact is that life is deeply uncertain. We often need money when we least expect it, and at that point a third car is useless. A third car doesn't compound unless you it's a rare antique. (I sure hope my handyman has such a car.)
Money in a broadly based mutual funds or a low-cost variable annuity does compound. Life goes by pretty quick, and as my old student Ferris Bueller said, "If you don't slow down, you might miss it." And slowing down takes money.
The Luxury of Financial Security
The Daumits have it right, and far too many of us have it wrong.
So keep it simple, my friends -- the burl-wood dashboard and plush leather seats of a Bentley may feel great, but opening up your mutual fund statement and seeing how much you have to cushion you and your family against life's uncertainties feels even better. Besides, peace of mind gets you down the road farther and in greater comfort.
Start now. Get those unnecessary monthly costs out of your life and replace them with monthly savings in broadly based funds. I promise you'll be grateful. And if you still want a Bentley, you can always go to the hobby shop and buy a model of one.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
drugs cause addiction by remodeling brain
Drugs may cause addiction by 'remodelling' brain by Marlowe Hood
Wed Apr 25, 2:16 PM ET
A heroin addict aching for a fix years after kicking the habit is not simply weak-willed but may be tormented by enduring changes in the brain caused by the drug itself, according a groundbreaking study released Wednesday.
In experiments carried out on rats, a team of American researchers at Brown University in Rhode Island showed that even a single dose of morphine physically altered the neural pathways that regulate the sensation of craving.
The change persisted long after the effects of the drug had worn off.
The study, published in the British journal Nature, adds weight to a new theory that sees addiction as a disease which "remodels" brain mechanisms related to learning and memory, the lead author, cellular physiologist Julie Kauer, said in an interview.
The findings also point the way to the tantalizing possibility of a pharmaceutical antidote to addiction, she added.
Kauer's experiments focused on the activity of synapses, the connective junction between brain cells.
So-called excitatory synapses increase the flow of chemicals -- such as dopamine, associated with a feeling of euphoria -- while inhibitory synapses impede such flows.
"You have to have both, because they create checks and balances on the system," she explained.
Previous studies have shown that excitatory synapses are strongly linked to building one's capacity for memory, and that -- just like muscles in the body -- they grow stronger over time with increased activity.
This is a virtuous circle when it comes to learning because the release of small amounts of dopamine creates the incentive to learn more. It also helps hone basic survival instincts.
But the same mechanism becomes a dangerous magnet for abuse when certain drugs such as heroin and cocaine provoke a similar response.
"If you have ever been really, really thirsty, that same craving may be the same thing that is going on in the brain of someone who is addicted to a drug," Kauer said.
In this context, she added, "addiction is a form of pathological learning" in which the brain has created a rewards system for something that is harmful to the body.
"I would not call it damage -- the circuit is working the way it should. But it has been remodelled in a maladaptive way," said Kauer.
The Nature study breaks new ground in two areas. It presents the strongest evidence to date that inhibitory synapses are also capable of "long-term potentiation", or LTP, the ability to strengthen and change over time.
And it showed that morphine, an opiate, continued to block LTP long after the drug was absent from the animal's system.
"The fact that they are long lasting could be one of the reasons that the craving for drugs is so hard to conquer, and suggests that addictive drugs are producing persistent physical changes," she said.
The study also points to the intriguing possibility of a pharmaceutical treatment to neutralize intense cravings, which could help those fighting addiction to resist the temptation of relapse.
It could likewise help prevent unwanted side effects of morphine in hospitals, where the opiate is frequently used as a painkiller.
The molecule disabled by the morphine is called guanylate cyclase. By pinpointing it, Kauer and her team identified a promising target for new drugs that could potentially prevent or treat addiction.
Such a treatment, however, might create other problems, she acknowledged. A remedy that removes a drug's addictive quality but not its capacity to provoke euphoria could add a temptation of another kind.
Wed Apr 25, 2:16 PM ET
A heroin addict aching for a fix years after kicking the habit is not simply weak-willed but may be tormented by enduring changes in the brain caused by the drug itself, according a groundbreaking study released Wednesday.
In experiments carried out on rats, a team of American researchers at Brown University in Rhode Island showed that even a single dose of morphine physically altered the neural pathways that regulate the sensation of craving.
The change persisted long after the effects of the drug had worn off.
The study, published in the British journal Nature, adds weight to a new theory that sees addiction as a disease which "remodels" brain mechanisms related to learning and memory, the lead author, cellular physiologist Julie Kauer, said in an interview.
The findings also point the way to the tantalizing possibility of a pharmaceutical antidote to addiction, she added.
Kauer's experiments focused on the activity of synapses, the connective junction between brain cells.
So-called excitatory synapses increase the flow of chemicals -- such as dopamine, associated with a feeling of euphoria -- while inhibitory synapses impede such flows.
"You have to have both, because they create checks and balances on the system," she explained.
Previous studies have shown that excitatory synapses are strongly linked to building one's capacity for memory, and that -- just like muscles in the body -- they grow stronger over time with increased activity.
This is a virtuous circle when it comes to learning because the release of small amounts of dopamine creates the incentive to learn more. It also helps hone basic survival instincts.
But the same mechanism becomes a dangerous magnet for abuse when certain drugs such as heroin and cocaine provoke a similar response.
"If you have ever been really, really thirsty, that same craving may be the same thing that is going on in the brain of someone who is addicted to a drug," Kauer said.
In this context, she added, "addiction is a form of pathological learning" in which the brain has created a rewards system for something that is harmful to the body.
"I would not call it damage -- the circuit is working the way it should. But it has been remodelled in a maladaptive way," said Kauer.
The Nature study breaks new ground in two areas. It presents the strongest evidence to date that inhibitory synapses are also capable of "long-term potentiation", or LTP, the ability to strengthen and change over time.
And it showed that morphine, an opiate, continued to block LTP long after the drug was absent from the animal's system.
"The fact that they are long lasting could be one of the reasons that the craving for drugs is so hard to conquer, and suggests that addictive drugs are producing persistent physical changes," she said.
The study also points to the intriguing possibility of a pharmaceutical treatment to neutralize intense cravings, which could help those fighting addiction to resist the temptation of relapse.
It could likewise help prevent unwanted side effects of morphine in hospitals, where the opiate is frequently used as a painkiller.
The molecule disabled by the morphine is called guanylate cyclase. By pinpointing it, Kauer and her team identified a promising target for new drugs that could potentially prevent or treat addiction.
Such a treatment, however, might create other problems, she acknowledged. A remedy that removes a drug's addictive quality but not its capacity to provoke euphoria could add a temptation of another kind.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Zero savings, 'dream jobs' and nest eggs. Never, never, never put saving for someelusive retirement ahead of "investing" in your "dream job"
Zero savings, 'dream jobs' and nest eggs
Millionaires are dreamers, but not about cushy retirements!
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 4:55 AM ET Oct 3, 2006
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "If you are creative enough to select the ideal vocation, you can win, win big-time," says Thomas Stanley in "The Millionaire Mind." "The really brilliant multimillionaires are those who selected a vocation they love."
Guess what, the rest of us got it all wrong. Our obsession with regular savings may be totally off-base, distracting and misleading. Why? Because the relentless drumbeat about savings may be just a broker's self-interested sales pitch to generate more fees. So maybe you should stop being so obsessive about savings. Maybe there's something more important in life than working at a job you don't like in order to save up a nest egg for a cushy retirement 20 to 30 years from now.
Warning: Our brains have a bad habit of focusing on bogus targets, then tenaciously staying the course, no matter what. We give up today's dreams for fantasies that may never come true. We waste what's really important, hoping to be relieved from life's burdens when we retire. But what if that distant fantasy isn't "there" when we get "there?" What if you sacrifice your dreams, only to discover (when it's too late), that the dream you gave up wasn't worth the little nest egg you saved?
A year ago I was in one of Starbucks' 11,000 shops and it struck me that Americans were wasting their future retirement security by indulging in the instant gratification of their daily habit that's made coffee America's second biggest import, driving an $11 billion business. The math is simple: five bucks a day per latte and muffin compounds to $200,000 in 30 years, which is larger than the nest eggs of most Americans at retirement.
That's right: The average American has less than $50,000 in savings at retirement (exclusive of home equity). Two out of three aren't saving enough. No wonder our nation's savings rate is in negative territory. Worse yet, as meager as Social Security is, half of our population over 65 would live in poverty without it.
Last year I reviewed 10 reasons why 65% of Americans were not saving "enough." Ten reasons, all negative: Too busy, distrustful, too complicated, hate math, uninterested, naïve, etc.
This year, let's look a some positive reasons why people don't saving "enough," why people are choosing to live for today rather than save for a fuzzy, unpredictable tomorrow.
Forget Starbucks, go for a 'Dream Job!'
This shift in perspective -- looking at the positive rather than negative explanations for America's subzero savings rate -- hit me suddenly while reading the October Men's Journal. Check it out, there really is a radically new way to look at the problem.
Maybe Americans aren't wasting their future. Maybe we're actually "giving it away," getting out of ourselves, helping others, serving a larger purpose, fulfilling our unique mission in life. Maybe all the saving and getting rich hype really isn't as important as Wall Street wants us to believe.
Men's Journal's feature on "Dream Jobs" was loaded with inspiring stories. For example, Dr. David Jenkins, a physician, goes on a luxury charter cruise surfing off Indonesian. Suddenly he's "surrounded by 100 desperate people ... One woman was literally brought to me in a wheelbarrow. Later she died. She had pneumonia, very treatable, but it was just too late. Malaria, anemia, tuberculosis. The chief of the village asked me to run a clinic. It was then I knew I was going to do something."
Do "something?" You bet. He "founded SurfAid which assists regions connected to the surf community." Then he said something about savings that inspired me: "Working to end suffering became more important than saving my money to buy BMWs or whatever."
"Dream Jobs" tells us: "Work defines who we are." Work consumes most of our daily lives, what we learn and contribute to life, and "to an arguably unhealthy degree, whether we're happy. That's why it's so important to find a job you love." So Men's Journal asked eight inspiring guys "what they do right that the wannabes do wrong" in the pursuit of that elusive dream job. They came up with eight "guiding principles" that create dream jobs:
1. Find your passion and follow it
Nobody will kid you that it's easy, or the money comes fast, or ever comes. But when I was doing career counseling back in the 1980s, this was rule No. 1 from every expert in the field, and millionaires next door say it still is.
2. You can't be too obsessive
Mark Cuban is hyper-obsessive. But it made him a billionaire during the dot-com mania. Enough to buy the Dallas Mavericks. Obsessions start early: "When I was 16, buying and selling stamps, I learned that most people don't do their homework." Obsession gives you a competitive edge in knowledge.
3. A little narcissism goes a long way
Men's Journal's readers' poll found 83% are deskbound, like X-Games champ, Will Gadd. Then "I quit my office job a decade ago to do adventure sports full-time." His first competition was ice-climbing. Netted him $13,000 in 1998. Red Bull is now his sponsor. "If you get good enough at anything in the world, somebody will pay you to do it."
4. Accept risk with confidence
As commander of the space shuttle Discovery, astronaut Steve Lindsey knows risk. He trains hard: "It can't ever be completely safe, but within limits there's an acceptable level of risk." You compete with confidence, ready for the inevitable curveballs.
5. Don't be too cautious
Phil Simms knows how to push the envelope and win. Proof? His Super Bowl ring from days as New York Giants quarterback: "You've got to be free enough in your mind to the point where your body is right on the edge of going out of control, but not quite."
6. Always set new goals
Born in Ethiopia, raised by a Swedish engineer, Marcus Samuelsson fell in love with cooking, and got scholarships in Switzerland and France. He keeps raising the bar: Executive chef, part owner, now of several restaurants. Michelangelo once said: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."
7. Choose your allies wisely
Chris Carmichael started training with Lance Armstrong as a teen. Gifted people often "float along on there extraordinariness," never really push themselves, never reach full potential. Mentors, coaches, teachers, you need allies that drive you to achieve.
8. Know when you have a duty
Remember Dr. Dave Jenkins, surfing on a luxury cruise? The dying woman in a wheel barrow. The tribal chief who needed a clinic. A wake-up call to "do something." He knew he had to a duty, and created SurfAid: "My personal belief is that, for all of us, the best way to deal with our own problems in life is to help someone else."
Burn these eight "guiding principles" into your brain: They are "as useful for staying at the top of your game as for launching a second career or catching your first break." Bottom line: Never, never, never put saving for some distant, elusive retirement fantasy ahead of "investing" in your "dream job" today!
Millionaires are dreamers, but not about cushy retirements!
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 4:55 AM ET Oct 3, 2006
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "If you are creative enough to select the ideal vocation, you can win, win big-time," says Thomas Stanley in "The Millionaire Mind." "The really brilliant multimillionaires are those who selected a vocation they love."
Guess what, the rest of us got it all wrong. Our obsession with regular savings may be totally off-base, distracting and misleading. Why? Because the relentless drumbeat about savings may be just a broker's self-interested sales pitch to generate more fees. So maybe you should stop being so obsessive about savings. Maybe there's something more important in life than working at a job you don't like in order to save up a nest egg for a cushy retirement 20 to 30 years from now.
Warning: Our brains have a bad habit of focusing on bogus targets, then tenaciously staying the course, no matter what. We give up today's dreams for fantasies that may never come true. We waste what's really important, hoping to be relieved from life's burdens when we retire. But what if that distant fantasy isn't "there" when we get "there?" What if you sacrifice your dreams, only to discover (when it's too late), that the dream you gave up wasn't worth the little nest egg you saved?
A year ago I was in one of Starbucks' 11,000 shops and it struck me that Americans were wasting their future retirement security by indulging in the instant gratification of their daily habit that's made coffee America's second biggest import, driving an $11 billion business. The math is simple: five bucks a day per latte and muffin compounds to $200,000 in 30 years, which is larger than the nest eggs of most Americans at retirement.
That's right: The average American has less than $50,000 in savings at retirement (exclusive of home equity). Two out of three aren't saving enough. No wonder our nation's savings rate is in negative territory. Worse yet, as meager as Social Security is, half of our population over 65 would live in poverty without it.
Last year I reviewed 10 reasons why 65% of Americans were not saving "enough." Ten reasons, all negative: Too busy, distrustful, too complicated, hate math, uninterested, naïve, etc.
This year, let's look a some positive reasons why people don't saving "enough," why people are choosing to live for today rather than save for a fuzzy, unpredictable tomorrow.
Forget Starbucks, go for a 'Dream Job!'
This shift in perspective -- looking at the positive rather than negative explanations for America's subzero savings rate -- hit me suddenly while reading the October Men's Journal. Check it out, there really is a radically new way to look at the problem.
Maybe Americans aren't wasting their future. Maybe we're actually "giving it away," getting out of ourselves, helping others, serving a larger purpose, fulfilling our unique mission in life. Maybe all the saving and getting rich hype really isn't as important as Wall Street wants us to believe.
Men's Journal's feature on "Dream Jobs" was loaded with inspiring stories. For example, Dr. David Jenkins, a physician, goes on a luxury charter cruise surfing off Indonesian. Suddenly he's "surrounded by 100 desperate people ... One woman was literally brought to me in a wheelbarrow. Later she died. She had pneumonia, very treatable, but it was just too late. Malaria, anemia, tuberculosis. The chief of the village asked me to run a clinic. It was then I knew I was going to do something."
Do "something?" You bet. He "founded SurfAid which assists regions connected to the surf community." Then he said something about savings that inspired me: "Working to end suffering became more important than saving my money to buy BMWs or whatever."
"Dream Jobs" tells us: "Work defines who we are." Work consumes most of our daily lives, what we learn and contribute to life, and "to an arguably unhealthy degree, whether we're happy. That's why it's so important to find a job you love." So Men's Journal asked eight inspiring guys "what they do right that the wannabes do wrong" in the pursuit of that elusive dream job. They came up with eight "guiding principles" that create dream jobs:
1. Find your passion and follow it
Nobody will kid you that it's easy, or the money comes fast, or ever comes. But when I was doing career counseling back in the 1980s, this was rule No. 1 from every expert in the field, and millionaires next door say it still is.
2. You can't be too obsessive
Mark Cuban is hyper-obsessive. But it made him a billionaire during the dot-com mania. Enough to buy the Dallas Mavericks. Obsessions start early: "When I was 16, buying and selling stamps, I learned that most people don't do their homework." Obsession gives you a competitive edge in knowledge.
3. A little narcissism goes a long way
Men's Journal's readers' poll found 83% are deskbound, like X-Games champ, Will Gadd. Then "I quit my office job a decade ago to do adventure sports full-time." His first competition was ice-climbing. Netted him $13,000 in 1998. Red Bull is now his sponsor. "If you get good enough at anything in the world, somebody will pay you to do it."
4. Accept risk with confidence
As commander of the space shuttle Discovery, astronaut Steve Lindsey knows risk. He trains hard: "It can't ever be completely safe, but within limits there's an acceptable level of risk." You compete with confidence, ready for the inevitable curveballs.
5. Don't be too cautious
Phil Simms knows how to push the envelope and win. Proof? His Super Bowl ring from days as New York Giants quarterback: "You've got to be free enough in your mind to the point where your body is right on the edge of going out of control, but not quite."
6. Always set new goals
Born in Ethiopia, raised by a Swedish engineer, Marcus Samuelsson fell in love with cooking, and got scholarships in Switzerland and France. He keeps raising the bar: Executive chef, part owner, now of several restaurants. Michelangelo once said: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."
7. Choose your allies wisely
Chris Carmichael started training with Lance Armstrong as a teen. Gifted people often "float along on there extraordinariness," never really push themselves, never reach full potential. Mentors, coaches, teachers, you need allies that drive you to achieve.
8. Know when you have a duty
Remember Dr. Dave Jenkins, surfing on a luxury cruise? The dying woman in a wheel barrow. The tribal chief who needed a clinic. A wake-up call to "do something." He knew he had to a duty, and created SurfAid: "My personal belief is that, for all of us, the best way to deal with our own problems in life is to help someone else."
Burn these eight "guiding principles" into your brain: They are "as useful for staying at the top of your game as for launching a second career or catching your first break." Bottom line: Never, never, never put saving for some distant, elusive retirement fantasy ahead of "investing" in your "dream job" today!
- new retirement mindset - got Dreams? "Nothing has meaning except the meaning we give it"
'New Retirement' asks: 'Got dreams?'
Discover the meaning of life, or nothing matters, not even money
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:24 PM ET Dec 11, 2006
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- What's the only thing you really need to get "right" in retirement? Get right, or nothing matters? This message isn't just for retirees. It's for boomers, young investors starting a career and family, folks in midlife crisis. Some day we all stop and ask: What's really, really important?
What's the big question mark in retirement? Health? Maybe family? Security? Money? I'll bet Wall Street's got you convinced that all your fears boil down to one thing, money. Got money? Got no problems! Right? Wrong!
So what really, really matters in retirement? OK, so it's not money or security. Nor health, a loving spouse, teaching the kids right. Don't get me wrong, they're all important. But none of them will ever matter much if you don't get this one thing right.
To understand it, let's put it in context: Look at the old versus "new retirement," compare 1969 to today. Not Vietnam versus Iraq; I'm talking "Easy Rider!"
Dennis Hopper is a great pitchman: He's come a long way from his get-rich-quick days chasing the great American Dream in "Easy Rider." Remember the night before Hopper's character gets killed. After a big score, he's telling his buddy Peter Fonda: "We did it. We're rich, man. We're retiring in Florida. You go for the big money, man, and then you're free."
Except he didn't get "it." The price of his dream was too high, it cost him his soul. And he didn't even know why. His friend did: "We blew it, good night man." Next day, he was blown off his chopper by an angry shotgun-totting redneck in a beat-up truck. He went to his grave oblivious. He didn't "get it."
Money isn't "it." Get-rich-quick isn't it. Neither is getting rich slowly: All that stuff Wall Street and Corporate America want you to believe about working 30 or 40 years, saving regularly, piling up a hundred thousand, maybe a million or whatever, in IRAs, 401(k)s and lots of retirement accounts. Not it.
I'm dreaming of a 'new retirement!'
Flash forward from 1969: Today Hopper's got it. And it's not hard to miss his exuberant reincarnation in the new Ameriprise Financial ads: No more empty dreams of getting rich quick and playing shuffleboard in Florida:
"You still have things to do, right?" Hopper says to new retirees. These ads replace the old "rocking-chair dream" with relaxing beaches, rolling hills of wildflowers, yoga, traveling, stuff you've always wanted to do. "You have dreams. And there is no age limit on dreams. The thing about dreams is, they don't retire."
You gotta love it! But, there's a catch: Sure, everybody gets a second chance, but lots don't take it. Too many are still like Hopper'69, oblivious, never quite getting "it."
Why? You'll get a glimpse of the answer in Thomas Stanley's classic, "The Millionaire Mind:" "Why is it that only a minority of our population love their work?" That's right, the vast majority of people don't like what they're doing before retirement, and they're not prepared for the second chance, second career, second act.
Then, when it finally happens, you may even retire one of the few who've saved enough to announce like Hopper: "I did it. I got the big money. I'm rich, man, I'm free!" Then it'll hit you, you'll come face to face with the one and only thing that really matters in retirement ... and it's not money.
Case in point: I was in the career-planning business years ago. I've been around miserable megamillionaires. And around people who are broke yet happy, doing what they love in retirement, and before. I'll bet you know some of both.
A "new retirement" begins with a new attitude. It's not about money. And it's also not about being "happy." Being happy is a by-product of something else.
You must find the "meaning" of life, the meaning of your life. Years ago I was in a midlife crisis, got my first glimpse of the answer in Tony Robbins' "Unlimited Power:" "Nothing has any meaning except the meaning we give it." Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl elaborates in "Man's Search for Meaning:"
"We needed a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life -- daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answers to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."
It's never money, what's the 'meaning' of your life?
You can have health, friends, family, total security and all the money you'll ever need, but unless your life has "meaning," nothing matters. And no one can give "meaning" to your life except you. Not a million-dollar portfolio, not being debt-free, nor tight abs, low cholesterol, nor a famous guru, evangelist or yoga instructor. All that's irrelevant if you don't know deep in your soul the meaning of your life.
Only you can ever know whether you're living a meaningful life or one of quiet desperation. So let's assume you're already more like the new rather than the old Hopper. But you're searching. And let's forget all the new-age nonsense about "life's not a rehearsal" and "you only go around once."
Everyone gets a second chance. We never stop getting chances because "dreams never retire." When I was helping plan careers, I'd have people spend time covering a wall with a montage of magazine clippings, whatever turned them on (fishing, fashion, golf, travel, music, art, hobbies, you name it), then we'd explore the pattern.
In "The Power Years," retirement guru Ken Dychtwald suggests making three lists. Go buy a big journal. Write in it every day: First, a list of every job you've ever had and what you loved about it. Next, go through your annual budgets, list where you spend your discretionary income. Third, review the key turning points of your life. Get real: Where did your secret dreams take a back seat to your commitments to others, like the kids' college.
Go on a retreat, to seminars, maybe a spiritual pilgrimage, maybe get the advice of a career counselor. Read about other's second-act dreams. Take your time. You're on a journey, explore. Review the lists. Look inside. Trust me, the answers are already in there.
Rediscover your dreams, tap into the meaning of your life. You'll get all the chances you want this time around because dreams never retire! It's your life, make it a meaningful life. And when you get it, go for it with passion.
Discover the meaning of life, or nothing matters, not even money
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:24 PM ET Dec 11, 2006
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- What's the only thing you really need to get "right" in retirement? Get right, or nothing matters? This message isn't just for retirees. It's for boomers, young investors starting a career and family, folks in midlife crisis. Some day we all stop and ask: What's really, really important?
What's the big question mark in retirement? Health? Maybe family? Security? Money? I'll bet Wall Street's got you convinced that all your fears boil down to one thing, money. Got money? Got no problems! Right? Wrong!
So what really, really matters in retirement? OK, so it's not money or security. Nor health, a loving spouse, teaching the kids right. Don't get me wrong, they're all important. But none of them will ever matter much if you don't get this one thing right.
To understand it, let's put it in context: Look at the old versus "new retirement," compare 1969 to today. Not Vietnam versus Iraq; I'm talking "Easy Rider!"
Dennis Hopper is a great pitchman: He's come a long way from his get-rich-quick days chasing the great American Dream in "Easy Rider." Remember the night before Hopper's character gets killed. After a big score, he's telling his buddy Peter Fonda: "We did it. We're rich, man. We're retiring in Florida. You go for the big money, man, and then you're free."
Except he didn't get "it." The price of his dream was too high, it cost him his soul. And he didn't even know why. His friend did: "We blew it, good night man." Next day, he was blown off his chopper by an angry shotgun-totting redneck in a beat-up truck. He went to his grave oblivious. He didn't "get it."
Money isn't "it." Get-rich-quick isn't it. Neither is getting rich slowly: All that stuff Wall Street and Corporate America want you to believe about working 30 or 40 years, saving regularly, piling up a hundred thousand, maybe a million or whatever, in IRAs, 401(k)s and lots of retirement accounts. Not it.
I'm dreaming of a 'new retirement!'
Flash forward from 1969: Today Hopper's got it. And it's not hard to miss his exuberant reincarnation in the new Ameriprise Financial ads: No more empty dreams of getting rich quick and playing shuffleboard in Florida:
"You still have things to do, right?" Hopper says to new retirees. These ads replace the old "rocking-chair dream" with relaxing beaches, rolling hills of wildflowers, yoga, traveling, stuff you've always wanted to do. "You have dreams. And there is no age limit on dreams. The thing about dreams is, they don't retire."
You gotta love it! But, there's a catch: Sure, everybody gets a second chance, but lots don't take it. Too many are still like Hopper'69, oblivious, never quite getting "it."
Why? You'll get a glimpse of the answer in Thomas Stanley's classic, "The Millionaire Mind:" "Why is it that only a minority of our population love their work?" That's right, the vast majority of people don't like what they're doing before retirement, and they're not prepared for the second chance, second career, second act.
Then, when it finally happens, you may even retire one of the few who've saved enough to announce like Hopper: "I did it. I got the big money. I'm rich, man, I'm free!" Then it'll hit you, you'll come face to face with the one and only thing that really matters in retirement ... and it's not money.
Case in point: I was in the career-planning business years ago. I've been around miserable megamillionaires. And around people who are broke yet happy, doing what they love in retirement, and before. I'll bet you know some of both.
A "new retirement" begins with a new attitude. It's not about money. And it's also not about being "happy." Being happy is a by-product of something else.
You must find the "meaning" of life, the meaning of your life. Years ago I was in a midlife crisis, got my first glimpse of the answer in Tony Robbins' "Unlimited Power:" "Nothing has any meaning except the meaning we give it." Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl elaborates in "Man's Search for Meaning:"
"We needed a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life -- daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answers to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."
It's never money, what's the 'meaning' of your life?
You can have health, friends, family, total security and all the money you'll ever need, but unless your life has "meaning," nothing matters. And no one can give "meaning" to your life except you. Not a million-dollar portfolio, not being debt-free, nor tight abs, low cholesterol, nor a famous guru, evangelist or yoga instructor. All that's irrelevant if you don't know deep in your soul the meaning of your life.
Only you can ever know whether you're living a meaningful life or one of quiet desperation. So let's assume you're already more like the new rather than the old Hopper. But you're searching. And let's forget all the new-age nonsense about "life's not a rehearsal" and "you only go around once."
Everyone gets a second chance. We never stop getting chances because "dreams never retire." When I was helping plan careers, I'd have people spend time covering a wall with a montage of magazine clippings, whatever turned them on (fishing, fashion, golf, travel, music, art, hobbies, you name it), then we'd explore the pattern.
In "The Power Years," retirement guru Ken Dychtwald suggests making three lists. Go buy a big journal. Write in it every day: First, a list of every job you've ever had and what you loved about it. Next, go through your annual budgets, list where you spend your discretionary income. Third, review the key turning points of your life. Get real: Where did your secret dreams take a back seat to your commitments to others, like the kids' college.
Go on a retreat, to seminars, maybe a spiritual pilgrimage, maybe get the advice of a career counselor. Read about other's second-act dreams. Take your time. You're on a journey, explore. Review the lists. Look inside. Trust me, the answers are already in there.
Rediscover your dreams, tap into the meaning of your life. You'll get all the chances you want this time around because dreams never retire! It's your life, make it a meaningful life. And when you get it, go for it with passion.
'Irrational Millionaire" - thinking for ourselves, not what wall st. tells us
New 'Irrational Millionaires' Club!
Yes, you can do everything 'wrong,' and still die rich and happy
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:06 PM ET Feb 5, 2007
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Remember Howard Beale, that lovable wacky TV news anchor in the classic film "Network" screaming: "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" Good old Howard even got his audience going to their windows and shouting out loud: "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!"
That's how I feel: I'm sick and tired of those arrogant, stuffed-shirts behavioral finance academics and high-priced Wall Street insiders looking down their noses at America's 95 million Main Street investors like we're clueless inferiors who can be easily manipulated using esoteric quant algorithms, so Wall Street's old boys club can make big bucks.
Here's how those eggheads and fatheads see us: Wall Street "needs investors who are ... irrational, woefully uninformed, endowed with strange preferences, or for some other reason willing to hold overpriced assets. Get it? Their goal is to get you to buy "overpriced" securities by keeping you "woefully uninformed" and distracted by "strange preferences." Why? Because that makes it easy for them to treat the market like a private hunting reserve where they can bag unwary targets at will.
You bet "I'm mad as hell." It's time to stand up to those self-appointed "arbiters of rationality" ... tell them "we're not going to take it anymore" ... that we're going to stop playing their game by their rules ... that we know there's a better way ... that we really can do everything "wrong" (that is, ignore the rules of their "rational investing" game), and still live happy and die rich ... playing by our own rules.
Folks we need our own club: Let's start the new "Irrational Millionaires Club!"
We know real millionaires get rich thinking for themselves. Thomas Stanley's "The Millionaire Mind" is a perfect model. He says: "What most millionaires tell me [is] they learned to think differently from the crowd." So his book was "designed around a central theme: It pays to be different." That means thinking outside the box, going unconventional, against the herd, a contrarian who breaks the rules of the game set by Wall Street and the quants. Be a maverick, trust your gut instincts.
Unfortunately that's not easy, it challenges the "rational" mindset that's so deeply locked into our cultural brain it sounds almost anti-American. Look around, "rationality" is everywhere:
Corporate America: its operations, systems, plans, strategies, goals
America's business schools: their core beliefs, theories, curriculum
Books on business and investing: oversimplified with annoying platitudes
Wall Street's misleading theories and self-serving pseudo-rational advice
Now we get the dismissive arrogance of the behavioral-finance quants
This rigid, ultra-rational mindset is blinding us, transforming 95 million investors into robots who believe that if you want to become a millionaire you must minimize irrational behavior and maximize rationality.
Well folks, they're wrong and they're misleading you! If you really want to be a successful and happy millionaire, I say shift your focus and aim at becoming an "Irrational Millionaire!" I believe it's time to go contrary, debunk the conventional wisdom and embrace irrationality.
We need to see the world differently, like Stanley's millionaires. Forget that "rational man" mantra, it's a myth. Forget the new science of behavioral finance, their quant math and algorithms. Why? Because none of that stuff will ever change your basic irrational nature ... that's what you are and always will be.
9 traits of the successful "Irrational Millionaire"
In researching "The Millionaire Mind" Stanley surveyed a thousand people in the top 1% of our economy. He identified nine common traits. Let's grade those nine traits against the Wall Street quants' narrow concept of irrationality (behavior that's "nonpecuniary" and therefore something quants can't fit into a mathematical equation.) Here's the score I came up with, graded from 1 to 10, where the most rational is 1 and most irrational 10. Please note and send us your score too:
Courage under fire. Adversity hits many millionaires early, toughens them, builds character. Most were rated average by tests and authorities, even degraded as kids. That's their incentive to work harder and outperform. Can't quantify, so I give an irrational 10.
Got character. Stanley's research says millionaires have multiple intangible character traits: Honesty and discipline were tops, then faith, career passion, supportive spouse, social skills, hard-working, leadership, focused, entrepreneurial, competitive, energetic, physical health, etc. Another 10, can't really quantify.
Driven to succeed. Most are college grads, half got advanced degrees. But not high SAT scores. Grades were so-so, which kept them out of the best schools and prestigious jobs. So they choose their own path! Let's hedge with a 5.
Passionate in a dream job. Most people blindly pursue careers on advice of parents, counselors, peers, job trends, salary potential, job security or status in a prestigious company. "Millionaires are those who selected a vocation that they love." Definitely 10.
Get rich in little niche. Forget status, grab a niche business. Maybe a junkyard or Burger King franchise. "Too many people select vocations filled with competitors," says Stanley "Select a vocation and target where you can more easily emerge a winner." 10.
Traditional vocations. A third of Stanley's millionaires were entrepreneurs. Another third were retirees, business managers, educators, architects, engineers. About 20% were doctors and attorneys. One-sixth, corporate executives. Careers are personal, irrational and nonquantifiable, another 10.
Cheapskates (sort of). In the earlier "Millionaire Next Door" they made about $130,000 annually, "living below their means" on about $70,000. That plus lower taxes (2% versus 12% for average taxpayers) helps them build wealth faster. You can't quantify this in advance, so let's compromise with another 5 here.
Strong personal values. Principled but out-of-sync with our buy-now, consumption-driven, get-rich-quick culture. They'd rather watch the kids play sports, socialize with friends, garden, go to movies or do charity work. Intangible: 10-plus!
Loving spouse. Choose well and stay married. Divorces are costly and debilitating. The average millionaire is 54, male, married to the same person 28 years, got 3 kids. Spouses are "honest, responsible, loving, capable and supportive." But the quants ignore this soft stuff because they can't put a dollar value on such intangibles. An irrational 10.
Bottom line: Stanley says millionaires get rich going with their gut, "thinking different from the crowd," doing what they love, getting rich. But measured by the standards of Wall Street quants, "The Millionaire Mind" traits get a highly irrational 80 out of 90 points.
Maybe you have another way to evaluate "irrational millionaires." Or maybe you simply disagree; don't believe you can do everything "wrong" (by conventional rules of "rationality") and still live happy and die rich.
Tell us: What's your experience? Are you a millionaire (or on the path to becoming one)? What works for you: The irrational millionaire approach? Or do you think the rational approach gives you better odds?
Yes, you can do everything 'wrong,' and still die rich and happy
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:06 PM ET Feb 5, 2007
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Remember Howard Beale, that lovable wacky TV news anchor in the classic film "Network" screaming: "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" Good old Howard even got his audience going to their windows and shouting out loud: "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!"
That's how I feel: I'm sick and tired of those arrogant, stuffed-shirts behavioral finance academics and high-priced Wall Street insiders looking down their noses at America's 95 million Main Street investors like we're clueless inferiors who can be easily manipulated using esoteric quant algorithms, so Wall Street's old boys club can make big bucks.
Here's how those eggheads and fatheads see us: Wall Street "needs investors who are ... irrational, woefully uninformed, endowed with strange preferences, or for some other reason willing to hold overpriced assets. Get it? Their goal is to get you to buy "overpriced" securities by keeping you "woefully uninformed" and distracted by "strange preferences." Why? Because that makes it easy for them to treat the market like a private hunting reserve where they can bag unwary targets at will.
You bet "I'm mad as hell." It's time to stand up to those self-appointed "arbiters of rationality" ... tell them "we're not going to take it anymore" ... that we're going to stop playing their game by their rules ... that we know there's a better way ... that we really can do everything "wrong" (that is, ignore the rules of their "rational investing" game), and still live happy and die rich ... playing by our own rules.
Folks we need our own club: Let's start the new "Irrational Millionaires Club!"
We know real millionaires get rich thinking for themselves. Thomas Stanley's "The Millionaire Mind" is a perfect model. He says: "What most millionaires tell me [is] they learned to think differently from the crowd." So his book was "designed around a central theme: It pays to be different." That means thinking outside the box, going unconventional, against the herd, a contrarian who breaks the rules of the game set by Wall Street and the quants. Be a maverick, trust your gut instincts.
Unfortunately that's not easy, it challenges the "rational" mindset that's so deeply locked into our cultural brain it sounds almost anti-American. Look around, "rationality" is everywhere:
Corporate America: its operations, systems, plans, strategies, goals
America's business schools: their core beliefs, theories, curriculum
Books on business and investing: oversimplified with annoying platitudes
Wall Street's misleading theories and self-serving pseudo-rational advice
Now we get the dismissive arrogance of the behavioral-finance quants
This rigid, ultra-rational mindset is blinding us, transforming 95 million investors into robots who believe that if you want to become a millionaire you must minimize irrational behavior and maximize rationality.
Well folks, they're wrong and they're misleading you! If you really want to be a successful and happy millionaire, I say shift your focus and aim at becoming an "Irrational Millionaire!" I believe it's time to go contrary, debunk the conventional wisdom and embrace irrationality.
We need to see the world differently, like Stanley's millionaires. Forget that "rational man" mantra, it's a myth. Forget the new science of behavioral finance, their quant math and algorithms. Why? Because none of that stuff will ever change your basic irrational nature ... that's what you are and always will be.
9 traits of the successful "Irrational Millionaire"
In researching "The Millionaire Mind" Stanley surveyed a thousand people in the top 1% of our economy. He identified nine common traits. Let's grade those nine traits against the Wall Street quants' narrow concept of irrationality (behavior that's "nonpecuniary" and therefore something quants can't fit into a mathematical equation.) Here's the score I came up with, graded from 1 to 10, where the most rational is 1 and most irrational 10. Please note and send us your score too:
Courage under fire. Adversity hits many millionaires early, toughens them, builds character. Most were rated average by tests and authorities, even degraded as kids. That's their incentive to work harder and outperform. Can't quantify, so I give an irrational 10.
Got character. Stanley's research says millionaires have multiple intangible character traits: Honesty and discipline were tops, then faith, career passion, supportive spouse, social skills, hard-working, leadership, focused, entrepreneurial, competitive, energetic, physical health, etc. Another 10, can't really quantify.
Driven to succeed. Most are college grads, half got advanced degrees. But not high SAT scores. Grades were so-so, which kept them out of the best schools and prestigious jobs. So they choose their own path! Let's hedge with a 5.
Passionate in a dream job. Most people blindly pursue careers on advice of parents, counselors, peers, job trends, salary potential, job security or status in a prestigious company. "Millionaires are those who selected a vocation that they love." Definitely 10.
Get rich in little niche. Forget status, grab a niche business. Maybe a junkyard or Burger King franchise. "Too many people select vocations filled with competitors," says Stanley "Select a vocation and target where you can more easily emerge a winner." 10.
Traditional vocations. A third of Stanley's millionaires were entrepreneurs. Another third were retirees, business managers, educators, architects, engineers. About 20% were doctors and attorneys. One-sixth, corporate executives. Careers are personal, irrational and nonquantifiable, another 10.
Cheapskates (sort of). In the earlier "Millionaire Next Door" they made about $130,000 annually, "living below their means" on about $70,000. That plus lower taxes (2% versus 12% for average taxpayers) helps them build wealth faster. You can't quantify this in advance, so let's compromise with another 5 here.
Strong personal values. Principled but out-of-sync with our buy-now, consumption-driven, get-rich-quick culture. They'd rather watch the kids play sports, socialize with friends, garden, go to movies or do charity work. Intangible: 10-plus!
Loving spouse. Choose well and stay married. Divorces are costly and debilitating. The average millionaire is 54, male, married to the same person 28 years, got 3 kids. Spouses are "honest, responsible, loving, capable and supportive." But the quants ignore this soft stuff because they can't put a dollar value on such intangibles. An irrational 10.
Bottom line: Stanley says millionaires get rich going with their gut, "thinking different from the crowd," doing what they love, getting rich. But measured by the standards of Wall Street quants, "The Millionaire Mind" traits get a highly irrational 80 out of 90 points.
Maybe you have another way to evaluate "irrational millionaires." Or maybe you simply disagree; don't believe you can do everything "wrong" (by conventional rules of "rationality") and still live happy and die rich.
Tell us: What's your experience? Are you a millionaire (or on the path to becoming one)? What works for you: The irrational millionaire approach? Or do you think the rational approach gives you better odds?
Psing as pals, Phama Rebs influence Docs - no Duh!
Offical studies confirm influence of pharma reps on doctors, etc
Posing as pals, drug reps sway doctors' choices
Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:00 PM ET
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO, April 23 (Reuters) - As much as doctors would like to deny it, subtle attention from friendly drug sales representatives can have a big impact on what drugs they prescribe, according to two U.S. studies published on Monday.
"Physicians underestimate their own vulnerability. They think they are smarter ... but they are not trained in recognizing this kind of manipulation," said Adriane Fugh-Berman, a Georgetown University Medical Center researcher and co-author of one of the studies.
Fugh-Berman teamed with Shahram Ahari, a former drug representative for Eli Lilly and Co., who now works at the University of California, San Francisco's school of pharmacy.
Their study, which appears in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine, details the elaborate methods used by drug company sales representatives to make friends and influence drug sales.
"Reps scour a doctor's office for objects -- a tennis racquet, Russian novels, '70s rock music, fashion magazines, travel mementos or cultural or religious symbols -- that can be used to establish a personal connection with the doctor," Fugh-Berman and Ahari wrote.
"A friendly physician makes the rep's job easy because the rep can use the 'friendship' to request favors, in the form of prescriptions.
"Physicians who view the relationship as a straightforward goods-for-prescriptions exchange are dealt with in a businesslike manner. Skeptical doctors who favor evidence over charm are approached respectfully, supplied with reprints from the medical literature and wooed as teachers," they wrote.
Sales representatives also ingratiate themselves by lining up paid speaking engagements for doctors and arranging educational grants to those who frequently prescribe their drugs.
The study comes as drugmakers are smarting over the public revelation this month from an AstraZeneca drug sales representative, who said in a unauthorized newsletter to staff: "There is a big bucket of money sitting in every office. Every time you go in, you reach your hand in the bucket and grab a handful."
An AstraZeneca spokeswoman said the manager was fired and the company was looking into the incident, which she said violates a core value of serving patients.
QUICK VISIT, LASTING EFFECTS
Another study found that even a brief visit by a drug sales rep could have a powerful impact.
The study analyzed surveys done by a market research firm that chronicled a doctor's intention to prescribe the epilepsy drug gabapentin during the period of 1995 to 1999, when it was sold by Warner-Lambert under the brand name Neurontin.
Pfizer Inc., which acquired that unit in 2000, paid a $240 million fine four years later for illegal promotion of the drug for unapproved uses such as migraines or pain.
The surveys involved 116 visits to 97 doctors.
They found that after 46 percent of the visits, the doctors said they intended either to prescribe gabapentin more often or to recommend it to colleagues more often.
"The remarkable thing is how effective a very brief visit by a drug representative -- most often less than five minutes -- can be in influencing physicians' choices to use a drug for an unapproved indication," Dr. Michael Steinman of the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center said in a statement.
Besides free drug samples, salespeople often bring gifts, lunch for the doctor or office staff, new pens and coffee mugs. "The doctor feels subtly, even subconsciously, indebted to the representative," Steinman said.
Posing as pals, drug reps sway doctors' choices
Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:00 PM ET
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO, April 23 (Reuters) - As much as doctors would like to deny it, subtle attention from friendly drug sales representatives can have a big impact on what drugs they prescribe, according to two U.S. studies published on Monday.
"Physicians underestimate their own vulnerability. They think they are smarter ... but they are not trained in recognizing this kind of manipulation," said Adriane Fugh-Berman, a Georgetown University Medical Center researcher and co-author of one of the studies.
Fugh-Berman teamed with Shahram Ahari, a former drug representative for Eli Lilly and Co.
Their study, which appears in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine, details the elaborate methods used by drug company sales representatives to make friends and influence drug sales.
"Reps scour a doctor's office for objects -- a tennis racquet, Russian novels, '70s rock music, fashion magazines, travel mementos or cultural or religious symbols -- that can be used to establish a personal connection with the doctor," Fugh-Berman and Ahari wrote.
"A friendly physician makes the rep's job easy because the rep can use the 'friendship' to request favors, in the form of prescriptions.
"Physicians who view the relationship as a straightforward goods-for-prescriptions exchange are dealt with in a businesslike manner. Skeptical doctors who favor evidence over charm are approached respectfully, supplied with reprints from the medical literature and wooed as teachers," they wrote.
Sales representatives also ingratiate themselves by lining up paid speaking engagements for doctors and arranging educational grants to those who frequently prescribe their drugs.
The study comes as drugmakers are smarting over the public revelation this month from an AstraZeneca
An AstraZeneca spokeswoman said the manager was fired and the company was looking into the incident, which she said violates a core value of serving patients.
QUICK VISIT, LASTING EFFECTS
Another study found that even a brief visit by a drug sales rep could have a powerful impact.
The study analyzed surveys done by a market research firm that chronicled a doctor's intention to prescribe the epilepsy drug gabapentin during the period of 1995 to 1999, when it was sold by Warner-Lambert under the brand name Neurontin.
Pfizer Inc.
The surveys involved 116 visits to 97 doctors.
They found that after 46 percent of the visits, the doctors said they intended either to prescribe gabapentin more often or to recommend it to colleagues more often.
"The remarkable thing is how effective a very brief visit by a drug representative -- most often less than five minutes -- can be in influencing physicians' choices to use a drug for an unapproved indication," Dr. Michael Steinman of the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center said in a statement.
Besides free drug samples, salespeople often bring gifts, lunch for the doctor or office staff, new pens and coffee mugs. "The doctor feels subtly, even subconsciously, indebted to the representative," Steinman said.
Desire to Acquire - Greed is Neutral, not good , bad
The Desire to Acquire
By Robert Ringer
Just the other day, I came across a Time magazine front-cover story on ambition that I'd clipped a while back. Though it possessed many flawed premises and opinions masquerading as facts, it prompted me to reflect on the subject. The essence of the article was an exploration of the factors that are responsible for some people being ambitious and others not.
The article stated, "Of all the impulses in humanity's behavioral portfolio, ambition - that need to grab an ever bigger piece of the resource pie before someone else gets it - ought to be one of the most democratically distributed. Nature is a zero-sum game, after all. Every buffalo you kill for your family is one less for somebody else's; every acre of land you occupy elbows out somebody else."
I feel morally obliged to temporarily sidetrack myself here, because Marxist rhetoric like this is precisely what deters the underprivileged from doing the very things they need to do to lift themselves up. Ignorant, left-wing college profs have been teaching this kind of gibberish to malleable-minded students since the days of the Greek Empire, while at the same time shameless and/or ignorant politicians have been brainwashing the parents of those same kids.
In truth, any honest, half-intelligent individual in this day and age of highly visible entrepreneurial wealth creation certainly realizes that neither nature nor business nor life itself is a zero-sum game. In every country where the zero-sum game has been played out, the results have been catastrophic.
The list is a long one, including the former Soviet Union, Albania, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Mozambique. And all the countries on the list have three things in common: torture and suffering for the masses, special treatment for the anointed privileged class, and a failed economy.
Unfortunately, Western societies seem intent on following the loud voices of the zero-sum-game crowd down an egalitarian path that leads only to real communism (as opposed to theoretical communism, which is but a fairy tale).
What they cannot seem to grasp is that those who create wealth almost always do so by creating value for others. Or, to continue the metaphor, they increase the size of the pie. That's why just about every family in the U.S. has the means to buy television sets, DVD players, video-game consoles, computers, cellphones, and an endless array of other electronics that are strictly discretionary in nature - i.e., they are not necessities by any stretch of the imagination.
The dictionary defines greed as "an excessive desire to acquire more than what one needs or deserves." Asinine. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand who has the wisdom, let alone the moral authority, to decide what anyone else needs or deserves.
Since the words "excessive" and "more than what one needs or deserves" are subjective, what greed really means is a desire to acquire. And, though it may ruffle the feathers of many to hear it, the reality is that all human beings have that desire.
One person might desire to acquire power over others by leading or joining a humanitarian crusade. Another person might desire to acquire material wealth by providing products or services that people are willing to purchase from him. And still another might desire to acquire the respect of others through artistic achievements. In any event, all of these individuals are "greedy" in the sense that they "desire to acquire."
Though the audience was set up to hiss and boo when Gordon Gekko (in the 1987 movie Wall Street) spewed out those now-famous words "Greed is good," the fact is that he was absolutely right. Or at least he was conditionally right. Greed is good if it leads to honest wealth creation.
As Brian Tracy has pointed out, greed is actually neutral. Greed is neither good nor bad. What is good or bad is the method a person employs to fulfill his desires.
Just as guns don't kill people, neither do greed or ambition, of and by themselves, harm anyone. However, some people do choose to use greed and ambition to do harm, just as some people use guns to kill.
So long as you do not use force or fraud to acquire what you desire, there's no need to apologize for being "greedy" - and certainly not for any success you are able to achieve. As an added bonus, keep in mind that, through the invisible hand of the market, every dollar you make benefits society as a whole.
By Robert Ringer
Just the other day, I came across a Time magazine front-cover story on ambition that I'd clipped a while back. Though it possessed many flawed premises and opinions masquerading as facts, it prompted me to reflect on the subject. The essence of the article was an exploration of the factors that are responsible for some people being ambitious and others not.
The article stated, "Of all the impulses in humanity's behavioral portfolio, ambition - that need to grab an ever bigger piece of the resource pie before someone else gets it - ought to be one of the most democratically distributed. Nature is a zero-sum game, after all. Every buffalo you kill for your family is one less for somebody else's; every acre of land you occupy elbows out somebody else."
I feel morally obliged to temporarily sidetrack myself here, because Marxist rhetoric like this is precisely what deters the underprivileged from doing the very things they need to do to lift themselves up. Ignorant, left-wing college profs have been teaching this kind of gibberish to malleable-minded students since the days of the Greek Empire, while at the same time shameless and/or ignorant politicians have been brainwashing the parents of those same kids.
In truth, any honest, half-intelligent individual in this day and age of highly visible entrepreneurial wealth creation certainly realizes that neither nature nor business nor life itself is a zero-sum game. In every country where the zero-sum game has been played out, the results have been catastrophic.
The list is a long one, including the former Soviet Union, Albania, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Mozambique. And all the countries on the list have three things in common: torture and suffering for the masses, special treatment for the anointed privileged class, and a failed economy.
Unfortunately, Western societies seem intent on following the loud voices of the zero-sum-game crowd down an egalitarian path that leads only to real communism (as opposed to theoretical communism, which is but a fairy tale).
What they cannot seem to grasp is that those who create wealth almost always do so by creating value for others. Or, to continue the metaphor, they increase the size of the pie. That's why just about every family in the U.S. has the means to buy television sets, DVD players, video-game consoles, computers, cellphones, and an endless array of other electronics that are strictly discretionary in nature - i.e., they are not necessities by any stretch of the imagination.
The dictionary defines greed as "an excessive desire to acquire more than what one needs or deserves." Asinine. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand who has the wisdom, let alone the moral authority, to decide what anyone else needs or deserves.
Since the words "excessive" and "more than what one needs or deserves" are subjective, what greed really means is a desire to acquire. And, though it may ruffle the feathers of many to hear it, the reality is that all human beings have that desire.
One person might desire to acquire power over others by leading or joining a humanitarian crusade. Another person might desire to acquire material wealth by providing products or services that people are willing to purchase from him. And still another might desire to acquire the respect of others through artistic achievements. In any event, all of these individuals are "greedy" in the sense that they "desire to acquire."
Though the audience was set up to hiss and boo when Gordon Gekko (in the 1987 movie Wall Street) spewed out those now-famous words "Greed is good," the fact is that he was absolutely right. Or at least he was conditionally right. Greed is good if it leads to honest wealth creation.
As Brian Tracy has pointed out, greed is actually neutral. Greed is neither good nor bad. What is good or bad is the method a person employs to fulfill his desires.
Just as guns don't kill people, neither do greed or ambition, of and by themselves, harm anyone. However, some people do choose to use greed and ambition to do harm, just as some people use guns to kill.
So long as you do not use force or fraud to acquire what you desire, there's no need to apologize for being "greedy" - and certainly not for any success you are able to achieve. As an added bonus, keep in mind that, through the invisible hand of the market, every dollar you make benefits society as a whole.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
defining evil - wow M. Scott Peck
Evil
Scott Peck discusses evil in his book People of The Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil. He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one, a moderately impaired neurotic patient pseudo-named George, made a 'pact with the devil' to alleviate his symptoms. As a psychiatrist Scott Peck makes an uncharacteristic moral judgement about George's therapeutic pact and was ultimately successful in treating him.
Most of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates 'evil' are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene. Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Scott Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Scott Peck claims that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
He gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons. Discussed below are Scott Peck's views.
Evil is described by Scott Peck as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals.
An evil person:
Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
In a discussion on group evil, Scott Peck talks about the My Lai Massacre tragedy during the Vietnam war:
In the spring of 1972 I was chairman of a committee of three psychiatrists appointed by the Army Surgeon General, at the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, to make recommendations for research that might shed light on the psychological causes of MyLai, so as to help prevent such atrocities in the future. The research we proposed was rejected by the General Staff of the Army, reportedly on the grounds that it could not be kept secret and might prove embarrassing to the administration and that "further embarrassment was not desirable at that time". (Chapter 6, "MyLai: An Examination of Group Evil")
Scott Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis. He says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power. However, if a person wants to convince himself and others that he has free choice, he would rather take a path which cannot be attributed to its being the right path. Thus, he chooses the path of evil.
Peck's writings on evil are to some extent based on accounts of apparent demonic possession and exorcism by Malachi Martin. However the veracity of these accounts has been questioned.
====
If you find yourself baffled by the behavior of people around you, or dealing with the after math of some traumatic experience, this book may show you just what is going on. Once you read it you cannot ever go back and be ignorant of what Peck lays out.
I also recommend (for a more Jungian take) Sanfords "Jung and the Problem of Evil." .Jung and the Problem of Evil: The Strange Trial of Mr. Hyde Sanford references Peck and vice versa. but if you need to understand evil and how it operates in the world... this book is without a single competitor
-
I read this book for two reasons: greater understanding of people who have narcissism personality disorder, which I have had to deal with, and to get an understanding of a psychologist's view of 'evil.' I found the book very profound in its insights, and although I didn't get more information about narcissism directly (there are other sources that specifically deal with it) it certainly validated my view of it as 'evil' in its consequences.
I appreciated the definition of evil as much broader than just 'sin', (which is part of my own theological construct.) He has a good working definition of evil which explains much of what is happening in the world today.
I did not find the strategies for dealing with narcissism that I was seeking, and the chapter on exorcism didn't really help my understanding. I finished the book still wondering how to "heal the evil", which is the promise on the front of the book.
--
"Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion". "The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual." These words and the following analysis that Scott Peck gives us into the world of evil are sorely needed now in America. At the heart of our political and moral meltdown is the force of evil. According to Dr. Peck (psychology) ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being a good, right, God-fearing citizens. They specialize in self-deceit and thus are People of the Lie.
Scott Peck is best known for his famed book The Road Less Traveled where Peck argues that there is a link between personal growth, spirituality, and basic mental health. In People of the Lie Scott, Peck see evil as the antithesis to the very goodness and life that normal, healthy people seek. He writes this book to raise the awareness that evil exists as an entity and force in the world and calls his readers to take evil far more seriously.
---
Scott Peck discusses evil in his book People of The Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil. He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one, a moderately impaired neurotic patient pseudo-named George, made a 'pact with the devil' to alleviate his symptoms. As a psychiatrist Scott Peck makes an uncharacteristic moral judgement about George's therapeutic pact and was ultimately successful in treating him.
Most of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates 'evil' are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene. Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Scott Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Scott Peck claims that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
He gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons. Discussed below are Scott Peck's views.
Evil is described by Scott Peck as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals.
An evil person:
Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
In a discussion on group evil, Scott Peck talks about the My Lai Massacre tragedy during the Vietnam war:
In the spring of 1972 I was chairman of a committee of three psychiatrists appointed by the Army Surgeon General, at the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, to make recommendations for research that might shed light on the psychological causes of MyLai, so as to help prevent such atrocities in the future. The research we proposed was rejected by the General Staff of the Army, reportedly on the grounds that it could not be kept secret and might prove embarrassing to the administration and that "further embarrassment was not desirable at that time". (Chapter 6, "MyLai: An Examination of Group Evil")
Scott Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis. He says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power. However, if a person wants to convince himself and others that he has free choice, he would rather take a path which cannot be attributed to its being the right path. Thus, he chooses the path of evil.
Peck's writings on evil are to some extent based on accounts of apparent demonic possession and exorcism by Malachi Martin. However the veracity of these accounts has been questioned.
====
If you find yourself baffled by the behavior of people around you, or dealing with the after math of some traumatic experience, this book may show you just what is going on. Once you read it you cannot ever go back and be ignorant of what Peck lays out.
I also recommend (for a more Jungian take) Sanfords "Jung and the Problem of Evil." .Jung and the Problem of Evil: The Strange Trial of Mr. Hyde Sanford references Peck and vice versa. but if you need to understand evil and how it operates in the world... this book is without a single competitor
-
I read this book for two reasons: greater understanding of people who have narcissism personality disorder, which I have had to deal with, and to get an understanding of a psychologist's view of 'evil.' I found the book very profound in its insights, and although I didn't get more information about narcissism directly (there are other sources that specifically deal with it) it certainly validated my view of it as 'evil' in its consequences.
I appreciated the definition of evil as much broader than just 'sin', (which is part of my own theological construct.) He has a good working definition of evil which explains much of what is happening in the world today.
I did not find the strategies for dealing with narcissism that I was seeking, and the chapter on exorcism didn't really help my understanding. I finished the book still wondering how to "heal the evil", which is the promise on the front of the book.
--
"Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion". "The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual." These words and the following analysis that Scott Peck gives us into the world of evil are sorely needed now in America. At the heart of our political and moral meltdown is the force of evil. According to Dr. Peck (psychology) ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being a good, right, God-fearing citizens. They specialize in self-deceit and thus are People of the Lie.
Scott Peck is best known for his famed book The Road Less Traveled where Peck argues that there is a link between personal growth, spirituality, and basic mental health. In People of the Lie Scott, Peck see evil as the antithesis to the very goodness and life that normal, healthy people seek. He writes this book to raise the awareness that evil exists as an entity and force in the world and calls his readers to take evil far more seriously.
---
The road less traveled
The Road Less Traveled
The Road Less Traveled is Peck's best-known work, and the one that made his reputation. It is, in short, a description of the attributes that make for a fulfilled human being, based largely on his insights as a psychiatrist and a person.
In the first section of the work Peck talks about discipline, which he considers essential for emotional, spiritual and psychological health, and which he describes as "the means of spiritual evolution". The elements of discipline that make for such health include the ability to delay gratification, accepting responsibility for oneself and one's actions, a dedication to truth and balancing.
In the second section, Peck considers the nature of love, which he considers the driving force behind spiritual growth. The section mainly attacks a number of misconceptions about love: that romantic love exists (he considers it a very destructive myth), that it is about dependency, that true love is "falling in love", that love is cathexis, that love is a feeling. Instead love is about the extending of one's ego boundaries to include another, and about the spiritual nurturing of another, in short, love is effort.
The final section describes Grace, the powerful force originating outside human consciousness that nurtures spiritual growth in human beings. To do so he describes the "miracles" of health, the unconscious, and serendipity—phenomena which Peck says:
nurture human life and spiritual growth
are incompletely understood by scientific thinking
are commonplace among humanity
originate outside conscious human will
He concludes that "the miracles described indicate that our growth as human beings is being assisted by a force other than our conscious will".
Discipline
In his epoch making book The Road Less Traveled, Scott Peck talked of the importance of discipline. He described four aspects of discipline:
Delaying gratification: Sacrificing present comfort for future gains.
Acceptance of responsibility: Accepting responsibility for one's own decisions.
Dedication to truth: Honesty, both in word and deed.
Balancing: Handling conflicting requirements. Scott Peck talks of an important skill to prioritize between different requirements -- bracketing.
Peck’s book begins with the profound truth that ‘Life is difficult!’. We must attest to the fact that life was never meant to be easy, and that it is nothing but a battlefield of problems. We can either moan about them or solve them. It is here that the vital role of discipline assumes significance.
Peck defines discipline as the basic set of tools we require to solve life’s problems. These tools are delaying gratification, assuming responsibility, dedication to the truth, and balancing. These are techniques of suffering, means by which we experience the pain of problems in such a way as to work through them and solve them successfully, learning and growing in the process. Most of us do not want to wrestle with our problems because of the pain involved. Yet, it is only in grappling with our problems that life has its meaning.
Delaying gratification is the process by which we learn to meet and experience pain first, and then enjoy pleasure. By doing so, we enhance the joy of pleasure. Most of us learn this activity by the age of five. For e.g., a six-year-old child will prefer eating the cake first and the frosting last. Children will rather finish their homework first, so that they can play later on. However, a sizeable number of adolescents seem to lack this capacity. These problematic students are totally controlled by their impulses. Such youngsters indulge in drugs, get into frequent fights, and often find themselves with loggerheads with others.
Taking responsibility for our problems is perhaps the most difficult. Only by accepting the fact that we have problems can we solve them. An attitude of ‘It’s not my problem!’ will not take us anywhere. Neurosis and character-disorder are the two disorders of responsibility. Neurotics assume too much responsibility and feel culpable for everything that goes wrong in their life. The latter instead, shirk responsibility, and blame others for their problems. ‘Neurotics make themselves miserable, character-disordered people make everyone else miserable.’ All of us are neurotics or character-disordered at some time or the other. Neurotics must realize that they need not be excessively guilt-ridden, while character-disordered ones must learn to take things in stride, instead of becoming a yoke to the society. The words of Eldridge Cleaver, “If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem”, hold good for all of us.
Dedication to the truth comes next. We all have a certain worldview that must be constantly updated and revised as we find ourselves exposed to new data. If our viewpoint is narrow, misleading and outdated, then we will be lost. The same applies to our life experiences. A bitter childhood can leave a person with the false idea that the world is a hostile and inhuman place. Yet, if the person has to grow, he must set aside this prejudice and revise his worldview. Being true also implies a life of genuine self-examination, a willingness to be personally challenged by others, and total honesty to oneself and others.
We finally come to balancing-the technique of flexibility. Many a time we function with rigid, set patterns of behaviour. Extraordinary flexibility is a must for successful living. Part of this technique is also learning to give up something that is dear and familiar to us. In refusing to suffer the pain of giving up, we fail to truly grow. It is in giving that we gain more. This of course presupposes that we have something to offer in the first place.
These interrelated techniques of discipline are paramount if we are to cope with the tribulations of life. A person may employ two, three or even all the strategies at the same time. The strength, willingness, and energy to apply these techniques is provided by love. There are no short cuts to happiness. Only by learning to discipline ourselves can we set foot upon the path to contentment and wholeness.
Neurotic and genuine suffering
Scott Peck believes that it is only through suffering and agonizing that we can resolve the many puzzles and conflicts that we face. This is what he calls genuine suffering, the Christian way. By trying to avoid genuine suffering, people ultimately end up creating more causes for suffering. Unnecessary suffering is what Scott Peck terms neurotic suffering.
Scott Peck says that our aim must be to eliminate neurotic suffering and work through our genuine suffering, to achieve our individual goals.
Evil
Scott Peck discusses evil in his book People of The Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil. He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one, a moderately impaired neurotic patient pseudo-named George, made a 'pact with the devil' to alleviate his symptoms. As a psychiatrist Scott Peck makes an uncharacteristic moral judgement about George's therapeutic pact and was ultimately successful in treating him.
Most of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates 'evil' are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene. Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Scott Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Scott Peck claims that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
He gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons. Discussed below are Scott Peck's views.
Evil is described by Scott Peck as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals.
An evil person:
Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
In a discussion on group evil, Scott Peck talks about the My Lai Massacre tragedy during the Vietnam war:
In the spring of 1972 I was chairman of a committee of three psychiatrists appointed by the Army Surgeon General, at the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, to make recommendations for research that might shed light on the psychological causes of MyLai, so as to help prevent such atrocities in the future. The research we proposed was rejected by the General Staff of the Army, reportedly on the grounds that it could not be kept secret and might prove embarrassing to the administration and that "further embarrassment was not desirable at that time". (Chapter 6, "MyLai: An Examination of Group Evil")
Scott Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis. He says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power. However, if a person wants to convince himself and others that he has free choice, he would rather take a path which cannot be attributed to its being the right path. Thus, he chooses the path of evil.
Peck's writings on evil are to some extent based on accounts of apparent demonic possession and exorcism by Malachi Martin. However the veracity of these accounts has been questioned.
Love
His perspective on love (in The Road Less Traveled) is that love is not a feeling, it is an activity and an investment. Love is primarily a concern for the spiritual growth of another. Love cannot be sustained by mutual dependence, rather, love between two parties is made stronger when they are completely independent of one another[1].
Scott Peck seeks to differentiate between love and cathexis. Cathexis is what explains attractions to the opposite sex, the instinct for cuddling pets and pinching babies' cheeks. However, cathexis is not love. All the same, true love cannot begin in isolation, a certain amount of cathexis is necessary to get sufficiently close to be able to truly love.
The four stages
Scott Peck postulates that there are four stages of human spiritual development:
Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith. Once children learn to obey their parents, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and inquisitivity. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III.
Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith but does so because of genuine belief. Stage IV people are labelled as mystics.
Scott Peck argues that while transitions from Stage I to Stage II are sharp, transitions from Stage III to Stage IV are gradual. Nonetheless, these changes are very noticeable and mark a significant difference in the personality of the individual.
Community building
In his book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace', Scott Peck says that community has three essential ingredients:
Inclusivity
Commitment
Consensus
Based on his experience with community building workshops, Scott Peck says that community building typically goes through four stages:
Pseudocommunity: This is a stage where the members pretend to have a bon homie with one another, and cover up their differences, by acting as if the differences do not exist. Pseudocommunity can never directly lead to community, and it is the job of the person guiding the community building process to shorten this period as much as possible.
Chaos: When pseudocommunity fails to work, the members start falling upon each other, giving vent to their mutual disagreements and differences. This is a period of chaos. It is a time when the people in the community realize that differences cannot simply be ignored. Chaos looks counterproductive but it is the first genuine step towards community building.
Emptiness: After chaos comes emptiness. At this stage, the people learn to empty themselves of those ego related factors that are preventing their entry into community. Emptiness is a tough step because it involves the death of a part of the individual. But, Scott Peck argues, this death paves the way for the birth of a new creature, the Community.
True community: Having worked through emptiness, the people in community are in complete empathy with one another. There is a great level of tacit understanding. People are able to relate to each other's feelings. Discussions, even when heated, never get sour, and motives are not questioned.
The four stages of community formation are somewhat related to a model in organization theory for the five stages that a team goes through during development. These five stages are:
Forming where the team members have some initial discomfort with each other but nothing comes out in the open. They are insecure about their role and position with respect to the team. This corresponds to the initial stage of pseudocommunity.
Storming where the team members start arguing heatedly and differences and insecurities come out in the open. This corresponds to the second stage given by Scott Peck, namely chaos.
Norming where the team members lay out rules and guidelines for interaction that help define the roles and responsibilities of each person. This corresponds to emptiness, where the community members think within and empty themselves of their obsessions to be able to accept and listen to others.
Performing where the team finally starts working as a cohesive whole, and effectively achieve the tasks setof themselves. In this stage individuals are aided by the group as a whole where necessary, in order to move further collectively than they could achieve as a group of separated individuals.
Transforming This corresponds to the stage of true community. This represents the stage of celebration, and when individuals leave, as they must, there is a genuine feeling of grief, and a desire to meet again. Traditionally this stage was often called "Mourning".
It is in this third stage that Scott Peck's community building methods differ in principle from team development. While teams in business organizations need to develop explicit rules, guidelines and protocols during the norming stage, the emptiness' stage of community building is characterized, not by laying down the rules explicitly, but by shedding the resistance within the minds of the individuals.
Scott Peck has started the Foundation for Community Encouragement to promote the formation of communities, which, he argues, are a first step towards uniting humanity and saving us from self destruction.
The meaning of true community
Peck describes what he considers to be the most salient characteristics of a true community.
Inclusivity, commitment and consensus: Members accept and embrace each other, celebrating their individuality and transcending their differences. They commit themselves to the effort and the people involved. They make decisions and reconcile their differences through consensus.
Realism: Members bring together multiple perspectives to better understand the whole context of the situation. Decisions are more well-rounded and humble, rather than one-sided and arrogant.
Contemplation: Members examine themselves. They are individually and collectively self-aware of the world outside themselves, the world inside themselves, and the relationship between the two.
A safe place: Members allow others to share their vulnerability, heal themselves, and express who they truly are.
A laboratory for personal disarmament: Members experientially discover the rules for peacemaking and embrace its virtues. They feel and express compassion and respect for each other as fellow human beings.
A group that can fight gracefully: Members resolve conflicts with wisdom and grace. They listen and understand, respect each others’ gifts, accept each others’ limitations, celebrate their differences, bind each others’ wounds, and commit to a struggle together rather than against each other.
A group of all leaders: Members harness the “flow of leadership” to make decisions and set a course of action. It is the spirit of community itself that leads and not any single individual.
A spirit: The true spirit of community is the spirit of peace, love, wisdom and power. Members may view the source of this spirit as an outgrowth of the collective self or as the manifestation of a Higher Will.
The Road Less Traveled is Peck's best-known work, and the one that made his reputation. It is, in short, a description of the attributes that make for a fulfilled human being, based largely on his insights as a psychiatrist and a person.
In the first section of the work Peck talks about discipline, which he considers essential for emotional, spiritual and psychological health, and which he describes as "the means of spiritual evolution". The elements of discipline that make for such health include the ability to delay gratification, accepting responsibility for oneself and one's actions, a dedication to truth and balancing.
In the second section, Peck considers the nature of love, which he considers the driving force behind spiritual growth. The section mainly attacks a number of misconceptions about love: that romantic love exists (he considers it a very destructive myth), that it is about dependency, that true love is "falling in love", that love is cathexis, that love is a feeling. Instead love is about the extending of one's ego boundaries to include another, and about the spiritual nurturing of another, in short, love is effort.
The final section describes Grace, the powerful force originating outside human consciousness that nurtures spiritual growth in human beings. To do so he describes the "miracles" of health, the unconscious, and serendipity—phenomena which Peck says:
nurture human life and spiritual growth
are incompletely understood by scientific thinking
are commonplace among humanity
originate outside conscious human will
He concludes that "the miracles described indicate that our growth as human beings is being assisted by a force other than our conscious will".
Discipline
In his epoch making book The Road Less Traveled, Scott Peck talked of the importance of discipline. He described four aspects of discipline:
Delaying gratification: Sacrificing present comfort for future gains.
Acceptance of responsibility: Accepting responsibility for one's own decisions.
Dedication to truth: Honesty, both in word and deed.
Balancing: Handling conflicting requirements. Scott Peck talks of an important skill to prioritize between different requirements -- bracketing.
Peck’s book begins with the profound truth that ‘Life is difficult!’. We must attest to the fact that life was never meant to be easy, and that it is nothing but a battlefield of problems. We can either moan about them or solve them. It is here that the vital role of discipline assumes significance.
Peck defines discipline as the basic set of tools we require to solve life’s problems. These tools are delaying gratification, assuming responsibility, dedication to the truth, and balancing. These are techniques of suffering, means by which we experience the pain of problems in such a way as to work through them and solve them successfully, learning and growing in the process. Most of us do not want to wrestle with our problems because of the pain involved. Yet, it is only in grappling with our problems that life has its meaning.
Delaying gratification is the process by which we learn to meet and experience pain first, and then enjoy pleasure. By doing so, we enhance the joy of pleasure. Most of us learn this activity by the age of five. For e.g., a six-year-old child will prefer eating the cake first and the frosting last. Children will rather finish their homework first, so that they can play later on. However, a sizeable number of adolescents seem to lack this capacity. These problematic students are totally controlled by their impulses. Such youngsters indulge in drugs, get into frequent fights, and often find themselves with loggerheads with others.
Taking responsibility for our problems is perhaps the most difficult. Only by accepting the fact that we have problems can we solve them. An attitude of ‘It’s not my problem!’ will not take us anywhere. Neurosis and character-disorder are the two disorders of responsibility. Neurotics assume too much responsibility and feel culpable for everything that goes wrong in their life. The latter instead, shirk responsibility, and blame others for their problems. ‘Neurotics make themselves miserable, character-disordered people make everyone else miserable.’ All of us are neurotics or character-disordered at some time or the other. Neurotics must realize that they need not be excessively guilt-ridden, while character-disordered ones must learn to take things in stride, instead of becoming a yoke to the society. The words of Eldridge Cleaver, “If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem”, hold good for all of us.
Dedication to the truth comes next. We all have a certain worldview that must be constantly updated and revised as we find ourselves exposed to new data. If our viewpoint is narrow, misleading and outdated, then we will be lost. The same applies to our life experiences. A bitter childhood can leave a person with the false idea that the world is a hostile and inhuman place. Yet, if the person has to grow, he must set aside this prejudice and revise his worldview. Being true also implies a life of genuine self-examination, a willingness to be personally challenged by others, and total honesty to oneself and others.
We finally come to balancing-the technique of flexibility. Many a time we function with rigid, set patterns of behaviour. Extraordinary flexibility is a must for successful living. Part of this technique is also learning to give up something that is dear and familiar to us. In refusing to suffer the pain of giving up, we fail to truly grow. It is in giving that we gain more. This of course presupposes that we have something to offer in the first place.
These interrelated techniques of discipline are paramount if we are to cope with the tribulations of life. A person may employ two, three or even all the strategies at the same time. The strength, willingness, and energy to apply these techniques is provided by love. There are no short cuts to happiness. Only by learning to discipline ourselves can we set foot upon the path to contentment and wholeness.
Neurotic and genuine suffering
Scott Peck believes that it is only through suffering and agonizing that we can resolve the many puzzles and conflicts that we face. This is what he calls genuine suffering, the Christian way. By trying to avoid genuine suffering, people ultimately end up creating more causes for suffering. Unnecessary suffering is what Scott Peck terms neurotic suffering.
Scott Peck says that our aim must be to eliminate neurotic suffering and work through our genuine suffering, to achieve our individual goals.
Evil
Scott Peck discusses evil in his book People of The Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil. He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one, a moderately impaired neurotic patient pseudo-named George, made a 'pact with the devil' to alleviate his symptoms. As a psychiatrist Scott Peck makes an uncharacteristic moral judgement about George's therapeutic pact and was ultimately successful in treating him.
Most of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates 'evil' are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene. Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Scott Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Scott Peck claims that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
He gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons. Discussed below are Scott Peck's views.
Evil is described by Scott Peck as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals.
An evil person:
Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others
Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
In a discussion on group evil, Scott Peck talks about the My Lai Massacre tragedy during the Vietnam war:
In the spring of 1972 I was chairman of a committee of three psychiatrists appointed by the Army Surgeon General, at the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, to make recommendations for research that might shed light on the psychological causes of MyLai, so as to help prevent such atrocities in the future. The research we proposed was rejected by the General Staff of the Army, reportedly on the grounds that it could not be kept secret and might prove embarrassing to the administration and that "further embarrassment was not desirable at that time". (Chapter 6, "MyLai: An Examination of Group Evil")
Scott Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis. He says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power. However, if a person wants to convince himself and others that he has free choice, he would rather take a path which cannot be attributed to its being the right path. Thus, he chooses the path of evil.
Peck's writings on evil are to some extent based on accounts of apparent demonic possession and exorcism by Malachi Martin. However the veracity of these accounts has been questioned.
Love
His perspective on love (in The Road Less Traveled) is that love is not a feeling, it is an activity and an investment. Love is primarily a concern for the spiritual growth of another. Love cannot be sustained by mutual dependence, rather, love between two parties is made stronger when they are completely independent of one another[1].
Scott Peck seeks to differentiate between love and cathexis. Cathexis is what explains attractions to the opposite sex, the instinct for cuddling pets and pinching babies' cheeks. However, cathexis is not love. All the same, true love cannot begin in isolation, a certain amount of cathexis is necessary to get sufficiently close to be able to truly love.
The four stages
Scott Peck postulates that there are four stages of human spiritual development:
Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith. Once children learn to obey their parents, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and inquisitivity. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III.
Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith but does so because of genuine belief. Stage IV people are labelled as mystics.
Scott Peck argues that while transitions from Stage I to Stage II are sharp, transitions from Stage III to Stage IV are gradual. Nonetheless, these changes are very noticeable and mark a significant difference in the personality of the individual.
Community building
In his book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace', Scott Peck says that community has three essential ingredients:
Inclusivity
Commitment
Consensus
Based on his experience with community building workshops, Scott Peck says that community building typically goes through four stages:
Pseudocommunity: This is a stage where the members pretend to have a bon homie with one another, and cover up their differences, by acting as if the differences do not exist. Pseudocommunity can never directly lead to community, and it is the job of the person guiding the community building process to shorten this period as much as possible.
Chaos: When pseudocommunity fails to work, the members start falling upon each other, giving vent to their mutual disagreements and differences. This is a period of chaos. It is a time when the people in the community realize that differences cannot simply be ignored. Chaos looks counterproductive but it is the first genuine step towards community building.
Emptiness: After chaos comes emptiness. At this stage, the people learn to empty themselves of those ego related factors that are preventing their entry into community. Emptiness is a tough step because it involves the death of a part of the individual. But, Scott Peck argues, this death paves the way for the birth of a new creature, the Community.
True community: Having worked through emptiness, the people in community are in complete empathy with one another. There is a great level of tacit understanding. People are able to relate to each other's feelings. Discussions, even when heated, never get sour, and motives are not questioned.
The four stages of community formation are somewhat related to a model in organization theory for the five stages that a team goes through during development. These five stages are:
Forming where the team members have some initial discomfort with each other but nothing comes out in the open. They are insecure about their role and position with respect to the team. This corresponds to the initial stage of pseudocommunity.
Storming where the team members start arguing heatedly and differences and insecurities come out in the open. This corresponds to the second stage given by Scott Peck, namely chaos.
Norming where the team members lay out rules and guidelines for interaction that help define the roles and responsibilities of each person. This corresponds to emptiness, where the community members think within and empty themselves of their obsessions to be able to accept and listen to others.
Performing where the team finally starts working as a cohesive whole, and effectively achieve the tasks setof themselves. In this stage individuals are aided by the group as a whole where necessary, in order to move further collectively than they could achieve as a group of separated individuals.
Transforming This corresponds to the stage of true community. This represents the stage of celebration, and when individuals leave, as they must, there is a genuine feeling of grief, and a desire to meet again. Traditionally this stage was often called "Mourning".
It is in this third stage that Scott Peck's community building methods differ in principle from team development. While teams in business organizations need to develop explicit rules, guidelines and protocols during the norming stage, the emptiness' stage of community building is characterized, not by laying down the rules explicitly, but by shedding the resistance within the minds of the individuals.
Scott Peck has started the Foundation for Community Encouragement to promote the formation of communities, which, he argues, are a first step towards uniting humanity and saving us from self destruction.
The meaning of true community
Peck describes what he considers to be the most salient characteristics of a true community.
Inclusivity, commitment and consensus: Members accept and embrace each other, celebrating their individuality and transcending their differences. They commit themselves to the effort and the people involved. They make decisions and reconcile their differences through consensus.
Realism: Members bring together multiple perspectives to better understand the whole context of the situation. Decisions are more well-rounded and humble, rather than one-sided and arrogant.
Contemplation: Members examine themselves. They are individually and collectively self-aware of the world outside themselves, the world inside themselves, and the relationship between the two.
A safe place: Members allow others to share their vulnerability, heal themselves, and express who they truly are.
A laboratory for personal disarmament: Members experientially discover the rules for peacemaking and embrace its virtues. They feel and express compassion and respect for each other as fellow human beings.
A group that can fight gracefully: Members resolve conflicts with wisdom and grace. They listen and understand, respect each others’ gifts, accept each others’ limitations, celebrate their differences, bind each others’ wounds, and commit to a struggle together rather than against each other.
A group of all leaders: Members harness the “flow of leadership” to make decisions and set a course of action. It is the spirit of community itself that leads and not any single individual.
A spirit: The true spirit of community is the spirit of peace, love, wisdom and power. Members may view the source of this spirit as an outgrowth of the collective self or as the manifestation of a Higher Will.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
the secret - movie no depth -
I've held out for a while, but finally I thought I'd see what all the fuss was about.
Why have I held out you might ask? Two reasons. The first has just three words: What The Bleep. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's that popular spiritual movie funded by the female cult leader who claims to channel a 35,000 year old warrior king from Lemuria (little old red flag for ya there..) and produced by her (his?) students. This film takes bad interpretations of quantum physics, puts them alongside junk science claims of water and it's ability to retain the “energy of thoughts” and then drives towards all sorts of misguided spiritual and psychological conclusions that leave it's audience more confused and ignorant about spirituality, science and the relationship between the two than when they first sat down….presumably scratching their heads and saying “what the bleep?”
My second reason, you innocently ask?
Well that's a little more complicated and has to do with my having been around the spiritual community my entire adult life and being perennially surprised, amused and infuriated with what people call “spiritual” and with the naivete, superficiality and gullibility of most “spiritual” people, as well as the basically banal nature of the material that gets recycled and marketed to it's willing consumers year after year.
The Secret takes the cake though.
Seriously.
Let's begin at the beginning:
The Drama
The movie starts with a dramatization. A sexy/disheveled aging blonde Australian lady is clearly having a rough time - her father has died, her relationships are a mess, she has worked herself to exhaustion. Then she opens her suitcase and sees book. A post-it note on the cover says “Mom, this will help xxox…”
Whatever could it be?
It turns out (the montage tells us) that she is holding in her hands a glimpse of the ancient secret that has been passed down through secret societies along the ages, that people have persecuted and killed for, the knowledge that the power elite have used to keep the masses oppressed and that was known by everyone from Emerson to Shakespeare to Plato to Lincoln to Hugo to Newton to Beethoven! No hint as to how her daughter or son happened to slide this precious information into her suitcase…
In her mind's eye we see Romans and Egyptians, Templar Knights, priests, scheming white cigar-smoking men in boardrooms, all passing the secret document back and forth, chasing it, hiding it - presumably until one of them passed it off on the troubled Australian lady's child?
Finally, in a breathless climactic moment, she is lying on her bed, head flung back, - a tight shot of her face, eyes closed, lips glossy as she earnestly and not a little seductively asks “Why doesn't anyone know this?”
After another exhausting rapid research project, our short-lived Australian heroine has found those among us who know the secret today and leaves us now in their able hands.
Pretty exciting, huh?
What could the ancient secret knowledge be? So mysterious. So powerful.
Who are these modern teachers of the ancient mystery, the wise ones who are the contemporary bearers of the secret knowledge?
The Masters of The Secret
The set combines beautiful backdrops with state-of-the-art computer graphics, and each speaker has their name in both typeset font and signature form at the bottom of the screen, along with a title that, we assume, qualifies them to be speaking. Their titles range from “philosopher” to “author” to “quantum physicist” to “writer” to “visionary” to “entrepreneur” to my personal favorite - “feng shui consultant.” Only one of the “writer/authors” is well known and has his book “Chicken Soup for the Soul” included in the computer graphic backdrop behind him. One can only assume that none of the others actually have published anything - nonetheless they are writers or authors who are in on “The Secret.”
One of the speakers with the title “philosopher” appears by the letters after his name to be a chiropractor with a degree in science. OK…
But while their titles and qualifications may vary, on one thing they are all resolutely in agreement, and this is the ancient secret, shrouded in mystery, repressed, hidden, revered by the best minds of history. Finally available and delivered by this coalition of the brilliant and the brave. Are you ready?
The Secret
Your thoughts determine your experience. Shocking, isn't it?
That's right, you create your own reality. I know, I know it's complicated and deep, but we have decoded the golden thread of all the secret ancient wisdom traditions and the knowledge that made Emerson, Shakespeare, Newton et al such great men, and this is it!
The movie goes on to suggest, through well-made video dramatizations and repetitive rhetoric that “the Law of Attraction” is at work all the time responding to your thoughts and your feelings, serving up from the universe whatever you are putting out there. For example:
That parking ticket, those bills and piling up debt, your cancer, gay people who are harassed by homophobes, lonely folks who can't get a date and so on…all of these are without exception manifestations of bad thoughts.
If you are focusing on not wanting to be late as you drive to work - guess what, you will be!
If you think about your bike being stolen and are extra careful to lock it up tight - it'll be stolen. But if you visualize that rock-star parking in front of the store you need to go to - it will be there!
If you focus on how stressed out you are about your credit card bills - guess what, you'll only create more debt!
If you spend time thinking about your cancer it will be more likely to kill you and even better, if you just focus on good things, watch funny movies and feel good after your diagnosis, it could take just three months to completely destroy the tumor - hey it did for this lady…
then there's the little boy dying of a rare form of hepatitis. Full recovery because his family ordered up some extra special “gratitude rocks” from one of our “writers…..”
What's more all of this has been proven by science.
Cool, huh?
Not really.
The Problems
The film uses authoritative names, meaningless titles/qualifications, very badly constructed arguments, category errors, logical fallacies etc.. scientific seeming images that then never go anywhere to strengthen it's points, and examples/case histories that are anecdotal at best.
And the matter-of-fact “scientific proof” is alluded to by various graphics, impressive looking images of experimental scenarios, and vague verbal references, but never really appears.
What you may ask could be wrong with a hopeful, inspiring film that empowers people to use their minds?
Well how about the little boy who focuses hard enough on the bicycle so that he gets it? Or the young woman who gazes with just the right combination of longing and belief through the jewelry store window until a man magically appears to give it to her? How about that woman who cured her breast cancer by laughing? Or the little boy in South Africa who magically recovered from near fatal rare hepatitis because his father had gratitude rocks from California delivered to the door? How about Jack Canfield implying that he made a million dollars on his first book because he used the Law of Attraction - ie he thought about it a lot? How about the assertion that by protesting, say, the war in Iraq, you only perpetuate it by giving it your focus?
We see a “case history” of a young gay man who is depressed, picked on, constantly humiliated by homophobic co-workers and street thugs. No more once he applies the secret. Done.
In fact the audience at a comedy club cheers his proclamation of being “such an incredibly gay man…” Nice. He is happy and everyone magically either accepts and supports his homosexuality or, - get this - transfers out of his office - so strong is his intention!
You see the makers of The Secret want us to believe that if your mental focus is strong enough and the intentional “joy” in your being is brimming over enough, everything will happen as you want it too. That's the highest spiritual truth and the secret to life.
We see scenes from a brutally dysfunctional relationship. Shoving, yelling, faces contorted in anger and hurt. The solution? Write down what you appreciate about your abusive partner and watch them transform before your eyes to match the energy you are magnetizing them with!
They assure us that the reason a tiny percentage of the world's population has so much of the wealth is because they know this secret.
Never mind social conditions. Never mind racism, homophobia, colonialism, world history, psychology, trauma, economic oppression. Everyone, absolutely everyone could be wealthy, happy and in love if they just knew how to use the Law of Attraction. Um, what does that mean for people who are not happy, wealthy or in the perfect relationship? Well, for lesson number two - see lesson number one. You're just not doing it right, silly.
Of course we never hear about the implied (and clearly flimsy) connection to the list of historical luminaries. You should have seen Shakespeare park that horse exactly where he wanted to on opening night….Beethoven - died in the black. Deaf, but solvent - right? Newton - never got sick.
Friends, this is not a recipe for anything but a frontal lobotomy. This is not high spiritual truth passed down through the ages, it's narcissistic delusion, bordering on the psychotic, plugged into the akashic records by a tinfoil hat.
It is a complete abdication of depth in favor of a supremely superficial analysis of life.
It is a marvelous example of everything wrong with the new age movement and is so insulting of the true nature of suffering, so ignorant of the realities of privilege and oppression, so authoritative in it's endorsement magical thinking and judgment of those who are not doing it right as to set any nascent spiritual development and self-awareness back a good 5 to 10 years.
So what is the real secret?
An Intelligent Path
Well there are really three broad areas that need attention, and this movie beautifully illustrates why:
1) Critical Thinking
Gotta have it. Without it spirituality is filled with the unicorns of childhood fantasy and the poison kool-aid of manipulation and dishonesty. In order to have critical thinking one needs healthy rational development. Educating the mind by studying actual philosophy, psychology, literature and art that grapples with the universal spiritual themes that great minds have been expressing since at least the ancient Greeks.
A healthy dose of critical thinking will cut through the kind of nonsense these kinds of popular spiritual vehicles are selling. It will also allow one to side step the very real suffering and delusion that comes from buying into very, very poor interpretations of spiritual reality like these.
Rest assured, if The Secret and What The Bleep sound like deep truth to you, there is either a complete lack of critical thinking, or you have become convinced of the fallacious spiritual argument which says that critical thinking is the enemy of spirituality. Not so. Critical thinking is the enemy of false spirituality. It is the trusted ally of authentic adult spirituality. Use it!
2) Your Shadow is your Friend
Contrary to superficial and fragmenting prescriptions like those offered by What the Bleep and The Secret, the instruction here is to actually work with your shadow material and learn from it.
Your so called “negative emotions” have value and meaning. They are communications from your psyche. Be curious about them. Compassionate. Follow a path of inquiry into what lies beneath the surface of your reactions, fears, anger-triggers, unsatisfied feelings, sadness etc. The way to be free of these is to embrace them and listen to what they might be telling you about your shadow - the part of you that you have disowned and disconnected from.
Working with and ultimately integrating shadow material through a process that takes you beneath the surface into the actual meaning that your triggers have for you is the way toward ending self-sabotage, not just trying desperately to impose a junta of “good thoughts” on your mind from the outside in…
3) Spiritual Practice
Spiritual practice is absolutely distinct from spiritual beliefs or ideas.
Spiritual ideas might give you a map of the territory in preparation for and in analyzing the experience of spiritual practice.
Spiritual beliefs are usually best left alone as they tend to hinder authentic inquiry which is at the heart of spiritual practice.
Spiritual practices actually require that you do the work. That you sit down and meditate. That you start a yoga practice. That you journal. That you dance your demons and shake your Buddha. That you be present to your emotions, your body, your mental patterns and learn the art of self observation, introspection and that most harrowing of skills - honest communication.
Spiritual practice requires that you turn to face your shadow. That you get real about your social conditioning, your political situation, the distinction between what you have power over and what has power over you.
Spiritual practice is inspiring, but it's also deeply humbling. It does not tell you that you can have anything, be anything, do anything, without limit.
Sorry. That's the kind of fantasy high the Secret promises - and the hangover is a real drag.
But real practice does give you tools and resources to deal with the inevitable disasters, disappointments and struggles that make up every human life.
And this is perhaps what is most problematic about the ideas promoted by movies like The Secret. Most likely the audience is looking for some real tools, looking for some real practices, techniques and resources to help make sense of life and it's complexities, to help them to grow and feel supported. Yet what these ideas offer is a short lived illusory hope that fades to reveal only one area of deepening - that of denial, fragmentation and self-judgment.
The Ethical Problem
Not too much searching online reveals that the movie is part of an elaborate advertising campaign to get people interested in working with the various “teachers” it features. Just like What the Bleep is a recruitment vehicle for Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, The Secret is an infomercial for it's talking heads. On a purely business level - brilliant. Too bad this is the last thing it's target audience actually needs.
1) The movie suggests something impossible - not only are there millions of other people out there with their own agendas/intentions, but there are also multiple variables that are not even remotely influence-able at the level of conscious intention - no matter how admittedly valuable a positive attitude might be.
2) Gullible and desperate people will try really hard to apply the “Law of Attraction”. They will have some success with it because intention has a certain amount of impact. They will have a lot of failure with it, because it is nonsense. I already know of a few people who are watching the movie obsessively to try and master it's bogus teachings. See here for the recent New York Times article on magical thinking, it's harmless prevalence and problematic implications as a worldview.
3) the ones with money will buy the book, attend the events, and contact the teachers for help on perfecting their skills, which of course is, by definition impossible, so they will have a captive audience.
The dynamic described by the above three points is “The Secret” to these hucksters making a mint!
=================
Introduction
In response to the wonderful dialog about The Secret, I thought it might be interesting to do a slightly less polemical step-back here and talk about what I think healthy stage appropriate spiritual practice and philosophy can and should be for people likely to be taken in by The Secret, What the Bleep and the New Age paradigm they represent.
This is, of course, the basis for 90% of what you will find on my Zaadz pages, the website for my work ( www.julianwalkeryoga.com ), and this blog. Here too is an introduction to my Open Sky body of work, integrating yoga, meditation, hands-on bodywork, ecstatic dance and dialog in private sessions, group classes, workshops, trainings and retreats.
Some felt that I was unfairly slamming The Secret and it's adherents for what is a well-intentioned, stage-appropriate spirituality with training wheels - that ultimately the movie is positive and empowering and so what if it doesn't live up to some advanced spiritual or intellectual ideal, it's a good first step.
In my previous blog post I dismissed this position pretty strongly with the assertion that the Secret was stage appropriate for no-one, that in fact it represents a spiritual pathology rampant in the broad, popular and influential New Age movement that actually distorts reality, mixes junk science with superficial philosophy, and effectively limits healthy stage-wise spiritual growth.
Some felt that my critique and Part Two: Wilber, Gebser and New Age Pathology was not making enough room for whatever their favorite New Age idea was, be it the power of intention, the universe's benevolent creative generosity, or the reality of synchronicity. What was interesting to me about this position is that it came off not so much as a defense of The Secret (because the movie is relentlessly about one single oversimplified incorrect idea presented as an ancient universal truth in laughable and indefensible ways) but more of whatever New Age particulars still held a revered place in their heart or mind.
The Power of Intention
Perhaps the most common response to my criticism of the Secret, What the Bleep and the New Age worldview in general over the years has been this:
“But the power of intention is so important and people need to hear that message.”
Let's use this well-meaning assertion as a starting point.
The central difficulty I have with the pop spirituality phenomenon of the New Age is it's unfortunate lack of depth. I know, I know I said I'd be less polemical, but I don't actually mean that as an insult. It's a simple fact.
The New Age worldview suffers from a basic lack of depth, even a lack of awareness that there is such a thing as depth. The popularity of “intention” as an all-powerful spiritual tool is a perfect case in point. Intention, in and of itself, is of little value. What matters is what the intention helps to reveal and how the intention is, in turn, shaped by an interactive relationship to the process.
Intention can be an entry point into an inquiry process that allows for insight and healing. Intention can also be used to take those process-generated insights and apply them with some discipline to one's life. But there has to be insight first. Without a relationship to depth, intention remains superficial and empty. Without a way of interpreting meaning intention can be rigid and ineffective. Inquiry and depth makes the difference between the intention of a Martin Luther King Jnr. and the intention of an Adolf Hitler.
What most New Agers mean by “intention” is some combination of faith and determination. This can be useful, but like all forms of faith and determination it benefits immensely from, and is directed more efectively by, a relationship to the depth discovered through a genuine process of inquiry.
Spiritual practice and philosophy should be a sequential process of initiation into successive layers of depth, complexity, nuance and, yes, truth. I am going to use two approaches that I feel are legitimate spiritual practices that succeed in this duty, one from the East - Vipassana Meditation, and one from the West, Psychotherapy.
Two Spiritual Practices
In Vipassana Meditation practice, one sequentially learns several different skills that allow one first to concentrate a strong conscious intention to stabilize in the present and then to gain entry into one's own inner world with that concentrated awareness. The purpose of learning to concentrate on the breath (the “apana” stage of the work) is not merely an end in itself, it allows one to cross a threshold into depth. This meditation technique then allows the practitioner to become more and more familiar with first their sensations and then with the next layer of depth, which is the emotional and mental dimension of their embodied experience, this evokes yet another layer of depth which has to do with gradually becoming more and more stabilized in the observing or witnessing awareness that remains as the constant as the sensations, emotions, thoughts and even sense of self keep going through their ever-changing cycles.
Each of these deepening movements, from surface level concentration which calms the static of the mind, to focused awareness of the sensations as they arise, intensify, fade and pass, to the inquiry into one's emotional/psychological experience, to the deepening sense of one's witnessing consciousness, is a stage in a process that takes many years. The word “Vipassana” means “insight”, and the assertion is that through this gradually deepening path, one gains insight into not only one's own being, but also the nature of the human condition itself.
Along the way one will have to sit through many sessions of boredom, physical discomfort, emotional anguish, and psychological torment, alongside (and often transitioning into) periods of deep gratitude, bliss, release and clarity. Along the way one may find that several different belief systems, defense structures, and habit patterns come up for reconsideration. This is quintessential spiritual practice. It's inquiry-based, not faith-based, and it is as rewarding and transformational as it is gruelingly difficult. No short cuts.
In psychotherapy one goes through a deepening process of relating with a therapist who is there to be present and support your inquiry. initially, one usually brings in a some difficulty that is present and asks for help. That is the doorway. Through the process of sitting, talking, (and various other techniques depending on the therapists training), discussing dreams, expressing emotions, analyzing and attempting new strategies outside of the office, one goes on a deepening journey into self-discovery. Why do we feel the way we feel? What are the beliefs and expectations we hold? What do we really want out of life?
The most valuable part of a psychotherapeutic process is this initiation into depth, the fact that it asks us to consider what is beneath the surface. We pay attention and inquire and through that process we gain insight into the patterns, fears, defenses, beliefs and traumas that underlie the way we structure our present experience. Often there is deep healing work that is needed, intense unresolved emotions, fearful associations, unmet needs and longings that are almost unbearable to touch, but over time this gets easier and our surface ego gets more related to the authentic self that dwells in the depths of the psyche.
Just like in Vipassana Meditation, the Psychotherapeutic process takes us through stages of gradual deepening that allow us to become more honest with ourselves and to see reality, both internally and externally, more clearly. The wishful thinking, fantasy, projections, defenses and reactions become less powerful. As with Vipassana, this increase in clarity allows us to see ourselves and others with more compassion.
Both Vipassana and Psychotherapy are powerful spiritual practices that facilitate what Joseph Campbell calls The Hero's Journey. Here is the inner world and it's monsters and treasures as described by the world's rich mythological traditions.These practices take us into the unknown, into the depths of the psyche, into places where before the light of consciousness has not shone, and create a more open and vital channel of communication between the inner/depth world of the soul or Self and the outer/surface world of the ego. In Jungian terms this channel is called the ego/Self axis and strengthening it is the central purpose of the analysis.
You'll notice in both of these processes intention plays a part. It is the firm resolve that gets us started and keeps us going. Intention is a function of the surface mind. As such, intention needs direction and content from the depths if it is to serve it's function well. During the course of one's inquiry-based spiritual practice, one may have insights and set new intentions about how one wants to bring those insights into lived reality. It is also sometimes useful (and sometimes not) to enter the inquiry-based practice with an intention, to help direct the process towards discovering a particular hidden truth, feeling or motivation.
Through this kind of practice, one gets to be in a feedback loop with reality, with one's lived experience. It is not a guarantee of success or a strategy for happiness or wealth, rather it is a method for discovering meaning, for being in relationship to one's inner and outer life with more consciousness.
This awakens an unfolding freedom, but it is freedom from the need to control everything, freedom from the fear of life and death and feelings, freedom from the obsessive conditioned response to acquire money and power and possessions at all costs, - not freedom to have some kind of magical power in these domains.
The Magical Defense
In fact, from a psychological perspective the desire spoken to by The Secret to find the magic trick that gives one power over the unknown and makes the universe unconditionally grant whatever you wish is understood as a very immature need that comes from childhood and is incongruous with an adult relationship to reality. It's called magical thinking and belongs to a narcissistic stage of development appropriate to a young child but problematic and even, depending on the severity, quite pathological in adults .
From a Buddhist perspective that same longing to have magical power and limitless manifestation would be seen in terms of the never-ending reflexive grasping and pushing away of pleasant and unpleasant experience that creates suffering in the first place.
Now Buddhist philosophy and practice and Psychotherapy do not match up entirely. In fact there are areas of difference and disagreement that are fascinating and important for the serious student of either, and especially of both, - but my point here is that both are methods of self-inquiry that allow us to enter a process that leads us though stages of deepening awareness.
The New Age in general and movies like The Secret , in particular, do not.
The idea that through merely focusing one's intention, one can have and do anything without limit, while inspiring-sounding is actually delusional, regressive and perpetuating of what both Buddhism and Psychotherapy see as an unhealthy relationship to reality.
The failure to include a discussion of the limits of intention and to introduce people to the concept of depth, of practice, of being in the kind of feedback loop with reality, is disastrous. It ends up unwittingly pinning adherents between the rock of surface level intention and the hard place of a world that actually doesn't work that way. Without a methodology for interpreting meaning and assessing depth, for coming to terms with feelings, disappointments and bringing expectations down to earth, one is left with a vicious cycle:misplaced faith in a grandiose, but erroneous magical belief coupled with a self-blaming response when it turns out, time and time again, not to work.
This does not generate insight, nor will it cultivate compassion. It also fails to initiate a relationship to depth. In fact the central idea of The Secret decreases ones compassionate and curious relationship to oneself, other people and the world at large, by reducing everything to the magical relationship between thoughts and “the universe.”
Beginning Spiritual Practice
My sense is that there are three broad areas that contemporary spirituality should address: cognitive development, psychological awareness, and spiritual practice.
A beginning practice is only worthwhile if it serves as a genuine bridge into more advanced practice. As such, one should enter the domain of spirituality with a healthy sense of respect for depth and for the amount of work one has to put in to get anything meaningful out.
Movies and books like The Secret are mere entertainment, worse, they are a kind of drug that creates a false sense of depth, meaning and power and leaves one in a confused hangover once the high fades. They perpetuate the very defense-structure that real spiritual practice helps one to dismantle. Beginning practice should be clear on this point, not as a way to demand that people be advanced right away, but so as to appropriately begin the process of turning towards the depths and doing the first layers of work with one's delusions and defenses. The Secret dresses up the defensive delusions and grandiose fantasies as if they were themselves the higher truths.
So instead I suggest reading philosophy, literature, poetry and watching great artistic cinema, as well as reading current events/politics and watching documentary films. One will gain far more spiritually from attending to great art, literature and analysis of the day than from superficial opiated entertainments like The Secret. This will also deepen critical thinking and develop cognition in ways that equip us to be in relationship to depth.
For the beginner I recommend starting to engage genuine spiritual practice by reading Jack Kornfield's classic synthesis of Buddhist meditation and psychological awareness - A Path with Heart.
If you are really interested in spirituality, begin meditating and avail yourself of the plethora of incredible books by people like Kornfield, John Welwood, Pema Chodron, Ken Wilber and Stan Grof. Explore the myriad of experiential psychological awareness processes from certain forms of yoga, to bodywork, to holotropic breathwork, to ecstatic dance to straight -up talk therapy.
There is a real path and The Secret ain't it.
Please browse through the rest of my blog to see more on this subject and go to my website at www.julianwalkeryoga.com if you are interested in coming on my three-day Open Sky Retreat to Ojai, California, where we practice yoga, meditation, noble silence, ecstatic dance, Core Sequencing Bodywork and supportive joyful community in absolutely beautiful surroundings.
Why have I held out you might ask? Two reasons. The first has just three words: What The Bleep. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's that popular spiritual movie funded by the female cult leader who claims to channel a 35,000 year old warrior king from Lemuria (little old red flag for ya there..) and produced by her (his?) students. This film takes bad interpretations of quantum physics, puts them alongside junk science claims of water and it's ability to retain the “energy of thoughts” and then drives towards all sorts of misguided spiritual and psychological conclusions that leave it's audience more confused and ignorant about spirituality, science and the relationship between the two than when they first sat down….presumably scratching their heads and saying “what the bleep?”
My second reason, you innocently ask?
Well that's a little more complicated and has to do with my having been around the spiritual community my entire adult life and being perennially surprised, amused and infuriated with what people call “spiritual” and with the naivete, superficiality and gullibility of most “spiritual” people, as well as the basically banal nature of the material that gets recycled and marketed to it's willing consumers year after year.
The Secret takes the cake though.
Seriously.
Let's begin at the beginning:
The Drama
The movie starts with a dramatization. A sexy/disheveled aging blonde Australian lady is clearly having a rough time - her father has died, her relationships are a mess, she has worked herself to exhaustion. Then she opens her suitcase and sees book. A post-it note on the cover says “Mom, this will help xxox…”
Whatever could it be?
It turns out (the montage tells us) that she is holding in her hands a glimpse of the ancient secret that has been passed down through secret societies along the ages, that people have persecuted and killed for, the knowledge that the power elite have used to keep the masses oppressed and that was known by everyone from Emerson to Shakespeare to Plato to Lincoln to Hugo to Newton to Beethoven! No hint as to how her daughter or son happened to slide this precious information into her suitcase…
In her mind's eye we see Romans and Egyptians, Templar Knights, priests, scheming white cigar-smoking men in boardrooms, all passing the secret document back and forth, chasing it, hiding it - presumably until one of them passed it off on the troubled Australian lady's child?
Finally, in a breathless climactic moment, she is lying on her bed, head flung back, - a tight shot of her face, eyes closed, lips glossy as she earnestly and not a little seductively asks “Why doesn't anyone know this?”
After another exhausting rapid research project, our short-lived Australian heroine has found those among us who know the secret today and leaves us now in their able hands.
Pretty exciting, huh?
What could the ancient secret knowledge be? So mysterious. So powerful.
Who are these modern teachers of the ancient mystery, the wise ones who are the contemporary bearers of the secret knowledge?
The Masters of The Secret
The set combines beautiful backdrops with state-of-the-art computer graphics, and each speaker has their name in both typeset font and signature form at the bottom of the screen, along with a title that, we assume, qualifies them to be speaking. Their titles range from “philosopher” to “author” to “quantum physicist” to “writer” to “visionary” to “entrepreneur” to my personal favorite - “feng shui consultant.” Only one of the “writer/authors” is well known and has his book “Chicken Soup for the Soul” included in the computer graphic backdrop behind him. One can only assume that none of the others actually have published anything - nonetheless they are writers or authors who are in on “The Secret.”
One of the speakers with the title “philosopher” appears by the letters after his name to be a chiropractor with a degree in science. OK…
But while their titles and qualifications may vary, on one thing they are all resolutely in agreement, and this is the ancient secret, shrouded in mystery, repressed, hidden, revered by the best minds of history. Finally available and delivered by this coalition of the brilliant and the brave. Are you ready?
The Secret
Your thoughts determine your experience. Shocking, isn't it?
That's right, you create your own reality. I know, I know it's complicated and deep, but we have decoded the golden thread of all the secret ancient wisdom traditions and the knowledge that made Emerson, Shakespeare, Newton et al such great men, and this is it!
The movie goes on to suggest, through well-made video dramatizations and repetitive rhetoric that “the Law of Attraction” is at work all the time responding to your thoughts and your feelings, serving up from the universe whatever you are putting out there. For example:
That parking ticket, those bills and piling up debt, your cancer, gay people who are harassed by homophobes, lonely folks who can't get a date and so on…all of these are without exception manifestations of bad thoughts.
If you are focusing on not wanting to be late as you drive to work - guess what, you will be!
If you think about your bike being stolen and are extra careful to lock it up tight - it'll be stolen. But if you visualize that rock-star parking in front of the store you need to go to - it will be there!
If you focus on how stressed out you are about your credit card bills - guess what, you'll only create more debt!
If you spend time thinking about your cancer it will be more likely to kill you and even better, if you just focus on good things, watch funny movies and feel good after your diagnosis, it could take just three months to completely destroy the tumor - hey it did for this lady…
then there's the little boy dying of a rare form of hepatitis. Full recovery because his family ordered up some extra special “gratitude rocks” from one of our “writers…..”
What's more all of this has been proven by science.
Cool, huh?
Not really.
The Problems
The film uses authoritative names, meaningless titles/qualifications, very badly constructed arguments, category errors, logical fallacies etc.. scientific seeming images that then never go anywhere to strengthen it's points, and examples/case histories that are anecdotal at best.
And the matter-of-fact “scientific proof” is alluded to by various graphics, impressive looking images of experimental scenarios, and vague verbal references, but never really appears.
What you may ask could be wrong with a hopeful, inspiring film that empowers people to use their minds?
Well how about the little boy who focuses hard enough on the bicycle so that he gets it? Or the young woman who gazes with just the right combination of longing and belief through the jewelry store window until a man magically appears to give it to her? How about that woman who cured her breast cancer by laughing? Or the little boy in South Africa who magically recovered from near fatal rare hepatitis because his father had gratitude rocks from California delivered to the door? How about Jack Canfield implying that he made a million dollars on his first book because he used the Law of Attraction - ie he thought about it a lot? How about the assertion that by protesting, say, the war in Iraq, you only perpetuate it by giving it your focus?
We see a “case history” of a young gay man who is depressed, picked on, constantly humiliated by homophobic co-workers and street thugs. No more once he applies the secret. Done.
In fact the audience at a comedy club cheers his proclamation of being “such an incredibly gay man…” Nice. He is happy and everyone magically either accepts and supports his homosexuality or, - get this - transfers out of his office - so strong is his intention!
You see the makers of The Secret want us to believe that if your mental focus is strong enough and the intentional “joy” in your being is brimming over enough, everything will happen as you want it too. That's the highest spiritual truth and the secret to life.
We see scenes from a brutally dysfunctional relationship. Shoving, yelling, faces contorted in anger and hurt. The solution? Write down what you appreciate about your abusive partner and watch them transform before your eyes to match the energy you are magnetizing them with!
They assure us that the reason a tiny percentage of the world's population has so much of the wealth is because they know this secret.
Never mind social conditions. Never mind racism, homophobia, colonialism, world history, psychology, trauma, economic oppression. Everyone, absolutely everyone could be wealthy, happy and in love if they just knew how to use the Law of Attraction. Um, what does that mean for people who are not happy, wealthy or in the perfect relationship? Well, for lesson number two - see lesson number one. You're just not doing it right, silly.
Of course we never hear about the implied (and clearly flimsy) connection to the list of historical luminaries. You should have seen Shakespeare park that horse exactly where he wanted to on opening night….Beethoven - died in the black. Deaf, but solvent - right? Newton - never got sick.
Friends, this is not a recipe for anything but a frontal lobotomy. This is not high spiritual truth passed down through the ages, it's narcissistic delusion, bordering on the psychotic, plugged into the akashic records by a tinfoil hat.
It is a complete abdication of depth in favor of a supremely superficial analysis of life.
It is a marvelous example of everything wrong with the new age movement and is so insulting of the true nature of suffering, so ignorant of the realities of privilege and oppression, so authoritative in it's endorsement magical thinking and judgment of those who are not doing it right as to set any nascent spiritual development and self-awareness back a good 5 to 10 years.
So what is the real secret?
An Intelligent Path
Well there are really three broad areas that need attention, and this movie beautifully illustrates why:
1) Critical Thinking
Gotta have it. Without it spirituality is filled with the unicorns of childhood fantasy and the poison kool-aid of manipulation and dishonesty. In order to have critical thinking one needs healthy rational development. Educating the mind by studying actual philosophy, psychology, literature and art that grapples with the universal spiritual themes that great minds have been expressing since at least the ancient Greeks.
A healthy dose of critical thinking will cut through the kind of nonsense these kinds of popular spiritual vehicles are selling. It will also allow one to side step the very real suffering and delusion that comes from buying into very, very poor interpretations of spiritual reality like these.
Rest assured, if The Secret and What The Bleep sound like deep truth to you, there is either a complete lack of critical thinking, or you have become convinced of the fallacious spiritual argument which says that critical thinking is the enemy of spirituality. Not so. Critical thinking is the enemy of false spirituality. It is the trusted ally of authentic adult spirituality. Use it!
2) Your Shadow is your Friend
Contrary to superficial and fragmenting prescriptions like those offered by What the Bleep and The Secret, the instruction here is to actually work with your shadow material and learn from it.
Your so called “negative emotions” have value and meaning. They are communications from your psyche. Be curious about them. Compassionate. Follow a path of inquiry into what lies beneath the surface of your reactions, fears, anger-triggers, unsatisfied feelings, sadness etc. The way to be free of these is to embrace them and listen to what they might be telling you about your shadow - the part of you that you have disowned and disconnected from.
Working with and ultimately integrating shadow material through a process that takes you beneath the surface into the actual meaning that your triggers have for you is the way toward ending self-sabotage, not just trying desperately to impose a junta of “good thoughts” on your mind from the outside in…
3) Spiritual Practice
Spiritual practice is absolutely distinct from spiritual beliefs or ideas.
Spiritual ideas might give you a map of the territory in preparation for and in analyzing the experience of spiritual practice.
Spiritual beliefs are usually best left alone as they tend to hinder authentic inquiry which is at the heart of spiritual practice.
Spiritual practices actually require that you do the work. That you sit down and meditate. That you start a yoga practice. That you journal. That you dance your demons and shake your Buddha. That you be present to your emotions, your body, your mental patterns and learn the art of self observation, introspection and that most harrowing of skills - honest communication.
Spiritual practice requires that you turn to face your shadow. That you get real about your social conditioning, your political situation, the distinction between what you have power over and what has power over you.
Spiritual practice is inspiring, but it's also deeply humbling. It does not tell you that you can have anything, be anything, do anything, without limit.
Sorry. That's the kind of fantasy high the Secret promises - and the hangover is a real drag.
But real practice does give you tools and resources to deal with the inevitable disasters, disappointments and struggles that make up every human life.
And this is perhaps what is most problematic about the ideas promoted by movies like The Secret. Most likely the audience is looking for some real tools, looking for some real practices, techniques and resources to help make sense of life and it's complexities, to help them to grow and feel supported. Yet what these ideas offer is a short lived illusory hope that fades to reveal only one area of deepening - that of denial, fragmentation and self-judgment.
The Ethical Problem
Not too much searching online reveals that the movie is part of an elaborate advertising campaign to get people interested in working with the various “teachers” it features. Just like What the Bleep is a recruitment vehicle for Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, The Secret is an infomercial for it's talking heads. On a purely business level - brilliant. Too bad this is the last thing it's target audience actually needs.
1) The movie suggests something impossible - not only are there millions of other people out there with their own agendas/intentions, but there are also multiple variables that are not even remotely influence-able at the level of conscious intention - no matter how admittedly valuable a positive attitude might be.
2) Gullible and desperate people will try really hard to apply the “Law of Attraction”. They will have some success with it because intention has a certain amount of impact. They will have a lot of failure with it, because it is nonsense. I already know of a few people who are watching the movie obsessively to try and master it's bogus teachings. See here for the recent New York Times article on magical thinking, it's harmless prevalence and problematic implications as a worldview.
3) the ones with money will buy the book, attend the events, and contact the teachers for help on perfecting their skills, which of course is, by definition impossible, so they will have a captive audience.
The dynamic described by the above three points is “The Secret” to these hucksters making a mint!
=================
Introduction
In response to the wonderful dialog about The Secret, I thought it might be interesting to do a slightly less polemical step-back here and talk about what I think healthy stage appropriate spiritual practice and philosophy can and should be for people likely to be taken in by The Secret, What the Bleep and the New Age paradigm they represent.
This is, of course, the basis for 90% of what you will find on my Zaadz pages, the website for my work ( www.julianwalkeryoga.com ), and this blog. Here too is an introduction to my Open Sky body of work, integrating yoga, meditation, hands-on bodywork, ecstatic dance and dialog in private sessions, group classes, workshops, trainings and retreats.
Some felt that I was unfairly slamming The Secret and it's adherents for what is a well-intentioned, stage-appropriate spirituality with training wheels - that ultimately the movie is positive and empowering and so what if it doesn't live up to some advanced spiritual or intellectual ideal, it's a good first step.
In my previous blog post I dismissed this position pretty strongly with the assertion that the Secret was stage appropriate for no-one, that in fact it represents a spiritual pathology rampant in the broad, popular and influential New Age movement that actually distorts reality, mixes junk science with superficial philosophy, and effectively limits healthy stage-wise spiritual growth.
Some felt that my critique and Part Two: Wilber, Gebser and New Age Pathology was not making enough room for whatever their favorite New Age idea was, be it the power of intention, the universe's benevolent creative generosity, or the reality of synchronicity. What was interesting to me about this position is that it came off not so much as a defense of The Secret (because the movie is relentlessly about one single oversimplified incorrect idea presented as an ancient universal truth in laughable and indefensible ways) but more of whatever New Age particulars still held a revered place in their heart or mind.
The Power of Intention
Perhaps the most common response to my criticism of the Secret, What the Bleep and the New Age worldview in general over the years has been this:
“But the power of intention is so important and people need to hear that message.”
Let's use this well-meaning assertion as a starting point.
The central difficulty I have with the pop spirituality phenomenon of the New Age is it's unfortunate lack of depth. I know, I know I said I'd be less polemical, but I don't actually mean that as an insult. It's a simple fact.
The New Age worldview suffers from a basic lack of depth, even a lack of awareness that there is such a thing as depth. The popularity of “intention” as an all-powerful spiritual tool is a perfect case in point. Intention, in and of itself, is of little value. What matters is what the intention helps to reveal and how the intention is, in turn, shaped by an interactive relationship to the process.
Intention can be an entry point into an inquiry process that allows for insight and healing. Intention can also be used to take those process-generated insights and apply them with some discipline to one's life. But there has to be insight first. Without a relationship to depth, intention remains superficial and empty. Without a way of interpreting meaning intention can be rigid and ineffective. Inquiry and depth makes the difference between the intention of a Martin Luther King Jnr. and the intention of an Adolf Hitler.
What most New Agers mean by “intention” is some combination of faith and determination. This can be useful, but like all forms of faith and determination it benefits immensely from, and is directed more efectively by, a relationship to the depth discovered through a genuine process of inquiry.
Spiritual practice and philosophy should be a sequential process of initiation into successive layers of depth, complexity, nuance and, yes, truth. I am going to use two approaches that I feel are legitimate spiritual practices that succeed in this duty, one from the East - Vipassana Meditation, and one from the West, Psychotherapy.
Two Spiritual Practices
In Vipassana Meditation practice, one sequentially learns several different skills that allow one first to concentrate a strong conscious intention to stabilize in the present and then to gain entry into one's own inner world with that concentrated awareness. The purpose of learning to concentrate on the breath (the “apana” stage of the work) is not merely an end in itself, it allows one to cross a threshold into depth. This meditation technique then allows the practitioner to become more and more familiar with first their sensations and then with the next layer of depth, which is the emotional and mental dimension of their embodied experience, this evokes yet another layer of depth which has to do with gradually becoming more and more stabilized in the observing or witnessing awareness that remains as the constant as the sensations, emotions, thoughts and even sense of self keep going through their ever-changing cycles.
Each of these deepening movements, from surface level concentration which calms the static of the mind, to focused awareness of the sensations as they arise, intensify, fade and pass, to the inquiry into one's emotional/psychological experience, to the deepening sense of one's witnessing consciousness, is a stage in a process that takes many years. The word “Vipassana” means “insight”, and the assertion is that through this gradually deepening path, one gains insight into not only one's own being, but also the nature of the human condition itself.
Along the way one will have to sit through many sessions of boredom, physical discomfort, emotional anguish, and psychological torment, alongside (and often transitioning into) periods of deep gratitude, bliss, release and clarity. Along the way one may find that several different belief systems, defense structures, and habit patterns come up for reconsideration. This is quintessential spiritual practice. It's inquiry-based, not faith-based, and it is as rewarding and transformational as it is gruelingly difficult. No short cuts.
In psychotherapy one goes through a deepening process of relating with a therapist who is there to be present and support your inquiry. initially, one usually brings in a some difficulty that is present and asks for help. That is the doorway. Through the process of sitting, talking, (and various other techniques depending on the therapists training), discussing dreams, expressing emotions, analyzing and attempting new strategies outside of the office, one goes on a deepening journey into self-discovery. Why do we feel the way we feel? What are the beliefs and expectations we hold? What do we really want out of life?
The most valuable part of a psychotherapeutic process is this initiation into depth, the fact that it asks us to consider what is beneath the surface. We pay attention and inquire and through that process we gain insight into the patterns, fears, defenses, beliefs and traumas that underlie the way we structure our present experience. Often there is deep healing work that is needed, intense unresolved emotions, fearful associations, unmet needs and longings that are almost unbearable to touch, but over time this gets easier and our surface ego gets more related to the authentic self that dwells in the depths of the psyche.
Just like in Vipassana Meditation, the Psychotherapeutic process takes us through stages of gradual deepening that allow us to become more honest with ourselves and to see reality, both internally and externally, more clearly. The wishful thinking, fantasy, projections, defenses and reactions become less powerful. As with Vipassana, this increase in clarity allows us to see ourselves and others with more compassion.
Both Vipassana and Psychotherapy are powerful spiritual practices that facilitate what Joseph Campbell calls The Hero's Journey. Here is the inner world and it's monsters and treasures as described by the world's rich mythological traditions.These practices take us into the unknown, into the depths of the psyche, into places where before the light of consciousness has not shone, and create a more open and vital channel of communication between the inner/depth world of the soul or Self and the outer/surface world of the ego. In Jungian terms this channel is called the ego/Self axis and strengthening it is the central purpose of the analysis.
You'll notice in both of these processes intention plays a part. It is the firm resolve that gets us started and keeps us going. Intention is a function of the surface mind. As such, intention needs direction and content from the depths if it is to serve it's function well. During the course of one's inquiry-based spiritual practice, one may have insights and set new intentions about how one wants to bring those insights into lived reality. It is also sometimes useful (and sometimes not) to enter the inquiry-based practice with an intention, to help direct the process towards discovering a particular hidden truth, feeling or motivation.
Through this kind of practice, one gets to be in a feedback loop with reality, with one's lived experience. It is not a guarantee of success or a strategy for happiness or wealth, rather it is a method for discovering meaning, for being in relationship to one's inner and outer life with more consciousness.
This awakens an unfolding freedom, but it is freedom from the need to control everything, freedom from the fear of life and death and feelings, freedom from the obsessive conditioned response to acquire money and power and possessions at all costs, - not freedom to have some kind of magical power in these domains.
The Magical Defense
In fact, from a psychological perspective the desire spoken to by The Secret to find the magic trick that gives one power over the unknown and makes the universe unconditionally grant whatever you wish is understood as a very immature need that comes from childhood and is incongruous with an adult relationship to reality. It's called magical thinking and belongs to a narcissistic stage of development appropriate to a young child but problematic and even, depending on the severity, quite pathological in adults .
From a Buddhist perspective that same longing to have magical power and limitless manifestation would be seen in terms of the never-ending reflexive grasping and pushing away of pleasant and unpleasant experience that creates suffering in the first place.
Now Buddhist philosophy and practice and Psychotherapy do not match up entirely. In fact there are areas of difference and disagreement that are fascinating and important for the serious student of either, and especially of both, - but my point here is that both are methods of self-inquiry that allow us to enter a process that leads us though stages of deepening awareness.
The New Age in general and movies like The Secret , in particular, do not.
The idea that through merely focusing one's intention, one can have and do anything without limit, while inspiring-sounding is actually delusional, regressive and perpetuating of what both Buddhism and Psychotherapy see as an unhealthy relationship to reality.
The failure to include a discussion of the limits of intention and to introduce people to the concept of depth, of practice, of being in the kind of feedback loop with reality, is disastrous. It ends up unwittingly pinning adherents between the rock of surface level intention and the hard place of a world that actually doesn't work that way. Without a methodology for interpreting meaning and assessing depth, for coming to terms with feelings, disappointments and bringing expectations down to earth, one is left with a vicious cycle:misplaced faith in a grandiose, but erroneous magical belief coupled with a self-blaming response when it turns out, time and time again, not to work.
This does not generate insight, nor will it cultivate compassion. It also fails to initiate a relationship to depth. In fact the central idea of The Secret decreases ones compassionate and curious relationship to oneself, other people and the world at large, by reducing everything to the magical relationship between thoughts and “the universe.”
Beginning Spiritual Practice
My sense is that there are three broad areas that contemporary spirituality should address: cognitive development, psychological awareness, and spiritual practice.
A beginning practice is only worthwhile if it serves as a genuine bridge into more advanced practice. As such, one should enter the domain of spirituality with a healthy sense of respect for depth and for the amount of work one has to put in to get anything meaningful out.
Movies and books like The Secret are mere entertainment, worse, they are a kind of drug that creates a false sense of depth, meaning and power and leaves one in a confused hangover once the high fades. They perpetuate the very defense-structure that real spiritual practice helps one to dismantle. Beginning practice should be clear on this point, not as a way to demand that people be advanced right away, but so as to appropriately begin the process of turning towards the depths and doing the first layers of work with one's delusions and defenses. The Secret dresses up the defensive delusions and grandiose fantasies as if they were themselves the higher truths.
So instead I suggest reading philosophy, literature, poetry and watching great artistic cinema, as well as reading current events/politics and watching documentary films. One will gain far more spiritually from attending to great art, literature and analysis of the day than from superficial opiated entertainments like The Secret. This will also deepen critical thinking and develop cognition in ways that equip us to be in relationship to depth.
For the beginner I recommend starting to engage genuine spiritual practice by reading Jack Kornfield's classic synthesis of Buddhist meditation and psychological awareness - A Path with Heart.
If you are really interested in spirituality, begin meditating and avail yourself of the plethora of incredible books by people like Kornfield, John Welwood, Pema Chodron, Ken Wilber and Stan Grof. Explore the myriad of experiential psychological awareness processes from certain forms of yoga, to bodywork, to holotropic breathwork, to ecstatic dance to straight -up talk therapy.
There is a real path and The Secret ain't it.
Please browse through the rest of my blog to see more on this subject and go to my website at www.julianwalkeryoga.com if you are interested in coming on my three-day Open Sky Retreat to Ojai, California, where we practice yoga, meditation, noble silence, ecstatic dance, Core Sequencing Bodywork and supportive joyful community in absolutely beautiful surroundings.
awareness of your choices helps a relationship, think before responding in anger
Why Awareness of Your Choices Can
Help Your Relationship
By Lee Hefner
In the range of trials that married couples experience, one of the most devastating that can have long-term consequences to the marriage is a fight between the spouses.
When a couple has a disagreement, each partner has a differing view on a topic and often tries to convince the other to change his or her opinion or position. But if the couple can’t find common ground, tempers may flair.
At this point, one spouse may say or do something that triggers an emotional outburst from the partner. If the partner responds by in turn pressing the hot buttons of the spouse, an escalating spiral of conflict can result.
The result is a roadblock to emotional intimacy that can last far longer than the fight itself. Over time, if the couple repeats this pattern too often, the relationship is headed for trouble. And if the couple doesn’t know how to recover from the hurt feelings and smoldering resentment such arguments often produce, a little bit of the marriage dies.
Sadly, this common scenario too often results in marriage separation and divorce for couples who never learn to reverse the downward spiral.
But it doesn’t have to happen.
What Happens When a Couple Argues?
If you’ve ever had a heated argument with your spouse, you can relate to how quickly you are taken over by your reactive emotions. And you may have found that if you respond in anger when your mate pushes your buttons, it’s very easy to say something that will cause your spouse to get defensive as well.
In this way, what may begin initially as a small issue, may grow out of proportion as emotions come into play. We hear upset spouses say, “He pushes my buttons and makes me lose my temper.”
This is an easy argument to believe. Most of us have bought into it at some point in our lives. And yet, if you stay in this belief you are giving away one of the most precious things that you possess—your freedom of choice.
Are you wondering what this means?
If so, consider the following excerpt from our book, Keep Your Marriage: What to Do When Your Spouse Says “I don’t love you anymore!”
Viktor Frankl was a Jewish psychiatrist who, during World War II, was placed in a concentration camp by the Nazis. Frankl later wrote that the main factor that helped him survive the experience was the recognition that he alone controlled his attitude.
Even when his captors tortured him, Frankl kept his mind focused on the outcome that he wanted rather than on the experience he was going through at the time.
After the war, in his classic book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl described the basic choice people have in determining how they react to events in their lives. The essence of what Frankl said was that no matter what happens, we always have options in how we choose to respond.
So even when it doesn’t seem you have any options or control, you still have a choice about something—that is, how you react and what your attitude will be.
In dealing with a disagreement, most people go through tremendous emotional stress. When you’re stressed, you become hypersensitive to what you perceive as negative or critical remarks from others, especially a spouse.
In a nutshell, it’s very easy for your partner to push your buttons at these times. We’ve heard people in this situation say, “I try to keep my cool when I talk to her, but she makes me lose my temper.” In actuality, no one else can “make” you lose your temper. That is your choice.
The challenge [when you’re dealing with the conflict in your marriage], and the opportunity, is to realize that between the stimulus of your partner’s critical remarks and your angry response, there’s a gap in which you can make a decision.
[To watch a presentation on this theme, see our free inspirational movie Seasons of Love.]
You can decide to react defensively, or you can think about your future. Think about the stakeholders in your relationship—yourself, your kids, and your spouse. Then take responsibility for how you act, and compose your response accordingly.
To think of an analogy, it’s easier to extinguish a fire when it’s a burning match instead of a forest fire. In a similar vein, it’s easier to maintain harmony in a marriage if you think twice when you first feel provoked instead of after a pitched fight.
How to Lessen the Risk of a Destructive Argument
Here’s a blueprint for avoiding an emotional meltdown when conflict erupts in your relationship:
First clarify that you fully understand what’s going on by asking non-judgmental questions. Try to listen for the meaning and intent behind your partner’s words and actions instead of just focusing on the words. For example, you might ask, “Did you really want to go to that party next week or did you just accept the invitation for us because you felt obligated to your friend?”
When it becomes evident that you and your partner disagree, ask yourself, “Would I rather be happy instead of being right in this case?” If you remember how much you value love and harmony in your relationship, you may decide to sometimes concede to your partner’s wishes, even if you would have taken a different approach.
If you find yourself feeling hot under the collar, first take ten deep breathes before you angrily respond to your mate. This will give you time to collect your thoughts and think of the big picture and how you want your relationship to be, not on how you’re feeling in that moment.
Finally, when you answer, look for common ground that you both agree on before stating your objection, using a softening statement. You might say, “Honey, I know that it’s important to both of us to have a social life, but I really have to do some work at home that’s going to make it difficult for me to go to that party.”
One of the keys to having a great marriage is to remember what you really value in your relationship and to think twice before you respond with anger to your mate.
Help Your Relationship
By Lee Hefner
In the range of trials that married couples experience, one of the most devastating that can have long-term consequences to the marriage is a fight between the spouses.
When a couple has a disagreement, each partner has a differing view on a topic and often tries to convince the other to change his or her opinion or position. But if the couple can’t find common ground, tempers may flair.
At this point, one spouse may say or do something that triggers an emotional outburst from the partner. If the partner responds by in turn pressing the hot buttons of the spouse, an escalating spiral of conflict can result.
The result is a roadblock to emotional intimacy that can last far longer than the fight itself. Over time, if the couple repeats this pattern too often, the relationship is headed for trouble. And if the couple doesn’t know how to recover from the hurt feelings and smoldering resentment such arguments often produce, a little bit of the marriage dies.
Sadly, this common scenario too often results in marriage separation and divorce for couples who never learn to reverse the downward spiral.
But it doesn’t have to happen.
What Happens When a Couple Argues?
If you’ve ever had a heated argument with your spouse, you can relate to how quickly you are taken over by your reactive emotions. And you may have found that if you respond in anger when your mate pushes your buttons, it’s very easy to say something that will cause your spouse to get defensive as well.
In this way, what may begin initially as a small issue, may grow out of proportion as emotions come into play. We hear upset spouses say, “He pushes my buttons and makes me lose my temper.”
This is an easy argument to believe. Most of us have bought into it at some point in our lives. And yet, if you stay in this belief you are giving away one of the most precious things that you possess—your freedom of choice.
Are you wondering what this means?
If so, consider the following excerpt from our book, Keep Your Marriage: What to Do When Your Spouse Says “I don’t love you anymore!”
Viktor Frankl was a Jewish psychiatrist who, during World War II, was placed in a concentration camp by the Nazis. Frankl later wrote that the main factor that helped him survive the experience was the recognition that he alone controlled his attitude.
Even when his captors tortured him, Frankl kept his mind focused on the outcome that he wanted rather than on the experience he was going through at the time.
After the war, in his classic book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl described the basic choice people have in determining how they react to events in their lives. The essence of what Frankl said was that no matter what happens, we always have options in how we choose to respond.
So even when it doesn’t seem you have any options or control, you still have a choice about something—that is, how you react and what your attitude will be.
In dealing with a disagreement, most people go through tremendous emotional stress. When you’re stressed, you become hypersensitive to what you perceive as negative or critical remarks from others, especially a spouse.
In a nutshell, it’s very easy for your partner to push your buttons at these times. We’ve heard people in this situation say, “I try to keep my cool when I talk to her, but she makes me lose my temper.” In actuality, no one else can “make” you lose your temper. That is your choice.
The challenge [when you’re dealing with the conflict in your marriage], and the opportunity, is to realize that between the stimulus of your partner’s critical remarks and your angry response, there’s a gap in which you can make a decision.
[To watch a presentation on this theme, see our free inspirational movie Seasons of Love.]
You can decide to react defensively, or you can think about your future. Think about the stakeholders in your relationship—yourself, your kids, and your spouse. Then take responsibility for how you act, and compose your response accordingly.
To think of an analogy, it’s easier to extinguish a fire when it’s a burning match instead of a forest fire. In a similar vein, it’s easier to maintain harmony in a marriage if you think twice when you first feel provoked instead of after a pitched fight.
How to Lessen the Risk of a Destructive Argument
Here’s a blueprint for avoiding an emotional meltdown when conflict erupts in your relationship:
First clarify that you fully understand what’s going on by asking non-judgmental questions. Try to listen for the meaning and intent behind your partner’s words and actions instead of just focusing on the words. For example, you might ask, “Did you really want to go to that party next week or did you just accept the invitation for us because you felt obligated to your friend?”
When it becomes evident that you and your partner disagree, ask yourself, “Would I rather be happy instead of being right in this case?” If you remember how much you value love and harmony in your relationship, you may decide to sometimes concede to your partner’s wishes, even if you would have taken a different approach.
If you find yourself feeling hot under the collar, first take ten deep breathes before you angrily respond to your mate. This will give you time to collect your thoughts and think of the big picture and how you want your relationship to be, not on how you’re feeling in that moment.
Finally, when you answer, look for common ground that you both agree on before stating your objection, using a softening statement. You might say, “Honey, I know that it’s important to both of us to have a social life, but I really have to do some work at home that’s going to make it difficult for me to go to that party.”
One of the keys to having a great marriage is to remember what you really value in your relationship and to think twice before you respond with anger to your mate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)