Continue reading »]]> I would like to propose a new disorder for the American Psychiatric Association to consider in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: that of confusing a diagnosis with being a real thing unto itself. A recent New York Times article from April 1, 2013, reported that one in every five high school boys and 11% of all children are diagnosed as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

My contention is that nobody has ADHD, because it doesn’t exist. The acronym ADHD simply describes behaviors and conditions that may correspond with a diagnosis, which we created. As with all diagnoses, when we confuse the description with being an actual entity, we trick ourselves and exacerbate the problem.

A psychiatric diagnosis should be descriptive rather than a statement of an objective reality. It should therefore delineate tendencies of behavior and personality as well as emotional and psychological patterns that a clinician observes, which should thereby facilitate our understanding and treatment. The concept of reification refers to taking an abstract idea and turning it into a real thing. This is precisely what occurs with diagnoses. They take on a life of their own. Referred to as the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, mind creates something – in this case, ADHD – and then denies its own participation in having done so.

If I hear a colleague say, “Jane has ADHD,” I may respond, “I have no idea what you’re saying. How can Jane have a disorder that didn’t exist until we in fact coined the term to describe it?” It would, however be accurate to say, “Jane exhibits behavior consistent with what we call ADHD.”

What’s the difference, you might wonder? In the former example Jane appears to have an affliction, yet it’s not objectively discernible as in the case of cancer, high blood pressure, or the West Nile virus. The diagnosis is a matter of subjective interpretation and needs to be acknowledged as such. If it’s not, we may fall prey to seeing this disorder wherever we look for it and, thus, may become influenced and further biased in our diagnosis.

What You Look for Is What You’ll See

I acknowledge that untold numbers of people suffer problematic or challenging obstacles that may align with the diagnosis of ADHD. We should first and foremost be asking why this is occurring. Are these diagnoses rising so precipitously because clinicians are being trained to look for these symptoms? What we look for is what we see, after all. In part, this growing incidence of confirmation bias may account for the rise in cases, but it is certainly furthered by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and its profit motivation.

Moreover, if we examine our cultural condition, one could make a very convincing argument that our entire society exhibits and promotes behavior consistent with what we call ADHD. Certainly, the addictive relationship that we have with our electronic technology prompts such behaviors. Even executives sitting in boardrooms and members of Congress at the State of the Union address distract themselves by texting or browsing the web. These people are at the pinnacle of achievement in our country. Why aren’t we medicating them, which also begs the question why do we expect more obedient behavior from our children?

Many physicians and therapists act negligently, or worse, by casually prescribing amphetamines to children without an exhaustive and comprehensive evaluation. Do they take the time to inquire as to the family environment and interpersonal relationships, the child’s diet and exercise habits, or teacher’s demands for conformity? And how often are children medicated because of an overbearing pressure from parents who won’t tolerate anything less than complete focus and stellar academic performance?

Before we alter the brains of our children with amphetamines, we owe them some serious due diligence. Although there are many individuals that may have benefitted from such medication, a one-size-fits-all approach that blankets our children with serious psychotropic medication speaks mightily of where our society has come.

On another note, perhaps our runaway emphasis on performance, with its accompanying requirement for focus and attention, has taken us far from a balanced lifestyle and mindset. We have obscured and diminished our value for wonder and curiosity in our lives – and we undoubtedly suffer for that. It’s a good thing Albert Einstein isn’t a teenager in America today. Einstein was not known so much for his focus and diligence as he was for his sense of wonder. Just recall his assertion: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> Year after year, we make New Year’s resolutions that over time wither and fade into failed attempts to transform some aspect of our lives. The goals may range from health, exercise, relationships and finances all the way to spiritual and personal growth. The moment that we elect to make a significant change, we may begin to feel a bit of an endorphin rush as we fantasize what it would feel like. Yet, what begins with hopeful optimism gets swallowed into the basin of our life’s disappointments. Once again the high derived from the vision of change surrenders to the dulled resignation of the status quo.

It’s curious as to how we try to evoke change in the same way — year in and year out — with similar results. If we conducted a survey six months after the New Year and asked people about the success of their resolutions, we’d no doubt find an abysmal rate of failure. Our struggle with change is resoundingly stubborn and scant attention is devoted toward understanding why that’s the case. Let’s take a look.

Change begins as a thought, underscored by a wish or even stronger, an inspiration. This may set in motion an even stronger feeling, an intention. Most people find themselves somewhere within this continuum. Clearly, where you fall within that range is important toward the eventual outcome but nevertheless insufficient for an assurance of reaching your goal.

What typically prevents the success is the necessary commitment –- the vaulting into action -– that supports the transition. A number of years ago, on the occasion of my voicing a resolution —to get into shape and work out regularly—a dear friend asked me when I’d actually be doing that. I said, ” at least three times a week.” He responded with a ringing clarity, ” If it’s not in your calendar, day and time, you’re not committing to it.” He was quite right. The intention wasn’t enough.

It’s not uncommon to initiate the change, but over time we tend to retreat back into the old familiar zone and loosen our grip on the new progress. Sustaining change is most often more difficult than initiating it. This is because we haven’t fully committed to the progress. We make a bit of change, breathe a sigh of relief and give ourselves a break. And the change evaporates as we slide back into our familiar zone.

Old habits tend to die hard and the new behavior feels elusive. Our habitual patterns literally create a groove of thought, feeling and behavior. This is precisely where we get stuck. In order to disrupt our conformity to the past, we must intervene with a significant force, in which we embrace the change and nothing stands in the way. This requires embracing the disquiet of new behavior. We need to take the discomfort and make it our ally as we align with the new shift. A resolution isn’t enough; a turning point into new terrain is required with the necessary energy required to sustain it.

The commitment, if grounded in conviction, can lead to what I call a defining moment. It’s an instant in which we become so invested in the change we desire, that we commit to a turning point in our lives. We are in fact changed as of that moment. This is a defining moment in which we come to see ourselves differently, act upon it, and become transformed.

Willful Intention

The defining moment alters everything. It is the engine that drives the change. In order to access and sustain defining moments we need both the intention and the will. Let’s refer to this a willful intention. The resolution to change is the equivalent of the intention. But the willfulness is often lacking. Think of yourself at sea on a sailboat.  Setting the sail equals your intention to sail away. But you’re not going anywhere without some wind. The wind is evocative of your will. You need both the sail and the wind for movement. You require both will and intention to achieve your goals. Commit your thinking to embracing this willfulness and develop to discipline to reinforce it and you may succeed with your resolutions.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> By Mel Schwartz and Jesse Schwartz

The partisan gridlock engulfing the United States is arguably the greatest challenge to the nation’s political and economic viability. It renders our federal government incoherent, incompetent, and reviled – and with varying interpretations as to which party won a mandate earlier this month, the yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans does not appear to be abating. A litany of voices has cried out that we must overcome this partisan deadlock at once, but few offer any constructive insight as to how.

Understanding the nature of partisanship is a necessary first step to avoid its pitfalls. Politicians are partisan because, by nature, people are partisan. In fact, we elect certain politicians because their biases confirm our own. Yet when our politicians become obstructionist due to that partisanship, our government grinds to a frightful halt.

As humans, we construct reality by seeing things through opposites. For example, without the notion of good, there is no concept of bad. If night never fell, we would not have the word day, as it would have no meaning. The mind organizes information by contrasting opposing sides: war vs. peace, evolution vs. creationism, pro-life vs. pro-choice, socialism vs. capitalism, etc.

One rejoices in their liberalism by seeing the wrong mindedness of conservatism, and vice versa. Our identities are constructed and reinforced through this type of cognition. I know myself by seeing the opposite of myself. Nowhere is this truer than in our political beliefs. If I see myself as right, and you have an opposing belief, you must be wrong. It’s precisely therein that partisanship becomes dysfunctional. There are no shades of grey, simply black or white. Beginning to look precisely like Congress?

The problem becomes even more acute as our political system divvies up likeminded members of Congress into two warring parties, each furthering their identity by opposing the other’s policies. The greater the divide, the more distinct each party becomes. This dysfunctional dance, which makes for ineffectual governance, is due to the antagonistic nature of entrenched party-line thinking. Complexity is avoided as we oversimplify and thus stymie innovative thinking.

Instead, imagine a situation in which a pro-choice advocate decides that, before protesting the sexism of pro-lifers (an exercise in simplicity), she first searches for a part of the opposition’s stance with which she might actually concur. It’s not difficult to empathize with the ethical struggle of aborting a fetus’ life. Acknowledging as much is a critical first step in validating the feelings of pro-lifers. She might also agree that life begins at conception yet nevertheless still support a woman’s right to choose. By affirming at least a portion of the other’s perspective, we are no longer mired in the construct of right or wrong but in gradations and preferences. Battle lines blur, beliefs are not instantaneously invalidated, and the political ground begins to shift.

The essence of the problem is that our politicians are unfamiliar with the concept of genuine dialogue. Conversation is not dialogue. Dialogue, from the Greek dia and logos, suggests flow of meaning. In learning to get past the Ping-Pong match of right and wrong that so paralyzes our political system, politicians must move beyond status quo discourse and invite dialogue, which embraces complexity and dissonance yet seeks a shared understanding. This approach requires a temporary suspending of your position so as to better appreciate another’s. It doesn’t suggest that you abandon your belief, simply that you put it aside momentarily to appreciate your adversary’s view. When both parties participate in this process, intransigent positions make way and previously unexpressed interests come to the forefront. This opens the path for convergence and new solutions.

Unless one party controls all three branches of the government, stubborn partisanship leads to inertia, and the public is damned for it. Just like in a relationship, listening and validating how the other party thinks and feels shifts the energy from partisan toward collaborative. Values and principles are not subordinated through dialogue. Rather, this form of engagement enables each side to take a step toward the other and restore the vitality of our governing process.

Thomas Jefferson, hardly an individual lacking in earnest convictions, once proclaimed, “I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument.” With congressional bickering and senate filibustering at an all time high, it’s time our elected officials heed his words. When partisanship trumps effective governing at the cost of stalemate, everyone loses.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> A Shift of Mind offers a provocative reframing of how we look at reality, our lives and our relationships. Its intention is to challenge our beliefs and thinking so that we can untether ourselves from our recurring challenges.

Steeped in a new approach to thinking, this blog addresses many of the common issues in our lives with a very uncommon approach. I contend that a shift of mind is the most powerful thing in the universe. A new insight — with a commitment and intention toward change — frees us from the past and writes a new script for our lives.

As a psychotherapist and marriage counselor, I’ve developed my own particular approach to self-actualization. My method is very much influenced by the remarkable discoveries of the emerging sciences, most notably quantum physics. By integrating these discoveries into practical, everyday tools that people may integrate into their lives, I’ve witnessed countless transformations. These advances in conceptual thinking continue to enable individuals to live more successful, fulfilling, and productive lives.

I hope you enjoy reading A Shift of Mind as much as I enjoy writing it!

Continue reading »]]> Exploring mass murders in America

If James Holmes, the Aurora, Colo., shooter, had been a foreigner or, worse still, a Muslim, our nation would react with fury and vengeance. America would do what it does frequently and with great alacrity: we would once again declare war on our enemy. Yet, when the enemy is one of us, we respond with statements of incredulity, shock, and of course compassion for the victims’ families and friends. We appear to accept these recurring acts of wanton violence as a necessary evil of living in our open society. More to the point, the majority of our nation defends gun ownership with a religious and zealous fervor. Let’s examine what’s going on here.

The U.S. is easily the most violent high-income society on Earth.[i] There are approximately 9,500 murders by guns,[ii] twenty mass murders per year,[iii] and we rank 88th out of 158 in terms of peacefulness, according to the Global Peace Index.[iv] How is it that we muster all of our resources to conquer a foreign threat but we paradoxically surrender to our internal enemy without so much as a whimper?

The collective chauvinistic spirit of America defends our national interests and shores with immense vigor. This is part of the psyche of our culture, an eighteenth century remnant of the need to protect our nascent nation from legitimate threats. Yet there is another, more antiquated archetype that we remain wed to: the individualistic chauvinism born in the gunslinger, frontier spirit of the Wild West. In that not-so-bygone era, a cross exchange would be grounds to un-holster your weapon and blow away your enemy. This motif, and the root of our chauvinism from the micro perspective, survives in the stand your ground laws recently exposed by the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

As a nation, why do we remain mired in the core tenet of arming our citizenry? Constitutional arguments around the right to bear arms are, at this point, ridiculous. The Founding Fathers simply could not conceive of the carnage we have witnessed year in, year out since Columbine. They would undoubtedly revisit the second amendment’s wording if they had foreseen the destructive capabilities of a Smith & Wesson M&P .223 with a hundred-round clip, the assault rifle Holmes unleashed on his fellow citizens. Our society has come to the reasonable conclusion that the first amendment, allowing for free speech, cannot be unlimited. There are simply too many deleterious consequences stemming from the exercise of such limitless power—and the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that. Why then do we cling to the unfettered barbarism allowed for by the second amendment?

This is due to a cultural attachment to our weapons that we haven’t yet outgrown, much like a young boy refusing to release his grip on his toy revolver. It’s curious as to why we have evolved over the centuries in so many other ways but still retain a childlike fixation with violence, which is evinced on the macro level by our state of perpetual warfare—if this seems like an exaggeration, try considering when we haven’t been at war over the last seventy years—and its micro manifestation through individual gun ownership.

This phenomenon was recently depicted by Congressman Louie Gohmert, the Texas Republican who was quoted as saying, “It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly.”[v]

There we have it. The distortion of his thinking is breathtaking. We are so habituated to violence that we propose more guns as a solution to the havoc wreaked by guns, notwithstanding that Holmes was covered from head to toe in defensive swat gear.[vi] The fact that we have become inured to this violence speaks to the psychological dysfunction. When a system—individual, family, or culture —adapts to and normalizes grossly abhorrent activities, that system is terribly impaired. This condition is known as normosis, whereby we make normal that which is indeed aberrant.[vii] As a society, we find ourselves in just this circumstance.

Mr. Gohmert’s line of reasoning is not only misguided, it is outright dangerous—numerous studies indicate the statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.[viii][ix][x][xi][xii] If his postulation were extended to international affairs, Mr. Gohmert would in effect be calling for all nations—pacific and belligerent alike—to be armed with nuclear weapons. This unpalatable situation exposes the dubious logic behind the “arm everyone” crowd, and the congressman’s thinking is influenced by the very problem itself.

The archetype of violence—to which we are indeed addicted—and our ensuing relationship with guns has come to rule our national and cultural psyche. Further evidence of this is embodied by Congress’ decision to refuse the passage of legislation barring individuals on the terrorist watch list from obtaining guns.[xiii][xiv] This so-called “terror gap” or “terror loophole” is so irrational it appears deranged. If the United States were an individual, it would be in therapy for anger management issues and a dysfunctional attachment to violence. It’s time to break this collective, unconscious addiction. Our unrestrained affinity with the archetype of violence truly impoverishes our nation in tragic ways, yet it is amenable to change if we first come to recognize its existence.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

__________________________________________

Endnotes

[i] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

[ii] http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/webster-aurora-shooter/index.html

[iii] http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-11-fox11_st_N.htm

[iv] http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2012/HOMI/

[v] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/the-shootings-in-colorado.html

[vi]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/07/the_aurora_shooting_bulletproof_vests_swat_gear_and_body_armor_refute_the_nra_.html

[vii] Nicolescu, Basarab. Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. New York: Hampton Press, 2008. p. 167

[viii] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511

[ix] http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm

[x] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

[xi] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[xii] http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence?s=1

[xiii] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00034:@@@X

[xiv] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01506:@@@X

Continue reading »]]> In my role as a relationship therapist, I’ve begun prompting couples to ask their partners, “Would you like to be the person that I’m asking you to change into? Would you like to be the partner that I want you to be?”

This type of inquiry quiets the tired back and forth, right and wrong ping ponging that gets us nowhere. It’s not uncommon to ask your partner to make changes in their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior to accommodate your wishes. Very often, though, this is met by an entrenched resistance from the person being asked to change. You should ask yourself if you’re resisting simply for the sake of resisting, or would the requested change be consistent with your own growth and personal evolution?

If what is being requested seems authentic and resonant with your growth, and you are nevertheless resisting, then you might want to pay attention to why you’re digging your heels in. If you’re caught up in the power struggle and keeping a scorecard of offenses, the path to amicability remains obstructed; the larger picture is surely being missed.

The goal of winning in a relationship is absurd. That would guarantee unhappiness. Reflect on whether you’d rather be right or whether you’d rather be happy. One tends to preclude the other. Relationship battles often resemble the up and down of a seesaw ride. If one of you is up, the other is necessarily down. You may take turns in the up position, but you’re unlikely to find the balance that brings about a sense of harmony in this zero-sum equation. The shift we should seek is seen as a win-win situation – both people come out on top. In fact, this is the only pathway to a congruent, if not blissful, partnering.

Releasing the need to defend yourself – and subsequently abdicating the silliness of right or wrong – really enables a more reflective consideration of the changes being requested, or perhaps demanded, by your partner. If the modification sought would assist in your personal growth, then you should embrace it. It’s a win-win. You’ll grow and perhaps improve the energy of your relationship. While it’s disappointing if this doesn’t happen, you’ve still at least moved forward in your self-actualization. To that extent, you are removing yourself from being the problem. Should you find yourself in this position, you may discover that the old battle masked deeper underlying issues that may now arise.

The conflict over change, although often substantive, is at times simply a safe, if not frustrating, way to express hostility. You might ask your partner or spouse, “If I make the changes you’re asking for, will you feel the way you’d like to feel about me?” This question may reveal whether there are deeper issues – usually emotional – that need to break through and enter the discussion.

Much of our defensiveness surrounding others’ impositions that we change has to do with our own sense of self and identity. “There’s nothing wrong with me” is a revealing statement, in that it demonstrates an insecure and fragile ego. It’s not a question of whether there’s something wrong with you as much as it’s about whether you’re seeking to evolve further and please your partner – provided that you’re not acting from fear or inauthenticity. There is a direct correlation between one’s openness to change and their self-esteem. If your self-worth feels tentative, you’re more likely to defend against change. On a differing note, though, people should never simply succumb to the demands of others if they are coming from an angry or controlling energy.

Relationship success requires quieting your defensiveness and developing a resilience founded upon the healthy spirit of a co-operative alliance. If you try to be the best you can be for the other, and remain genuine and true to your own growth, you can accurately say you are doing everything you can to make your relationship prosper.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> What does it mean for someone to be truly authentic? And how many people do you know actually fit that description? Do you feel that you’re authentic? Let’s take a look at what this word truly suggests and just what blocks us from achieving authenticity. 

Naturally, the word authenticity evokes an image of something pure or unadulterated. A letter of authenticity confirms that a certain object or work of art is not a counterfeit. The act of authenticating is a process of determining that something is indeed genuine, as it is purported to be. Experts receive training to authenticate precious objects, memorabilia, and documents, among other rare items. Yet we have no such method for ascertaining the authentic nature of people.

Short of being caught in a bold-faced lie or transgression, methods of determining an individual’s authenticity often go unexplored. One’s authentic nature is revealed in their ability to express and share what they think or feel in a relatively unadulterated form. Diplomacy, political correctness, false flattery, people pleasing, avoidance and silence may, in fact, be designed to mask the authentic, unfiltered self.

What does the dictionary have to say? Merriam-Webster defines authentic as a quality of being genuine and worthy of belief. Hence, a person who is completely trustworthy is deemed to be authentic. Yet to be genuine requires a certain transparency, whereby others can witness the unfiltered personality, without any masking.

Most of us are too concerned with what others think of us. As such, we may disguise or manipulate features of our personality to better assure that others aren’t judgmental or adversely reactive to us. If I worry about what others think of me, then I manipulate my personality and communication, either to seek approval or avoid disapproval. This masks my true or authentic self. Although this personality trait is commonplace, it is far removed from authenticity.

There appears to be an inverse correlation between one’s sensitivity to what others think of them and the ability to be authentic. Authenticity requires a genuine sharing of our inner self, irrespective of the consequences. Very often, our actions in a given moment are intended to avoid certain consequences. And so we alter or mitigate our communications or behavior to assure that those consequences won’t be negative or problematic. These tendencies diminish our authenticity and they constrain our growth and self-esteem. Being authentic requires a genuine sharing in the present moment. Ordinarily, though, our thoughts conspire in a tangle of excuses as to why we can’t do something. These are the consequences to which I was previously referring. This is the core of inauthenticity; our words or actions become disguised from their original intent since we choose to mask them. When this occurs, we literally subvert our genuine self.

We might think to ourselves, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a little white lie,” or, “I don’t want to hurt their feelings,” or, “They won’t really care about how I feel.” It’s actually much larger than that. The greater harm done may not be to the other but to our own self. When we alter our thoughts and feelings for the purpose of a safer communication, we limit our own development. It’s as if we suppress our authenticity in deference to a safe and non-challenging communication. This devolving from our more genuine self typically begins in childhood as we encounter any host of emotional challenges. If we experience abuse, disappointment, fear, or devaluation, we begin to alter our personality as we attempt to cope with these wounds. Although the coping mechanisms are adaptive at that time, over the course of a lifetime they become masks that distance us from a more actualized sense of self.

Troubled Relationships 

Even more problematically, the opportunity for a more meaningful dialogue that might generate a better understanding between parties becomes blocked, as the truth never quite gets revealed. And so the relationship remains stuck. Two individuals who struggle with their own authenticity unconsciously conspire toward an inauthentic relationship. In fact, this is one of the largest impediments to successful relationships. Two individuals struggling with their own authenticity wouldn’t likely experience a thriving relationship. Very often, what we might refer to as a troubled relationship is, in fact, a manifestation of the challenges each individual face in their own personal evolution, but just further projected onto the external relationship.

I am not suggesting that we be callous or insensitive to others’ feelings. Learning how to communicate challenging matters in a delicate and compassionate manner opens the pathway to an evolving relationship. And a commitment to personal evolution honors authenticity. When we devote ourselves to such a path, we actually cast off the burden of fear and anxiety about what others may think of us and begin to honor our own authenticity.

An authentic person may be sensitive to what others think yet choose not to subordinate themselves to the opinions or judgments of others. This is a key source of genuine self-esteem. You might begin to think of the departure from being genuine as a self-betrayal. And self-betrayal is a terribly destructive action, after all. It has many faces. Being a people pleaser or avoiding confrontation betrays your own authenticity, as you submerge yourself in deference to others. Conversely, being controlling or acting out in anger distances you from being genuine. In these circumstances, you may be more comfortable wearing the mask of anger than revealing your vulnerability. Fear and insecurity are often at the core of anger. As an aside, when people communicate their vulnerable feelings, others actually tend to listen, and validation becomes a possibility. Angry people may be feared or avoided, but they are seldom validated.

Genuine self-esteem requires avoiding self-betrayal. You can’t be true to yourself and betray your authenticity at the same time. This is not to suggest that you shouldn’t act from compassion and generosity toward others, but you shouldn’t undermine yourself in the process.

It’s the exceptional individual who seeks authenticity. Much of the problem lies in the fact that being genuine is devalued in our culture, while success, achievement, and avoiding criticism are highly prized. Our prevailing cultural imperative does little to value authenticity. This goal appears nowhere in the curricula of our education. If our primary education provided coursework that taught us how to achieve emotional intelligence and the skill set of genuine communication, we might realign our priorities accordingly. The competitive spirit honors the winners, not the most sincere. And within that motif there is a belief that being authentic may impede success. Yet one need not preclude the other. If you untether yourself from insecurity and fear, you can set the stage for a self-empowered life. Freeing yourself from the tribulations of worrying about what others think of you emboldens you to be genuine.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> To this day, quite possibly the most provocative, if not astounding, discovery of modern science remains relatively obscure to the general public. This is, perhaps, due to how greatly it shatters our myth of reality – and, subsequently, our understanding of how we picture reality operating. This startling new worldview has been too radical for us to feel comfortable truly considering. For if we did, it would compel us to drastically reframe our thinking and our lives. Yet, by doing so, our lives would likely become unburdened and flourish.

For the most part, we have envisioned reality based upon the themes that Sir Isaac Newton postulated back in the seventeenth century. Newton constructed a machine-like model of the world, which is comprised of separate and distinct objects, disconnected from one other, interacting only through cause and effect. This picture of reality, operating as a giant machine, shackles our lives like little else. The depiction is absent any scintilla of meaning or purpose, as we become the cogs in the machine, detached from one other and the universe at large. This image is also devoid of any sense of relatedness, as separation becomes the essence of the Newtonian worldview. This paradigm leaves us humans as strangers in a mechanical universe, whereby isolation is the primary motif. Epidemics of depression are the inevitable result of this scenario. From this filter we experience a vast array of struggle and malaise. Many of our ensuing challenges and conflicts can be derived from this misunderstanding of reality. Yet there is now ample evidence to drastically reconsider how we look at the bigger picture.

A Quantum Revolution

In the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein and the celebrated Danish physicist Niels Bohr engaged in a debate that extended for many decades. Einstein had proposed a thought experiment – known as the EPR paradox – which became a hotly contested theoretical battleground between the two intellectual titans.

The thought experiment was concerned with the behavior of a pair of photons, which are simply light particles. When the two particles are created at the same point and instant in space, they become entangled as a pair. Paired photons have opposing spins or rotations. If particle A, for example, spins in a clockwise rotation, particle B’s spin must be counterclockwise. What would happen if a great distance separated the particles – imagine half a universe – and the spin of particle A was altered to counterclockwise? Both men agreed that particle B would necessarily change its spin accordingly. But how long would that take to occur?

Einstein suggested that the time required for one photon to communicate with the other could be calculated in a deterministic way, based upon the distance of separation and the laws determining the speed of light. Bohr, on the other hand, boldly predicted that there would be no signal necessary from one photon to the other and, hence, no time would elapse before the spins respectively reversed. Astoundingly, he claimed that since both photons existed in an entangled state – regardless of how distant they were from each other – they were still essentially inseparable. In scientific parlance, this is known as non-locality. Bohr’s claim flew in the face of classical Newtonian physics, which mandates that time must elapse for distant objects to communicate. Bohr was proposing that in certain circumstances, an entanglement exists in which separation is merely an illusion. Reality, in this case, was inseparable.

The debate raged on for on decades. In the early 1960’s, Irish physicist John Bell developed what became known as Bell’s theorem, a formula that was designed to test the argument. Nearly twenty years later the technology was finally devised to test Bell’s theorem. Einstein lost! No signal was required to travel between the photons. Communication was instantaneous. Notwithstanding a great distance between them, the photons were entangled as though they were one, just as Bohr had postulated. This experiment has been retested countless times, always with the same result. As counterintuitive as it may seem, under certain conditions the universe appears as an undivided, inseparable whole.

Are Humans Entangled?

Shockingly, increasing evidence has arisen indicating that this phenomenon occurs in the larger macro realm – most likely affecting humans. The June 2011 cover article in Scientific American, entitled “Living in a Quantum World,” proposed that larger biological entities were amenable to entanglement, which had been witnessed in living organisms. Entanglement may even occur on a cellular level. The division between the quantum world and the macro world appears to be an artificial distinction. The phenomena of distance healing, remote viewing and telepathy all point toward human entanglement. On a more ethereal level, one might argue that falling in love evokes entanglement.

At this point you might wonder what this means to us. Quite a lot! It necessitates that the way we envision reality requires radical reconsideration, but just as importantly, it suggests that we need to drastically overhaul the way we think and how we envision ourselves. Such a mind-altering reality defies our commonsense approach to cause and effect, which of course mandates separation and causality. Our prevailing, yet outdated, beliefs confine us to a paradigm that induces isolation with the ensuing loss of meaning. This results in depression, violence, greed, inhumaneness, existential despair and ecological disaster, to name just a few. But we’ll get to that in just a bit.

Let’s consider the case of a pair of human twins as opposed to our photon pairing. She lives in New York City and he lives in Paris. One day, as she is getting out of bed, she walks toward the shower, slips and turns her ankle, breaking it in the process. Precisely at that moment, her twin brother in Paris feels an excruciating pain in exactly the same location on his leg. There is no signal sent from one to the other. They are each – at least momentarily – part of the same system, so to speak. They are as entangled as the photons. We tend to regard this as inexplicable, just one of those odd things.

We’ve all heard of these occurrences, yet we marginalize them and other examples of wholeness as simply being “weird.”  (How often have you heard someone incredulously declare in these situations, “That’s so weird!”?) When we do that, we do ourselves a great disservice, as we disconnect from the transcendent experience. When something occurs that doesn’t fit into our operating belief system, we must reexamine our beliefs, not discard the experience. When we embrace the dissonance and confusion, we break new ground as old paradigms fall away and new worldviews emerge.

Such occurrences aren’t that strange. They seem to appear rarely – rather than routinely – because we don’t recognize them, due to the way our thinking tricks us into seeing separation where none really exists. This is why telepathic moments appear to occur as anomalous rather than more ordinarily. What we look for is what we see. The filter through which our mindscape sees is grossly impacted by our expectation of separation. We are trained to see separation, not connectivity. We see parts and fragments, not the whole. Our thoughts, rooted in Newton’s world of separation, tend to divide things into parts, rupturing the inexorable flow of the universe. Thought literally dissects and splits asunder the natural order of wholeness and movement. When this happens, we miss the big picture. That big picture – the emerging worldview – is unbroken wholeness.

Rupturing Wholeness

I caught a glimpse of this phenomenon of fragmentation while viewing CNN during the millennium celebration. For twenty-four hours, every country on the planet celebrated the dawn of a new millennium. As I watched, it occurred to me that for this span of one day, there were literally no divisions between countries, only one planet, turning in its rotation toward the birth of a new millennium. Furthermore, I considered that countries aren’t intrinsically real. We did, after all, make them up. When we view Earth from space, we don’t see a geopolitical map but, rather, something closer to the more natural topographical layout that we all inhabit. Our current political system of nations is simply a product of thought – thought rooted in separation.

To further the analogy, imagine yourself as a molecule of water in the ocean. You see your neighboring molecule as separate and distinct from you. The molecules, from their lack of perspective (we are granting them the capacity for consciousness here) miss the larger picture: they are all part of the same wave. They are distinct, yet interpenetrating – an indivisible part of the whole. The same applies to us. We are unique, yet seamless. Each molecule is individual but still an integral part of the wave, just as each individual grain of sand at the beach is enmeshed with other grains. We are all distinct, but we are all part of a flowing whole. This emerging paradigm refers to a participatory universe.  Everything informs everything else, which of course includes humans. As such, we fully participate in all that unfolds. Hence, life becomes profoundly meaningful and purposeful.

An Inseparable Whole

When we begin to see that way, we come to understand that doing harm to another is to do harm to yourself. To do violence to another would be as ludicrous as your left arm attacking your right arm due to a perceived difference and lack of appreciation that they are, in fact, part of the same body. We are all inextricably linked. To assist another, is to enhance your own wellbeing. In the emergent worldview, the distinction between other and self melts away.

What unfolds from this perspective is a de-emphasizing of individualistic competition and an ensuing shift toward cooperation. The cooperative spirit ultimately replaces the competitive spirit as we come to see that all things interpenetrate.

Cooperation or Competition

When we all work together as a whole, the productivity and congruence of our efforts are no longer fragmented, and the results can transcend linear expectations. Just imagine humans living and working with the same efficiency as an ant colony, which operates as an indivisible whole. Swarm theory proposes that while the intelligence of an individual ant isn’t noteworthy, the collective intelligence of the swarm is remarkable. The collective engages complexity far beyond the ability of the individual. As a group, the ant colony is super efficient. In fact, humans are adapting the intricacies of swarm theory to solve very complex challenges. Imagine what embracing this cooperative spirit could do for the human race if we engaged the complexity of our challenges – poverty, climate change, disease, warfare, resource scarcity – with an equivalent complexity of intelligence.

That said, excess of competition drives the individual at the cost of the collective. It is ego-driven and out of control. When all things come out of equilibrium, they lose balance and harmony. The world order today, with exception of fast-fading indigenous cultures, lies precariously at the edge of runaway competition (see the effects of globalization’s “race to the bottom.”) And with that, we are at the peril of its madness. It is wrecking our lives. The ever-widening income gap, the ruinous greed that sets up cataclysmic economic ruin, and the resulting despair and poverty of billions are due to the intense, individualistic, and competitive “every-man-for-himself” attitude, borne out of an antiquated and ruinous seventeenth century paradigm. On more personal levels, competitive excess is engendering an epidemic of loneliness and depression. The drive to succeed has simply overwhelmed the vital experience of relationship and community.

The further implications from the emerging worldview are unimaginably profound. War no longer makes sense, and depression and loneliness retreat as we come to value relationship as the cornerstone of our happiness. There is no greater and more fundamental shift that one could imagine than simply opening to the radical reality of inseparability.

Consider for a moment just how addictive our consumption is and how insane our polluting and poisoning of our planet, bodies and minds has become. We tragically continue to war upon and murder our kindred fellows. Our daily harm to one another and the planet in which we reside necessitates that we look at how our operating worldview informs our thinking. The emerging worldview of a seamless, interpenetrating, and participatory universe may very well heal this.

If we are able to align our worldview with the emerging sciences, which paint an entirely new fresco of the universe, the benefits will be innumerable. That said, the radical reality that science depicts is, indeed, remarkably spiritual. A participatory and inseparable universe provides not only meaning and purpose, but it also speaks to our integral role in the universe. In this regard, there is no longer a chasm between science and spirituality; they, too, are as one. In a connective reality, there is no sensible choice left but to connect.

“If each of us can learn to relate to each other more out of compassion, with a sense of connection to each other and a deep recognition of our common humanity, and more important, to teach this to our children, I believe that this can go a long way in reducing many of the conflicts and problems that we see today.” – The Dalai Lama

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> An Epidemic of Depression

Our society is in the throes of a virtual epidemic of depression. The numbers are quite staggering. More than twenty percent of the American population will experience at least one episode of what we refer to as clinical depression. We need to look deeper into this phenomenon to understand it and overcome it. My contention is, firstly, that our cultural values and memes induce us to live in ways that are, indeed, depressing. Secondly, much of what we refer to as clinical depression is inaccurate. Most depression is situational. The symptoms of depression are often due to depressing circumstances, not disease. In other words, under certain circumstances, it makes sense to be depressed.

Have We Lost Our Way?

Many of us live dulled lives, somewhat robotic in nature and devoid of deeper meaning and purpose. Our lives, often become visionless and passionless. We live in an intensely competitive culture that rewards achievement and success. Our identity and esteem become reflections of these external markers of achievement. Our pursuit of happiness and well-being become terribly misdirected. The demands of our intensely and neurotically driven culture strain our emotional and psychological balance well beyond its comfortable balance. The cultural paradigm in which we live leaves us disconnected, disenchanted and isolated. When this occurs, we tend to honor and seek material acquisitions at the cost of devoting ourselves to intimate and loving relationships – with others and ourselves.

People that thrive in loving relationships don’t typically feel depressed. Depression is symptomatic of feeling isolated and cut off. In our drive to live the good life, we typically isolate ourselves from relationships that might nourish us. Intimate and loving relations have become somewhat marginalized and have lost value in our very hurried lives. Our frenetic pace of life sees one day blur into another, until life begins to lose its meaning. We don’t have time to nurture our loved ones or ourselves, and we lose our vision of a well-spent life. In fact, the problem is that we don’t know how to live well.

Are People Dysfunctional?

Our therapeutic community attaches labels such as dysfunctional to people and families. People are not dysfunctional; social systems are. People suffer and experience pain. We are human beings, not machines that dysfunction. Such terminology expresses contempt for the human spirit. A society that produces such staggering rates of depression is dysfunctional. Our culture has created this epidemic.

Part of the problem is that we become corralled into a consensus of belief that does not serve our higher purpose. The desire to fit in and conform induces us to lose our inner voice. We are products of a cultural belief system that ignores or devalues matters of the heart and then turns and points its accusatory finger at those who suffer. When we do so, we victimize the victim. If we began to look at the depression as symptomatic of living depressing lives, we’d begin to understand that the cure lies in addressing what our souls are longing for. When we suppress the voice of our soul, depression arises. Depression surfaces for a reason. The symptoms of depression are crying out for our attention. The epidemic of depression is simply indicative of lives lived errantly, without joy or purpose.

People who feel passion for their work and friends and love their families and partners don’t become depressed as often as the population at large. People who are in touch with their spirit and enjoy a sense of community don’t incline toward depression. People who maintain a sense of wonder and awe don’t become depressed. Depression isn’t the enemy. It’s simply a warning sign that we’re not on the right path. Our disconnection and folly pursuits of happiness may have much to do with this.

Before the advent of modern psychotherapy, and well before the pathologizing of the word “depression,” we would refer to such symptoms as melancholia. Life would bring certain periods and events in which one might feel some melancholy. Sadness is appropriate at times. When people experienced such sadness, friends and family may have supported them through the difficult times. But they weren’t told that there was something wrong with them. Loving support is the most powerful agent in the treatment of depression. When we lose our compassion and relegate depressed people to their diagnosis, we tend to dehumanize them.

Is Our Society Manufacturing Depressed People?

A dominant theme in our society is that you should be happy, and if you’re not, there’s something wrong with you. Life can be difficult at times. It is in the labeling of people as depressed that the greatest injustice is done. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t people who are indeed clinically depressed, but simply that the indiscriminate manner in which diagnoses are meted out to people without proper discrimination is grossly absurd.  When clinical diagnosis of depression is made in the astronomical numbers we witness in American culture, it speaks to something much larger: A society that has lost its way.

If we see depression as a signal that something is off, we might use the depression to catalyze positive change. Very often depression makes perfect sense. In my practice, I often treat individuals who are being abused, living in loveless relationships or suffering from loss. Depression in such instances seems quite appropriate. Rather than treat the depression, I prefer to assist these people in coming to terms with their life challenges.  It is essential to treat the person, not the depression. We must come to understand how the depressed person struggles contextually in their lives and to appreciate their particular struggles and challenges. We must, at all costs, refrain from reducing them to a clinical compilation of symptoms.

Situational Depression

In some instances, depression is situational. Loss of a loved one, illness or job loss creates circumstances that are painful. Working through the loss is more healing than medicating the pain. It is essential to address the underlying causes and not simply suppress the symptoms. The difficulty is that in our quick fix mentality, we believe that if we can suppress the symptoms then all is well. When we come to see depression not as the enemy but as an expression of struggle, the epidemic will likely subside as we come to honor the integrity of our human spirit. We do not ordinarily grow without engaging struggle. So the irony is that by medicating our symptoms with psychotropic medication, we ensure continued stagnation, for the struggle is never resolved toward a breakthrough; it is merely placated.

Gary Greenberg, in Manufacturing Depression, suggests that depression as a clinical disease may indeed be manufactured. He references best selling psychiatrist Peter Kramer’s assertion in Against Depression that “depression magically skyrocketed after the drug industry introduced SSRIs and that diagnostic criteria can’t distinguish between depression and grief.”

My thesis is, therefore, twofold: Much of what we call depression is a typical life struggle around loss, fear and grave situational issues that have become clinicalized for profit. Yet, there also lies a deeper despair that accompanies living an incoherent life, as a stranger in a strange land. What I am strongly asserting is that depression, and anxiety for that matter, are the most likely outcomes of living in and with the unmerciful and misguided constraints of a tired and destructive worldview. Our constructed reality is for many people depressive and anxiety inducing. Feeling as such ironically suggests that many depressed people are merely mirroring the affects of a somewhat incongruous, if not insane way of living, fostered by the society itself. In effect, the way that we are living is producing tragic results.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.

Continue reading »]]> What is the source of happiness? We tend to assume that happiness will come from a future event. It typically depends upon something else happening. The script often reads like this:

I’ll be happy when… I fall in love.

I’ll be happy when… I get married.

I’ll be happy when… we can buy our dream house.

I’ll be happy when… we can furnish the house.

Still, the anticipated happiness is elusive so we tie it to more future events.

I’ll be happy when… we have children.

I’ll be happy when… the children are older.

I’ll be happy when… I can retire.

What’s happened here? Has an entire lifetime passed pursuing an illusion? Those events that we so dearly waited for do provide a temporary excitement, but too soon they retreat into the ordinary and we replace them with the next fantasy of happiness.

Happiness can only occur in the moment that you’re in and can only be sustained by developing a nurturing relationship with yourself and, hopefully, others. The ultimate source of happiness lies in the quality of your thoughts. Our thoughts are our most intimate relationship and will impact our lives far more than our relationships with others. In fact, our relations with others are, to an extent, but a reflection of the quality of our own thoughts.

What we seek “out there” is but the icing on the cake. Genuine and sustainable happiness is derived from a healthy and nurturing relationship with yourself. Nothing and no one can take that away from you. Devote your attention to your authentic well being and happiness will emerge.

Please be sure to “like” my Facebook page to see my quote of the day, follow me on Twitter, and join my LinkedIn network.