RE: Re: Anxiety Disorders (was Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Let me just say this to you. I had an acquaintance who always used to say

>that if you fully understood the causes of a problem you would no longer

>have the problem.

While I certainly agree with you that ought to quit smoking, even

American Spirits, that's kind of silly. Addictions don't magically go away

when you understand you're addicted; they require lifestyle changes (for

lack of a better word) and some serious applications of willpower. Same

with other related problems. And if you understand that you've lost a leg

in an industrial accident, you don't get your leg back. (And yes, I know,

some new agey types will say that once you come to terms with not having a

leg, it's not a problem anymore, to which I say that that's true in a

sense, but it's far from the whole story.)

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> >Let me just say this to you. I had an acquaintance who

> always used to say

> >that if you fully understood the causes of a problem you

> would no longer

> >have the problem.

>

> While I certainly agree with you that ought to quit

> smoking, even

> American Spirits, that's kind of silly. Addictions don't

> magically go away

> when you understand you're addicted; they require lifestyle

> changes (for

> lack of a better word) and some serious applications of

> willpower. Same

> with other related problems. And if you understand that

> you've lost a leg

> in an industrial accident, you don't get your leg back. (And

> yes, I know,

> some new agey types will say that once you come to terms with

> not having a

> leg, it's not a problem anymore, to which I say that that's true in a

> sense, but it's far from the whole story.)

You are being literal when my comment requires some thought. Of course your

examples are correct.

In your addiction example I would say that if the addict fully understood

his addiction he would do the work to make it go away. In our Western model

the addiction is the substance. In reality the addiction is the need for

the substance and once the fundamental cause of the need is really

completely understood it goes away. This comes from my experience with

energy psychology and I have seen it happen many times so I find it to be

true. The lifestyle changes follow naturally from true understanding.

Of course you can fail to fully understand and just brute strength your way

through the lifestyle changes as you suggest. That's what I did almost 4

years ago. It was hard but it worked.

The leg example is a little different because the cause is so fundamental

and clearly obvious that no would miss it. In that case the problem would

be if the person kept trying to walk and falling over again and again

because they didn't know the leg was gone. That would never happen,

obviously. Most of the problems that we face daily are not that clear.

In Chris' case he's got high blood pressure and a fast pulse and he feels

his heart beating when he takes deep breaths. And yet he's got his anxiety

under control. ( 8(|) But he's built this rational structure that is

impenetrable. Despite his deep knowledge and depth of analysis he's still

got the problem and that simply means that at least one of his suppositions

is incorrect. He can either listen to the advice that he's getting and give

it a try or he can continue being both right and not in maximal health at

the same time.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>You are being literal when my comment requires some thought. Of course your

>examples are correct.

No, I'm objecting to a shallow aphorism, even though it has some truth.

>In your addiction example I would say that if the addict fully understood

>his addiction he would do the work to make it go away.

I don't think that's really true. I've known many people who understand

they should eat right, or at least eat differently, but they decide it's

not worth it to them. Heidi has given examples of people who double over

in agony from gluten-containing foods, have horrible diarrhea etc., yet

decide to eat them anyway because to them, the sociability factor of eating

" regular " foods is more important. I know numerous people who've given up

on the SCD for the exact same reason. I know people who know -- really

know -- that what they're eating is crap and is killing them, but they

aren't willing to " give up " things they " enjoy " .

Now, you could argue that they don't REALLY understand (or " fully "

understand) and that might even be true in some cases, but it's

fundamentally a tautological argument -- if they don't change, they must

not fully understand because full understanding definitionally leads to change.

>In our Western model

>the addiction is the substance. In reality the addiction is the need for

>the substance and once the fundamental cause of the need is really

>completely understood it goes away. This comes from my experience with

>energy psychology and I have seen it happen many times so I find it to be

>true. The lifestyle changes follow naturally from true understanding.

I simply don't buy this. I'm not saying understanding isn't important, I'm

not even saying energy psychology (a mumbo jumbo term IMO) is useless,

because I've gotten some benefits from EFT. But this sort of approach

discounts physical reality, which in my book is a dangerous and foolish

thing to do. If all addictions -- in fact, if all physical health problems

-- can be addressed by energy psychology and " understanding " , why, then

there's no need to address the problems of pollution and the disaster that

is our food supply!

>The leg example is a little different because the cause is so fundamental

>and clearly obvious that no would miss it. In that case the problem would

>be if the person kept trying to walk and falling over again and again

>because they didn't know the leg was gone. That would never happen,

>obviously. Most of the problems that we face daily are not that clear.

I think most amputees would not agree that their only possible problem

would be trying to walk like people with two functioning legs. This sort

of thinking would hold that my " problem " is not that I have health

problems, but that I don't just accept them and work around them. I find

that reprehensible. (Note that I'm not accusing you of actually saying

that to me. I'm just saying you're addressing the problem of a lost leg in

that way.)

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Not my assertion at all. They must of course have the desire to change the

>problem.

So you agree that someone can fully understand a problem without actually

doing something about it?

>What I am saying is that if you have a problem and you can't get rid of it

>there is something misunderstood somewhere.

OK, I agree with that, but that's very different from what you seemed to be

saying earlier.

>Actually they do. What I experience is sensation. Feeling. That is all I

>can truthfully state about it. Everything beyond that is theory and

>conjecture.

Sure, words describing your sensations can accurately describe your

sensations, but it doesn't mean they correspond to objective reality.

>I'm sure that you accept the validity of acupuncture -- to some degree at

>least -- and that certainly works with the body's energy systems as

>described by Chinese medicine, among other things. Energy psych works by

>manipulating those systems while using various psychological techniques at

>the same time.

Actually, I have no idea whether acupuncture is valid or not. I know some

people who believe it is, I know some people who believe it isn't, but I've

never tried it myself or seen an adequate explanation for its

function. (Not that I mean to suggest that something has to be adequately

explained to be functional.) It also seems quite variable in its supposed

effects, which could be due to a wide variety of factors -- perhaps it's

bunk and the only thing at work is the placebo effect, perhaps it's very

difficult to do, perhaps everyone needs very individualized acupuncture and

not everyone decides on the correct treatment course for every individual,

etc. etc.

>Yes. There are non-standard models of the universe that postulate that

>everything is energy and that physical reality can be manipulated in a

>purely energetic way. There is tons of anecdotal evidence to support that

>kind of thing but all of it is rebutted harshly by people who's worldview

>cannot accept it. I am agnostic on the subject but the more I see the more

>I wonder.

There are also people who claim that they no longer need food but can

subsist on air and cosmic energy and the like. Of course, when you follow

them around, you see them eating apples and cheeseburgers and pancakes and

the like.

If some people can actually manipulate physical reality, it wouldn't be

hard to verify.

>Yes! That's exactly the take home message. Delivered by someone who has

>done exactly that with thousands of individuals.

By someone who says she has done that, and I reiterate, it's an amusing and

hypocritical position.

>That is a theory. And a pretty good one, I might add. But it may well be

>wrong. God knows that there are millions of people out there willing to

>argue with you about it.

There are millions of people out there who believe all sorts of tripe. I

don't regard anyone's _belief_ as proof of anything except the existence of

said belief.

>One of the better descriptions of reality that I've seen in the past 20

>years is that of Ken Wilber. He postulates an area of what he calls

> " interior states " that can only be self described and cannot be proven or

>verified. If you view God as a product or expression of these interior

>states rather than as an external being (old bearded white guy) then the

>descriptions that others are giving of their God experiences become much

>more interesting. Unprovable, but they tell us much and may point us in new

>directions.

This sounds like a rehash of Kant, but if Wilber and other disciples of

Kant are correct, why is someone's unique and completely internal personal

reality interesting at all if it's untranslatable and has no generalized

meaning? (I don't mean to suggest they're actually correct, BTW.)

>I do know that I'm moving

>away from a purely atoms and molecules explanation for the nature of the

>world but I fully acknowledge that I could well be wrong.

There's a lot more to chemistry and physics than atoms and molecules.

>Here's a good moment for a book plug. Read _The Field_ by Lynn McTaggart if

>you want to see what legitimate science has done with the paranormal over

>the past 30 years or so. Great book.

Amazon evidently doesn't sell it, but a description I found on the web

looks pretty absurd. Can you provide any more info?

>I understand. My comment was that in the scheme of the workshop universe a

>three day program like this one is way low on the cost scale.

Well, maybe so. It looks like MetroNorth would be a little less expensive

than I'd initially thought, so maybe I'll do it.

>Oh yeah. Definitely. Last workshop the food was inedible and that was from

>the viewpoint of the other attendees.

So I'd have to catch a 7:47am train three days running... I'd have to

bring a cooler of food, and I'm not sure when I'd actually have to eat,

since I usually get up around 8:30am but this would mean getting up as much

as two hours early and there'd be the risk of needing to eat before I could

get home... Train fare would be almost $60... I think I'd have to buy a

medium-sized cooler, actually... Unless there's good food available

nearby? I haven't been to Stamford in a couple years, but I used to be

there often, and I can't think of anything readily at hand that would be

useful.

Well, enough of that -- I'll stop boring you with my internal debate.

>Oh yes. I've been to two of 's workshops and the most compelling

>moments are when you watch him process someone live on stage. There is

>absolutely no comparison between that and watching the DVD's. It is very,

>very intense observing what happens in person and it can be very useful from

>both a learning how to process perspective and also for actually working on

>your own stuff while you are observing him.

It sounds like it would be productive, but $300 productive? I'll have to

ponder that a bit.

I'm curious, BTW, since you mention that EFT was your gateway -- what else

are you into now?

-

[Guest guest]

>> Once you get the appropriate

and correct knowledge or understanding then you can release the problem. If

you choose to.

<<

Or not... you can let go of the problem WITHOUT " understanding " it too. You

don't need to understand a hot potato to drop it.

We can waste years trying to get to the bottom of our problems and develop

this deep and complete knowledge of them, and still be stuck in actions we

don't like or want to want to change (no, that was not a typo).

You can decide to change your behavior without fully understanding it. You

can also really understand it and still not want to, or be able to, change

it. Or you can go through life with no understanding and never changing, or

you can of course understand it and change it. But there's no magical power

granted by understanding, and for some people, all that time spent on

THINKING ABOUT the deep meaning of all their bad patterns and habits is just

a waste of time and a distraction from DOING SOMETHING.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com