Re: A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

[Guest guest]

>

> Randy, you said 'Where my skepticism would arise is with the suggestion

> that this natural property of fully developed language automatically leads

> to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons

> & groups as being " like me/us. " '

> Would it not be more accurate to say that " this natural property of

> fully developed language is necessary to lead to our being able to

> overcome contention... " rather than " automatically leads to our being

> able... "   That would take care of your skepticism with this statement,

> would it not?

Not entirely, no. " Automatically " is poor phrasing on my part, and

your phrasing is better. But Steve leans on this notion of what are

called " deictic " relations pretty heavily in the presentation. And by

coincidence (or not) there is actually some discussion going on,

over on the professional list, about exercises that bridge the gap

between what pretty much all of us learn to do to be functional

human beings, on the one hand, and the extension of that form of

relating to increasingly compassionate & empathetic awareness

of other persons & other groups.

The interesting thing about deictic relations & about what is called

" theory of mind " is that although we start learning these relations

when we are perhaps 5 years old, it takes many, many years to

learn the nuances. There are studies in which progressively more

difficult " thought experiments " are presented to different age

groups in which the experiment asks you to put yourself into

someone else's shoes & see things from their POV. These

experiments show that the nuances keep developing well into

adulthood & do not stop at age 8 or age 13 or what have you.

So I can guess from that (but it is just a guess) that extending

all this to other persons & groups and further developing compassion

is really the same process as we experience in routine socialization . . .

but taken much further than routine socialization normally calls for.

(Hope this makes some sense!)

- R.

[Guest guest]

Also, here is what I mean when I say that this question of " I/you, " vs.

the development of compassion more generally, lies at the heart of our

struggle with language -

Language gives us the ability to evaluate & compare. Thus, " You are

different/worse/better than me. "

And language, through the learning of deictic relations in particular,

also gives us the ability to imagine ourselves as each other: " What

are you looking at? Ah, you are looking at the leaf & seeing it from

your point of view where YOU are THERE, not from where I am HERE. "

But of these two forms of relating, evaluation seems to predominate.

Thus we suffer. And catching even a hint out of the corner of our eye

of the implications of deictic relations seems . . . uh, more difficult.

- R.

[Guest guest]

I like your quibbles! I'm sure Steve appreciates them too... Openness and free discussion is a core value in ACBS.I write this very much for myself - to try and take one more small step forward. I would love to get your or other's comments!ACT and RFT also has at it's foundation a naturalist view of reality: from Wikipedia: Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.I interpret that to mean that RFT and ACT have as their aim to explain how different mental states, such as empathy can arise. The ability to take a different perspective from I-here-now, seems to be a core component to be able to experience empathy or to get an idea of what's going on in other people's minds.I have a spiritual view of things. I personally can't see how it would necessarily interfere with naturalism. What I mean is - I believe (this is not something that can be proved or disproved in the naturalistic tradition) that we already have an ability to be empathic when we're born - that is independent of having a brain. My belief is that that ability is not located in the brain, but that it's expressed in the brain as the ability to take different perspectives. In fact this ability is dormant in the soul, but is awakened by training perspective taking. On a side-note I can certainly see that ability for empathy in animals - but I can't say much more than that.BestHenrik In watching the videos, I found myself thinking more about the gaps inthe presentation than about anything else. Of there there is nothingwrong about such gaps occuring - in a Q & A setting like this, it'sunavoidable. But still it was interesting to see where my thoughtsabout these gaps led me.In particular, I found myself thinking that if I were new to ACT, Iwould have some skepticism about the argument that by itself, humanlanguage almost axiomatically ensures the development of empathy & compassion.The "pro" side of the argument seems easy to grasp. Even withouthaving done any such experiments myself, I am willing to trust thatwork in the lab shows that children with autism can be taught "I/you"verbal relations that previously they lacked. And I am fully willingto believe that learning such verbal relations can help these childrendevelop a richer repertoire of social experiences & social behaviors -including empathy for others, etc.Yet on the "con" side, I have two points of confusion & possibleobjection. I'll call these Quibble A and Quibble B. Quibble A istheoretical & perhaps even trivial, but Quibble B seems to me to beimportant in understanding ACT.Let me get Quibble A out of the way first. Basically, my quibble hereis that I am not willing to define all possible behaviors that mightbe labelled "empathy and compassion" in such a way that it is only"I/you" verbal relating that makes these behaviors possible. To thecontrary, I would argue that many social species of animals (wolves,pigs, dogs, chimps, elephants, and apparently even mice) demonstratebehaviors that look an awful lot to us like the beginnings of empathyand possibly even compassion. There seems to be sufficient non-RFTresearch on this score for me as a layperson to trust that it it isnot all anthropomorphic fantasy on the part of gullible pet-owners,etc.In other words, yes, the human ability to speculate about theconsciousness of other members of our species far exceeds such abilityin any other animal species we can name - but such verbal behavior,like many other kinds of verbal behavior, seems to be scaffoldingbuilt upon existing non-verbal abilities shared by both humans andanimals. And yet at the same time, it is interesting that this"scaffolding" of verbal relations seems to be quite necessary forhuman children to demonstrate what we consider empathy, vs. whateverempathetic behaviors we may believe we see in dogs, chimps, etc.Obviously we are different in this regard.And now for Quibble B, which I think really does matter, if onlybecause it helps point to where the problem lies with what we learnabout language in the course of normal human socialization, vs. whatwe might wish to learn about language to address problems such assuffering - both our own suffering, & the suffering of others.Put simply, if I were watching this video & knew nothing else aboutACT, I think I might be skeptical of the suggestion by Steve that"I/you" verbal relating is really the foundation of empathy & compassion in humans. I think I would grasp that empathy is notpossible without a recognition that "you are like me in that you lookout from your eyes the way I look out from mine, etc." Here we areback with what children must learn before their behavior can includewhat we call empathy. Where my skepticism would arise is with thesuggestion that this natural property of fully developed languageautomatically leads to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons & groups as being "like me/us." Indeed,the evidence would seem all to the contrary - that we can have thisbasic "I/you" relating skill, and yet somehow demonstrate a lack ofcompassion, empathy, etc. toward other persons & groups. Aslanguage-using beings, we seem better much of the time at stereotyping & disconnection than we do at empathy & connection.Now, Steve did seem to say in his remarks that it is not so simple as"I have I/you verbal relations, therefore everything is groovy." Atone point he said something to the effect that getting outside of aproblem-solving, evaluative frame of mind is quite difficult & requires the acquisition of specific skills. So I think if he had hada little more time in the presentation, he would have elaborated onthe gap here between a basic verbal ability & the more elaborateskills that seem needed to leverage "self as context" or what have youinto "you really ARE like me, aren't you?" at a more elaborate level.These thoughts on my part are not meant as criticisms, onlyobservations on the part of someone who is learning very slowly aboutACT and RFT beyond the boilerplate statements in the books and beyondmy own limited experience. Quibble B is especially difficult for me tomake clear to myself or to other people in a compact and persuasiveway. It seems very near the heart of the struggle with language.- Randy

[Guest guest]

The early Christain monks and nuns were often mindful especially when chanting

verses from the Bible. It is a real shame that this meditative tradition did not

seep out in the the genral public.

The early Catholic church did not like esotericism and taught a universal

(catholic) Christianity. I can understand how the early Christians wanted a

Christianity that was for everyone and not just for the very mindfully pious

devoted (like some of the gnostics), but the West lost something very special

when it let go of the practice of mindfulness.

Kv

>

> > **

> >

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > I have watched the first video and have found it very informative and

> > useful. I am exploring my Christian faith (again!) in light of a few years

> > of going down the Buddhist route. I am doing The Alpha Course with my local

> > church - which takes you through the steps of Christianity - which is

> > essentially about a real relationship- that of yourself and God in Jesus.

> > I am having trouble fitting this all together with ACT and was wondering if

> > anyone has trod this path and has any ideas?

> >

> > Simone

> > *From:*

> > *To:* ACT Listserve <acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy >;

> > act_for_the_public <ACT_for_the_Public >; Scholarly

> > discussion and dissemination of mindfulness and acceptance <

> > MINDFULNESS@...>

> > *Sent:* Sunday, 9 October 2011, 22:38

> > *Subject:* A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and

> > the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

> >

> >

> > Last summer I did a session with a Buddhist monk

> > at a local meditation center (Diamond Heart, here in Reno) on various

> > topics.

> > The monk was the Ven. Lobsang Nyingpo is the Director of the Tibetan

> > Language Hypertext Project and

> > teaches Tibetan Heart Yoga, Tibetan Language, Debate, and Buddhist

> > Philosophy at Diamond Mountain

University<https://www.email.arizona.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F\

www.diamondmtn.org%2F>in southeast Arizona.

> > He is an accredited staff instructor with the Yoga Studies

Institute<https://www.email.arizona.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw\

ww.yogastudiesinstitute.org%2Fstaff.html>.

> >

> >

> > My own focus was not really ACT qua ACT -- so this is really just some

> > thoughts from this

> > wing of the mindfulness community and perspectives from Tibetan Buddhism.

> >

> > The format was very free wheeling -- opening comments and a questions from

> > the audience.

> >

> > Anyway I thought it might be of some use.

> >

> > These are the four sessions on YouTube. The first one starts slowly

> > (introductions you can barely hear) but then it gets going after a couple

> > of minutes.

> >

> > Video 1: http://youtu.be/MG1JDOVHYSk

> > Video 2: http://youtu.be/1WDaP8IzUEA

> > Video 3: http://youtu.be/aFc-rci0Sow

> > Video 4: http://youtu.be/pS8WnOPST3Y

> >

> > They are not yet well indexed or cross linked (we are still

> > learning how to do that) so when you finish one you have to come back

> > to these links to do the next.

> >

> > Feel free to forward or whatever

> >

> > - S

> >

> > C.

> > Foundation Professor

> > Department of Psychology /298

> > University of Nevada

> > Reno, NV 89557-0062

> >

> > " Love isn't everything, it's the only thing "

> >

> > hayes@... or stevenchayes@...

> >

> > Fax:

> > Psych Department:

> > Contextual Change (you can use this number for messages if need be): (775)

> > 746-2013

> >

> > Blogs:

> > *Psychology Today* http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-out-your-mind

> > *Huffington Post * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-c-hayes-phd

> >

> >

> > If you want my vita, publications, PowerPoint slides, try my training page

> > or my blog at the ACBS site:

> > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/steven_hayes

> > http://www.contextualpsychology.org/blog/steven_hayes

> >

> > or you can try my website (it is semi-functional) stevenchayes.com

> >

> > If you have any questions about ACT or RFT (articles, AAQ information etc),

> > please first check the vast resources at website of the Association for

> > Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS): www.contextualpsychology.org. You

> > have to register on the site to download things, but the cost if up to your

> > own values.

> >

> > If you are a professional or student and want to be part of the world wide

> > ACT discussion or RFT discussions go to

> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/acceptanceandcommitmenttherapy/join

> >

> > or

> >

> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/relationalframetheory/join

> >

> > If you are a member of the public reading ACT self-help books (e.g., " Get

> > Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life " etc) and want to be part of the

> > conversation go to:

> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

What really helps me to be more compassionate and empathic is noticing people

like that guy who jumped right in and challenged both of them. He sounded very

hostile to me. Heckler, you know? He sounded dis-respectful, stirring up the

pot, provocative, blurting out this and that. Look at me, listen to me. And then

at the end he seemed to catch himself a bit, qualified his remarks and said now

he'd shut up. It was like he just had to say his opinion, and it had to be right

then and there, and all I heard was a lot of " you're both wrong " .

And it's not that I don't appreciate differences of opinion. But there is a time

and place for debate. And there is also a way to express this passion, the tone

and the words we choose. Steve and the Monk come to this place, willing to take

time to speak before others and offer their experience, expertise, wisdom to

help others, spark interest. And they're trusting enough to let people just jump

in with questions, keeping it casual. And this guy just dumps all over them.

And I could relate to all of that, including catching myself be mindless,

slipping off my values, tracking a lot of you know what around. And then

there's that conversation to sit with (embarrassment, regret.. oh, wow! maybe

I'm really as bad as I thought). And the tragic thing is I'm there because I am

really interested in this topic, I'm wanting to learn, connect like everyone

else. I have pain too.

So I really got what that would feel like for all of them--the guy, Steve, the

Monk and all the students. And it's just not the kind of stuff I want to put

out there. That's why the acceptance, the yes to backing up, slowing down to

own my own experience first is so very important for me now.

> >

> > Randy, you said 'Where my skepticism would arise is with the suggestion

> > that this natural property of fully developed language automatically leads

> > to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons

> > & groups as being " like me/us. " '

>

> > Would it not be more accurate to say that " this natural property of

> > fully developed language is necessary to lead to our being able to

> > overcome contention... " rather than " automatically leads to our being

> > able... "   That would take care of your skepticism with this statement,

> > would it not?

>

> Not entirely, no. " Automatically " is poor phrasing on my part, and

> your phrasing is better. But Steve leans on this notion of what are

> called " deictic " relations pretty heavily in the presentation. And by

> coincidence (or not) there is actually some discussion going on,

> over on the professional list, about exercises that bridge the gap

> between what pretty much all of us learn to do to be functional

> human beings, on the one hand, and the extension of that form of

> relating to increasingly compassionate & empathetic awareness

> of other persons & other groups.

>

> The interesting thing about deictic relations & about what is called

> " theory of mind " is that although we start learning these relations

> when we are perhaps 5 years old, it takes many, many years to

> learn the nuances. There are studies in which progressively more

> difficult " thought experiments " are presented to different age

> groups in which the experiment asks you to put yourself into

> someone else's shoes & see things from their POV. These

> experiments show that the nuances keep developing well into

> adulthood & do not stop at age 8 or age 13 or what have you.

>

> So I can guess from that (but it is just a guess) that extending

> all this to other persons & groups and further developing compassion

> is really the same process as we experience in routine socialization . . .

> but taken much further than routine socialization normally calls for.

>

> (Hope this makes some sense!)

>

> - R.

>

[Guest guest]

Not sure how this translates into RFT,BTW..but me here watching all of them

there, actively imagining what it might be like for each of them there (calling

forth my own memory of myself in the guy's shoes along with what I learned

afterward) as well as what it's like for me now watching all this..really

powerful! :-)

> > >

> > > Randy, you said 'Where my skepticism would arise is with the suggestion

> > > that this natural property of fully developed language automatically leads

> > > to our being able to overcome contention & division & see other persons

> > > & groups as being " like me/us. " '

> >

> > > Would it not be more accurate to say that " this natural property of

> > > fully developed language is necessary to lead to our being able to

> > > overcome contention... " rather than " automatically leads to our being

> > > able... "   That would take care of your skepticism with this statement,

> > > would it not?

> >

> > Not entirely, no. " Automatically " is poor phrasing on my part, and

> > your phrasing is better. But Steve leans on this notion of what are

> > called " deictic " relations pretty heavily in the presentation. And by

> > coincidence (or not) there is actually some discussion going on,

> > over on the professional list, about exercises that bridge the gap

> > between what pretty much all of us learn to do to be functional

> > human beings, on the one hand, and the extension of that form of

> > relating to increasingly compassionate & empathetic awareness

> > of other persons & other groups.

> >

> > The interesting thing about deictic relations & about what is called

> > " theory of mind " is that although we start learning these relations

> > when we are perhaps 5 years old, it takes many, many years to

> > learn the nuances. There are studies in which progressively more

> > difficult " thought experiments " are presented to different age

> > groups in which the experiment asks you to put yourself into

> > someone else's shoes & see things from their POV. These

> > experiments show that the nuances keep developing well into

> > adulthood & do not stop at age 8 or age 13 or what have you.

> >

> > So I can guess from that (but it is just a guess) that extending

> > all this to other persons & groups and further developing compassion

> > is really the same process as we experience in routine socialization . . .

> > but taken much further than routine socialization normally calls for.

> >

> > (Hope this makes some sense!)

> >

> > - R.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I am still not getting the 'you/there' perspective and how it relates to self as context, and to the 'i/here'i am just begining to understand self as context as i/here/there/now/then etc etc...everything from 'i'where does the 'u' fit in 'self as context' , i am having difficulty understanding help please?:-)-K Designs.To: ACT_for_the_Public From: usable.thought@...Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:44:43 +0000Subject: Re: A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

In watching the videos, I found myself thinking more about the gaps in

the presentation than about anything else. Of there there is nothing

wrong about such gaps occuring - in a Q & A setting like this, it's

unavoidable. But still it was interesting to see where my thoughts

about these gaps led me.

In particular, I found myself thinking that if I were new to ACT, I

would have some skepticism about the argument that by itself, human

language almost axiomatically ensures the development of empathy &

compassion.

The "pro" side of the argument seems easy to grasp. Even without

having done any such experiments myself, I am willing to trust that

work in the lab shows that children with autism can be taught "I/you"

verbal relations that previously they lacked. And I am fully willing

to believe that learning such verbal relations can help these children

develop a richer repertoire of social experiences & social behaviors -

including empathy for others, etc.

Yet on the "con" side, I have two points of confusion & possible

objection. I'll call these Quibble A and Quibble B. Quibble A is

theoretical & perhaps even trivial, but Quibble B seems to me to be

important in understanding ACT.

Let me get Quibble A out of the way first. Basically, my quibble here

is that I am not willing to define all possible behaviors that might

be labelled "empathy and compassion" in such a way that it is only

"I/you" verbal relating that makes these behaviors possible. To the

contrary, I would argue that many social species of animals (wolves,

pigs, dogs, chimps, elephants, and apparently even mice) demonstrate

behaviors that look an awful lot to us like the beginnings of empathy

and possibly even compassion. There seems to be sufficient non-RFT

research on this score for me as a layperson to trust that it it is

not all anthropomorphic fantasy on the part of gullible pet-owners,

etc.

In other words, yes, the human ability to speculate about the

consciousness of other members of our species far exceeds such ability

in any other animal species we can name - but such verbal behavior,

like many other kinds of verbal behavior, seems to be scaffolding

built upon existing non-verbal abilities shared by both humans and

animals. And yet at the same time, it is interesting that this

"scaffolding" of verbal relations seems to be quite necessary for

human children to demonstrate what we consider empathy, vs. whatever

empathetic behaviors we may believe we see in dogs, chimps, etc.

Obviously we are different in this regard.

And now for Quibble B, which I think really does matter, if only

because it helps point to where the problem lies with what we learn

about language in the course of normal human socialization, vs. what

we might wish to learn about language to address problems such as

suffering - both our own suffering, & the suffering of others.

Put simply, if I were watching this video & knew nothing else about

ACT, I think I might be skeptical of the suggestion by Steve that

"I/you" verbal relating is really the foundation of empathy &

compassion in humans. I think I would grasp that empathy is not

possible without a recognition that "you are like me in that you look

out from your eyes the way I look out from mine, etc." Here we are

back with what children must learn before their behavior can include

what we call empathy. Where my skepticism would arise is with the

suggestion that this natural property of fully developed language

automatically leads to our being able to overcome contention &

division & see other persons & groups as being "like me/us." Indeed,

the evidence would seem all to the contrary - that we can have this

basic "I/you" relating skill, and yet somehow demonstrate a lack of

compassion, empathy, etc. toward other persons & groups. As

language-using beings, we seem better much of the time at stereotyping

& disconnection than we do at empathy & connection.

Now, Steve did seem to say in his remarks that it is not so simple as

"I have I/you verbal relations, therefore everything is groovy." At

one point he said something to the effect that getting outside of a

problem-solving, evaluative frame of mind is quite difficult &

requires the acquisition of specific skills. So I think if he had had

a little more time in the presentation, he would have elaborated on

the gap here between a basic verbal ability & the more elaborate

skills that seem needed to leverage "self as context" or what have you

into "you really ARE like me, aren't you?" at a more elaborate level.

These thoughts on my part are not meant as criticisms, only

observations on the part of someone who is learning very slowly about

ACT and RFT beyond the boilerplate statements in the books and beyond

my own limited experience. Quibble B is especially difficult for me to

make clear to myself or to other people in a compact and persuasive

way. It seems very near the heart of the struggle with language.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Randy said: Language gives us the ability to evaluate & compare. Thus, "You are different/worse/better than me."

It also lets us know that "You are like me." And that is the root of compassion - at least, for human beings, right?

You're losing me with talk of "deictic relations" since I have not studied RFT at all. But I was curious so I looked up the term and found this rather good definition (citing S.C. - know him?): http://relationalframetheory.wikispaces.com/Deictic+relations

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:44:18 AMSubject: Re: A Psychologist and a Monk: Steve and the Venerable Lobsang Nyingpo

Also, here is what I mean when I say that this question of "I/you," vs.the development of compassion more generally, lies at the heart of ourstruggle with language - And language, through the learning of deictic relations in particular,also gives us the ability to imagine ourselves as each other: "Whatare you looking at? Ah, you are looking at the leaf & seeing it fromyour point of view where YOU are THERE, not from where I am HERE." But of these two forms of relating, evaluation seems to predominate.Thus we suffer. And catching even a hint out of the corner of our eyeof the implications of deictic relations seems . . . uh, more difficult.- R.