Psyche-pathology and well-being 2

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Gregg continues to astound me with his real working knowledge and experience, Gary your input is really valuable in re-grounding the conversation, John your comments at the 118 minute mark drew everything together nicely. Thank you so much guys this is growing into a fantastic dialog.

[@nugzarkapanadze6867]

I checked your playlist. Thank you a wonderful collection!

[@williamjmccartan8879]

@@nugzarkapanadze6867 thank you very much for saying that, peace

[@word-pictures]

Lordy, what an insightful conversation. Greg's ability to quickly/succinctly/light-heartedly break down his model is simply astounding. Mind blown. 🤯

[@polymathpark]

Hey guys, I think people would appreciate having the categories labeled on the timeline, such that people can return to the content that's relevant to their studies. Given how deep this all gets, it warrants revisit. Thanks for your efforts.

[@mills8102]

Thanks for sharing! I really enjoy Gregg's invigorating style.

[@mcnallyaar]

What a joy and privilege it is to be able to sit in on dialogos such as this!

[@19582607]

Looking forward Doctor Vervaeke!

[@ferreirap.]

Watching these videos I have the feeling of witnessing the birth of the longed for religion that's not a religion. I feel the exitement for being in front of something epochal. A messianic feeling perhaps. But also the sadness for realising that I'm just in front of a laptop, and I have nobody in my life with whom I could talk about and share this.

[@boris_ev]

Hey John, please add the link as you've promissed at 17:08. Thank you all for this series, really into it!

[@orsonwajih]

episode 4 Untangling the Worldknot of Consciousness
. Gregg gives more historical detail. For more discussion regarding the 'problem of psychology' Towards a Metapsychology that is true to Transformation e.g. episode 2 but in many other places in the series. 
episode 10 Elusive I

[@samueltitchener6715]

Thank you very much gentlemen, enlightening as always!

[@evanblackie7510]

Thanks all, I feel a shift has already taken place, for me at least. I now entertain the possibility that it's actually my environment/society that might be giving rise to a difficult mental state rather just being a 'personal' problem

[@leedufour]

Thanks Gregg, Garri and John!

[@johnvervaeke]

Thanks Lee.

[@fredsk8x]

This was even more deeply revealing, interesting & insightful than I anticipated, Huge thanks to the 3 of you for Being/doing you/that & Sharing

[@fredsk8x]

just to clarify/expend a bit more ...then Intelligence will (obviously) use mentality.... but I don't know if mentality can use intelligence.

[@fredsk8x]

Brutally Wonderful video by Charles Eisenstein that I strongly feel like sharing here kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZSmaIKgd6eXZsk

[@domenicmolinaro6580]

"Digging deeper" is an apt analogy to end with...I was thinking before this episode ended that the intake of all the previous material in this "corner of the internet" has caused my ontological foundations to cave in through the sheer force of argumentation/wisdom/othering of dialogos. Though transjectivity has been explored previously, this ep laid down that ontological seed between subject and object in really felt way in this fresh soil i'm experiencing...looking forward to further tilling and tending !

[@carlt570]

Beautiful, brilliant. Thank you. Maybe another way of framing the 'Enlightenment Gap' would be psychodynamically, using Object Relations Theory, and the universal human psychological defence of 'Splitting' : I take to be what you describe here as 'the Enlightenment gap', to be the schism/split between science and mysticism ? Seen through the frame of psychodynamic Object Relations, this split/schism between science and mysticism can be viewed as an 'acting out' of the paranoid/schizoid position. (perfectly mirrored by the 'split' between Freud and Jung) Splitting by definition is Part-Object relating, where in this case the 'Whole-Object' might be defined as 'Reality'. Perceiving the whole of Reality threatens self (ego) annihilation, hence the defensive splitting, where the split off part is either good or bad - (either/or) and hence leading to the dichotomising schism between science and mysticism. It's important to keep in mind that in Object Relations Theory, 'objects' are by definition 'in phantasy'. Therefore using the term 'object' to describe 'Reality' is acknowledging the modelling and linguistic paradox of labelling 'Reality'. The Depressive, or Reparative position can hold these (science/mysticism) in an inter-relating dynamic tension. (both/and) This requires the mystical traditions' understanding of the fundamental nature of consciousness, combined with the scientific understanding of matter, with these two held in an inter-relating dynamic tension, acknowledging the two distinct 'phases' in the Whole Object ('phases' as in phases of water) = Transjective - Non-dual. -and represented in the Yin/Yang symbol. My intuition is that we are participating in a 'reparation' (movement into the Depressive Position) in the 'split' between science and mysticism, (either/or, and both/and). p.s.- Re. the paranoid/schizoid 'acting out' of Freud and Jung : Paranoid Freud, (see his own dream analysis from 1909 USA trip ) The schizoid Jung . (see D.W.Winnicott's 1964. review/analysis of Jung's 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections'). p.p.s. 1:4:10 - 1:06:06. Spot on, every therapist should be taught this as first principle !

[@movewithseth]

What exactly is “the fracture that Kant engendered” which Greg refers to at 1:18:08? Sounds like something different than “Descartes’s error”, but maybe just as important?

[@boris_ev]

Loved how Gregg flashed an actual coin at 1:12:27! Made me think of getting something like a key ring with different symbolic items to carry around just so I could add a little razzle-dazzle to my argumentation now and then. 🤔👍

[@uij8439]

You all might want to reach out to Chris Hedges in furthering the talk on creating the first ever wisdom institutions, moving beyond metaphor and narrative and toward dialogos, more “we-spaces”, etc. Chris' speeches on religion falls right in line with what you talk about, in addition to his agreement with Durkheim about religion/politics. Would be a good bigger name to create more momentum potentially, and to further imagine what all these transformative ideas would mean for art, politics, society, etc.

[@barbaralopez265]

Thank you for evolving my Soul

[@JiminiCrikkit]

This is seriously good work. Thank you.

[@Agroves1000]

I can think of how the good, the true and the beautiful by themselves can lead us "astray" (toward misery). The beautiful can be the siren that drags us down, the good can justify any evil action in its name (religions are great at this), there are certain "truths" we certainly don't want our enemies knowing, that's for sure -- but the real escape out of misery and toward "the good" requires truth and beauty for it to truly be "good". We want to know the truth of "the good" and the good of beauty and the beauty of truth. They have to support each other or each one of them on their own could take us toward "hell". That's what came to my mind while watching this.

[@nugzarkapanadze6867]

Thank You!

[@JoeTaber]

Anyone have links to the enlightenment gap / problem of psychology described at ~16:00?

[@domenicmolinaro6580]

Gregg has a slew of material on Psychology Today: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201609/the-enlightenment-gap-and-psychologys-metaphysical-problem

[@philosophy_by_psyche]

@29:20 I don't like anything Gregg said at this timestamp... his purpose of the psychotherapist, is just gibberish, where is the context of these goals, in respect of the outline he has just given... Maybe this will be filled in later, but there is nothing sequitur about this list of functions/purposes/tasks, in the behavior of treatment-provider... there is nothing deep about this label "dysfunction", and re-orientation towards 'valued states'... what if the valuation of the states, is the problem that needs alteration (then the given model is untenable, at least in terms of saving its own aims from manifesting paradoxes)... Maybe I'm being overly critical, about a segment of the theory that hasn't been fully elaborated on, but the notion of 'psyche' itself, aswell as 'well-being', has been given no contextual framework (or just delineation of what it operates ontop of, as in, what falls outside its ambit), importing the invocation of these attributes of generating prescription (almost in the nebulousness of shamanism), in some sense, founded inside the purpose of a psychotherapist job-description itself (is on some level, metaphysically tautological even, or perhaps (if I've misjudged this preliminary delineation)), deploying this trick, at the end of a inspiring theoretical outline, makes it look all the more weak and nebulous, by the resulting juxtaposition. Maybe my view is too analytical (or that is a potential source of critique I might attract from making my criticism, which was even being pre-emptively setup, by rebuffing the analytical reduction from the role of the psychotherapist: but I think there is a necessity for a deeper model... one solution, is to import a model of self-coherence, and integration: which would also establish an entirely independent source of epistemological grounding--- and entirely frame a metaphysical model of the human-culture-identity psychological-sphere, taking up more prominent position, of revolutionizing the ingredients and bounded outline that has already been given (which in some sense, would in my view, mean that the unconscious would be givens some theoretical mass, that would be otherwise opaque to the psyche's own native sublimation of those features- in any case, one needs to first outline, within the human-culture-identity sphere first, the basic categories that these 'unconscious' undergirding features might impinge, and pre-emptive hypothesis is more a danger, than a precaution, when all the major work, is still ahead of oneself- answering what kind of it, psychology actually consists of and its made-out of). @39min So said another way... I'm complaining that there is no context given for this 'normativity' that Gregg is invoking... it needs to be grounded, and there has been given no framework, other than, the descriptive masses in the head of the psychological doctor, are magically sufficient and profound enough, to surmount a normative evaluation. This I believe, is theoretically feeble, and holds Gregg inside the same criticism he made much earlier on, against his entire field... ie. how is this not a default into a methodological normativity (that is depending on the normative-normative equivocation/conflation).

[@vellytothejelly]

I'm addressing your critique in the first paragraph: go watch the first episode of the series. It'll definitely fill a lot of gaps for you.

[@descubre7053]

Hope one Day someone translate in spanish.

[@mikegarrigan5182]

What can I say, transjective.

[@gammaraygem]

I find this really hard to listen to.8 minutes in and i hear just ramblings... Why dont you start by defining what mental health actually IS? How do you even call this science?

[@Joeonline26]

Did you listen to the 1st episode? If so your question seems strange...

[@gammaraygem]

@@Joeonline26 What I got from the first episode, was (in the last part of it) an acknowledgement that there is no clear definition of what mental health is. My hope for episode 2 was, you would narrow it down to come to some sort of point any "therapy" or discipline should work towards. Becoming "a productive member of society" (an avid consumer??) was a long held goal of therapists in my days as psychiatric nurse, quite unsatisfying. We know the human entity is capable of achieving far higher goals, would you include those, and maybe make a hierachy of sorts? My take is that the current average state of humanity is pathological. Look how we treat each other and our environment. Something very wrong there. Why would any psychiatrist or therapist want to re instate that pathological pattern in a person and declare him/her "cured"?

[@fredsk8x]

They are showing ,as they said, not the clean, polished & refined products of science, but the sometime messy, but still beautiful process of it. I feel you, I kept watching and was pleasantly surprised by the end personally.

[@gammaraygem]

​@@Joeonline26 After re listening the first episode from min 51, I see the problem. Positive psychology... You try to talk about swimming but have never been in the water. You listen to and read those who swam, and look at pictures of someone in the water and build your theories around that. You dip your toes in and think you know what you are talking about. (not meaning to be rude here, just clear). F.i what you say about a gamer in "flow", how it distorts his life. This always happens to some degree to anyone who has not mastered inner silence at will, eyes open, anytime. Only then addiction and all kinds of other problems arise.Sometimes that can be detrimental. Hitler was in flow when he decided on his ridiculously succesful adventure to invade France, against anyones sane military knowledge. There are so many aspects to this flow thing. Unless you free yourself first, ego will run away with it with various degrees of success and also failure. The real problem here is, that you guys do not apply REASON and LOGIC. They DEMAND that you MASTER the instrument without which you have absolutely nothing : THOUGHT. You can not , can not, can not, skip that step. This goes for ALL science, unfortunately. It is why humanity is in the bad spot it is in, and science is much to blame because it does not rigorously and methodically apply its own dogma of Reason. You can not "reason" your way out of this. The answers you seek will arrive by themselves once you master that faculty. The mind wants to chew and chew and grind. The ego grabs anything it comes up with, as if it has any capacity for analisis. It does not. Instead of remaing silent, we run away with our new insight thinking we are changing the world. Sorry to bother you. At times I think, listening to John, maybe I should read Plato or Socrates...but then I hear what he says and think.."how come he doesnt know or understand this or that...clearly Plato never mentioned it." and I refrain from reading them or listen to Johns lectures on him. I was cured from a raging psychosis in am matter of minutes by a student (who said:"this is not my job") of Sri Aurobindo, not only silencing the voices of many years in my head, but in passing also teaching me a degree of inner silence.And then some stuff, too much to go into here. I used "The Adventure of Consciousness " by Satprem as a guide.Gave me phenomenal insights and got me (more or less;-)) back to sanity. It is available on Amazon and also as free PDF at auro e-books.About an Indian born, 100% western educated genius who was not interested in fame. Be well, Nil.