26 January 2022
The focus of the last blog was on preconditions of positive growth in human lives. Those preconditions were 1) endorsement of agency, 2) recognition of the inevitable directionality and momentum in human lives, and 3) the capacity to change. This week begins an examination of assumptions associated with positive growth. Some of those assumptions are implicit (already embedded in the three preconditions) while some will be made explicit. The first assumption is that a unifying self exists across the 80-plus years of a human life.
I never doubted the unity or integrity of the self. As I learned, when I began the formal study of philosophy, much of what has been written since Descartes can be viewed as a challenge to that premise. My allegiance remains with the greatest of the ancient defenders of the integrity of the self, Aristotle. To date, I believe that, more implicitly than explicitly, the Stoics supported this view. (I haven’t yet read enough of Plato, the Epicureans, or the Cynics to know their stance on this issue, which is, in philosophy, referred to as substance ontology.) While most of what I have read of Aristotle is highly defensible, I believe it is more my own life’s experience that has convinced me of the integrity of the self than either philosophy or psychology. Particularly, my conviction comes from having watched generations of people evolve through my three-score-plus years on earth. That and recognitions.
The first of those recognitions came via Elaine Pagels’ research into and discussion of some religious texts referred to as the Gnostic Gospels. And only one tenet hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks.
If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.
—#70, Gospel of Thomas in Pagels, 2018
Until writing this blog I had not considered the number of times the word “you” appears in that statement. Having two parallel lines, “you” appears 4 x 2 times. Given that that “you” is the reader, what is implied by this repetition? There are at least two understandings unveiled here.
First, each of us (“you”) is responsible for recognizing internal attributes and then for cultivating those same attributes. Denial (and other defense mechanisms) must be overcome or outlasted here. Denial is defined as “…insist[ing] that things are not the way they seem...refusing to see the facts” (Larsen & Buss, 2014, p. 276). Once we have a sense of what is within us, we also have the responsibility (and that word is chosen with reservations) to bring forth that internal character—your own you-ness or individuality.
In previous blogs I have made much of self-actualization. I believe that the ability to look inward, read, and retrieve is the nuts and bolts of actualization as discussed by Aristotle, Maslow, and Rogers. So, recognition and retrieval are the first implications of the you-ness of Thomas’ aphorism (quoted above).
The second understanding, within that adage, is the actionable polarity of human life. If we act well, we can be saved; if we fail to act well, we are destroyed. Old Thomas wasn’t messing around here; these are the stark poles at each end of a spectrum: salvation or destruction. If we accept those, the real point lies deeper within: we have choice in who we are, but that choice requires (necessitates) action—the recognition, acceptance, and courage to act, to do something in favour of change.
I want to be clear here: action comes with no guarantees except maybe the realization that one has had the courage to look inward, interpret, and take a chance. My belief is that if a change is not right, we know it throughout our being in a way I will explain in an upcoming blog within this series (EASI, forthcoming). But, if we do get it right, we become more ourselves.
Now a skeptical reader will say that this argument is circular; that I have just assumed as true that which I set out to prove, the existence of the self. But this is not a proof, it’s the explication of an assumption. I don’t know if the existence of the self can be proved, as ridiculous as that sounds. And this is where it gets philosophically interesting.
Aristotle differentiated axioms as propositions that cannot be proved yet MUST be grasped by anyone who is to learn (Freeland on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, 1.2). We are in the realm of axioms. If this assumption—that the self exists and is internally recognizable—is denied, there is no real need of ethics or psychology as there are no choices to be made. We shall proceed affirming the assumption of a real self.
If we put the philosophy of knowing behind us, where are we with the recognition(s) of self? I believe, that with each successful recognition and integration of attributes of the self, the integration of personality increases. Our ability to be becomes stronger as we are in harmony with the self.
But what is this “we” that can harmonize with its own identity? The only explanation I can essay (offer as a possibility) is that the human self unfolds or does not. That portion of the self that is unfolded and active recognizes the previously masked or unseen portions as they become available, visible, or otherwise viable. While I am breaking new ground for myself, in offering this explanation, I am not alone. Next week we will examine some of the ideas of James Hillman on the self, another supporter of internal unfolding as self-actualization.
Dan Chalykoff is working toward an M.Ed. in Counselling Psychology and accreditation in Professional Addiction Studies. He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understandings of ideas. Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery.
References
Freeland, C. (21.i.22). Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, Highlights, Book I https://www.uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/Apo.html
Pagels, E. (2018). Why Religion? A Personal Story. HarperCollins Publishers.
Larsen, R. J., Buss, D. M. (2014). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill Education.
I enjoyed this blog very much, Dan. For many reasons. It appeals me personally because I embrace and honor my uniqueness, my me-ness.
I have a question regarding, for someone perhaps younger, how does one (or how do “we”) ignore the external pressures from individuals or society to be less us, less ourselves?
A parent might be uncomfortable with a child who is homosexual or pan sexual or bisexual. A community or extended family may be uncomfortable with an individuals flare, outspokenness, creativity, disregard for wealth, or non traditional sleeping hours.
Others, perhaps those not self-actualizing types, are all too quick and lacking in self restraint to avoid the conscious or subconscious attempts to convince one (or us) to be in the world in a way which makes them comfortable.
Don’t be too loud.
Don’t say that.
Why would you think that?
What are you thinking wearing that?
You have to go to school/graduate.
Shoes are required!
Eat with a fork!
Homosexuality is unnatural.
I prefer you as a red head, and with shaven legs.
Guns are great, you should get one!
Not believe in G*d? Are you nuts?
You won’t make a living doing that.
I have a title, so I’m right and you’re wrong
Being poor is bad.
Sleeping too much is bad.
You are too Jewish (said at the dinner table to my son, a non Jew and an atheist)
An A is a good grade, anything less is failing.
Being good at sports is relevant.
Etcetera.
Thanks for reading and commenting on this blog, Stacy. I think the four issues you raise are related. In my time in this life, I feel I have seen the love of uniqueness or individuation lessen at the cost of an increased homogenization of lifestyle, architecture, and self. We have to ask what is underneath that homogenizing force and the answer I continually come back to is fear. In our bones is the Darwinian message that isolation = death. And in some situations that’s still true. A gang is less likely to attack a group of people than an isolated individual whether in nature or in a dark alley.
I don’t believe there are non self-actualizers. I believe some people are sadly thwarted in pursuit of self-actualization. With that rejection (which can be social and/or individual) comes resentment of “those who hurt me” which can quickly become “the other.” If one hasn’t developed the ancient virtue of self-control, rejection of the other becomes an easy default means of self-aggrandizement i.e., by putting down the other, I look superior.
Ultimately, both strands of humanity, those self-actualizing and those who have been thwarted from self-actualizing, need to learn acceptance; acceptance of self and others. None of which is easy, even under optimum conditions. Thanks for asking, Stacy.