Midnight Musings

I feel like writing nothing but a load of crap. My mind is pretty much empty- I think I'm going to make blogging a nightly routine. It's 110 am and I'm lying in bed comforted by the convenience of posting entries from my phone. I really have nothing to say but there's an internal urge that is prodding me to continue writing. I'm completely blank. Freud termed what I'm doing right now as "free association". Maybe you could psychoanalyze my post eventually. Maybe you'll uncover facets of my subconscious and unconscious that I, myself, have been disconnected from. This is a good way to fall asleep as well.

Today I discovered my loyalty towards humanistic psychology. It's quite ironic because just till about a month ago, I believed that it was just a load of bull- abstract, subjective, idealistic, optimistic and very artificially constructed. I have always invested more faith into more scientific and objective schools of thought such as the biological and behavioral paradigms of understanding how and why people behave the way they do. To me, humanism was analogous to a fairy-tale that was written on a whim to please a child- unreal, irrational and often misleading. But then, very recently, I chanced upon the works of theorists such as Horney, Maslow, Kelly and Rogers. I began to read and study what all of these people said about humans and humanity in general, about how to deal with clients during therapy, about what sort of world view one should adopt when trying to understand the next person. Although many of the ideas that have been presented contain gaps and unexplainable black holes, the underlying message/concept is one that holds the most significance.


To be continued. the writer has suddenly experienced a indescribable need to fall asleep. She's not sure if she's still typing or not.

Okay I'm back; it's 449 pm- the next afternoon.

I'd like to expand on my previous attempts to introduce humanistic psychology to my blog. Here is Carl Rogers' theory on how humans function.

I love how this theory encompasses the beauty of human beings rather than portraying us as passive objects which inhale and exhale whatever we're fed with. However, there are a few things that I question or don't agree with which I will mention exclusively, later on. But adding on to my first point, I think that Rogers has taken a first step in to explaining why people experience dissonance, anxiety, low self-esteem, and a lack of worth amongst other negative affects. I can relate to his concept of incongruence; I think it's easy to understand how society, socialisation, environmentally and culturally imposed value sets can cause conflict between the real and ideal self. For example, on a personal level, I often question the legitimacy and the truth in religion - after all, it's merely a construct which can be used as a social regulator, a sort of comfort for the "soul", a belief to pacify and explain things that may be out of one's locus of control. The feeling of rebelling within myself regarding my faith is something that I have been constantly taught to shun from my mind. This constant reminder from my peers, parents, teachers etc has caused me to embed these ideas within myself although I might not agree with them .Thus, I may experience anxiety, a sense of infidelity whenever I DO question the existence of a god. Both ideas clash, giving birth to incongruence.

Rogers's also talks about how every human is innately good. Many people may not agree with this, and I can see why. I didn't either but after much reading and debates with myself, I have reached a conclusion. I agree that humans are innately good. They function and serve a purpose that is not to harm others around them or to spread viruses. Society has subjectively defined and labelled certain acts, thoughts, feelings, religions, and needs as being either "good" or "bad". Who is to say that premarital sex is wrong? Society. People from certain cultures and religions have been taught that it is sinful to engage in sexual practices with someone other than one's husband or wife. You might argue and say that it's wrong because it breeds negative emotions, causes social disruptions, dissolves family values, hurts feelings and encourages polygamy amongst other "vices"- but I ask you, how did these themes get categorized as "bad" in the first place? If it wasn't for certain TEACHINGS, socially CONSTRUCTED cultures, beliefs, all of the above would be neutral to the human mind. Perhaps we wouldn't have felt bad that our partner was sexually active with another person if we hadn't been TAUGHT to feel bad- it's very much like "you SHOULD feel bad if X happens because it's NATURAL." How can you say it's natural? Are innate tendencies involved in defining crime and theft as morally unfit? Thus, my interpretation of Rogers belief is that without society, we wouldn't KNOW what's good or bad- we'd merely be living our lives to satisfy OURSELVES: our thirst, our hunger, our survival. It may seem like an egocentric perspective, but it's not because the interaction of the self with external players cannot be ignored. In a Utopian society, I wouldn't gather food only for myself (my actualising tendency- my survival), but would help my neighbour to help him reach his. This wouldn't be because I'd be taught to attach positive or negative attributions to the act of helping someone, but because it'd be my instinctual response to someone's need. My altruism would be a part of my actualising tendency- my path to self actualisation.

I think as humans, we starve for social approval- what Rogers calls positive regard. I am absolutely in love with his ideas on this subject- I think it's the foundation of our existence in a way. We strive to function in a world that is not only made up of people who we KNOW love us, but also of those people who are in some way connected to us. We want people to love us for who we are- and we should because the way we are built, the things we do, the way we speak, the interests we hold are all central to our existence as humans- they make up the structure of  the way we define ourselves, learn to love ourselves and feel the best at. Rogers talks about the ideal and the real self. If we disparage the image and the characteristic of our real self and solidify ourselves in to yearning to be that IDEAL person- the person who people like BECAUSE  of certain things. There's a condition attached to being accepted and cared for that motivates one to change ones true self. This, in my opinion, isn't always done consciously. I may begin to watch a specific sport thinking that I actually want to watch it, but in reality, it's only because it's a way to bond with a new group of friends who are avid football fans. I will enjoy watching the games on television, but somewhere inside, I know that I'd rather be watching a fashion show on FTV.  The conscious attempts to change oneself are more lethal because they are the roots of incongruity= more suffering.

My absolute FAVOURITE  aspect of Rogers theory is his interpretation of a fully-functioning person. The five characteristics that define such a person are: 'openness to experience', 'creativity', 'organismic trust', 'living in the here-and-now' and 'freedom'.

I love how Rogers lays emphasis on how we should live in the present (not ignoring the existence of a past and a future). I think that everyone in todays world is too busy trying to reach goals rather than enjoying and savouring journeys and experiences. A romantic relationship doesn't have to be about getting married; it's about the feelings of mutual love, understanding, sharing of experience (good and bad), learning from mistakes and sharing a certain part of one's life with another person  that should be emphasized. We're too busy thinking about how many years we've been with a boyfriend or girlfriend, how many more years till he may propose, how many months till we buy a home - this shouldn't be the motivation that we feed on. Every conversation, every fight, every holiday, every morning breakfast at the table is a part of ones phenomenal  field- how you experience or perceive it is your truth, your reality. It's your way of progressing from one stage of life to another without even knowing which stage you're at. It's like having a bath in a relaxingly hot bath-tub: savor the feeling of the warmth penetrating your body- don't think about the time when the water will lose it's warmth causing you to refill it; think about how good it feels at THAT moment. I know this is a concept that doesn't sit well with people with conservative points of view. Many people may refute my point of view saying that it goes against certain religious and cultural values. Yes, I agree that it may not be applicable to every situation you encounter in life, but definitely can with the things that you feel are ethically acceptable - which settle with your concept of the self. So, maybe you think it's important that you only be with a person who you intend to marry- so be it. But you can apply Rogers' perspective in other facets of your life which don't conflict with it.

 In conclusion, I'd like to say: Be creative. Be free. You are an independent and free-willed creature. We all are. Be open to adaptation, experience and change. Value yourself, your decisions, your feelings, your abilities, your likes and dislikes - you are responsible for everything that you do on this earth. It is your duty to actively try to help yourself reach a point where you know that you have manipulated your full capacity: no regrets, only triumph and satisfaction with oneself. Trust yourself.



***I know I had earlier decided to write about the weaknesses of this theory but I've changed my mind. Later on, I'll dedicate a separate post to that topic.***

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]