Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ashvin's avatar

@Don Salmon

(if I reply directly, the button to "reply" gets cut off)

Hi Don,

Thanks for the quick (!) comment.

1) The references to JP can be ignored if they distract one's thinking, the underlying ideas remain the same. I'm not trying to associate exposure therapy exclusively with JP, but the latter often speaks of it and associates it very closely with imagination and thinking, which is the most important part.

Apart from that, we can agree to disagree on his philosophy (psycho-spiritual phenomenology) and theology (closely aligned with the Christ impulse)!

2) Yes, the personality is quite malleable IF we devote our efforts to inner transformation, which is a big IF these days. And even those who pursue inner transformation often become comfortable after working on a few areas, assuming they are brand new people while certain ingrained habits of thinking, feeling, and willing still lurk beneath the surface. On the path of spiritual exposure therapy (as outlined here), we become intimately aware of how resistant our soul constitution is to such transformation. We are rarely willing to confront the depths of fear, hatred, antipathy, etc. that lives in our hearts.

Thanks for the anecdote on the psychologists' list of the "impossible". As long as attention is only fixated on receding mental pictures of intuitive intents, we are merely reacting to events around us, and our anticipation of future events is merely an extrapolation of past events. We literally cannot imagine the unsuspected degrees of freedom that exist for inner activity. That is why people are so quick to declare things impossible and never learn the lesson, even though the impossible is continually revealed as possible for those who start resonating with the domain of future potential, i.e. the deeper scales of intuitive intents.

Expand full comment
Don Salmon's avatar

Two reflections, one brief and one a bit longer:

(1) I am not sure why you would refer to Jordan Peterson in connection with exposure therapy, except that his name is well known? Exposure therapy is, for the most part, part of the most basic repertoire of the vast majority of the 500,000 or so counselors (including social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists) in the US. It may be a bit misleading to associate this simple, scientifically supported process with someone like Peterson who peddles so much confused, and often pseudo or anti-scientific ideas, along with confused philosophy and theology.

(2) To the best of my knowledge (as a psychologist who has conducted research) most if not all of the studies regarding stability of personality are conducted on people who have not devoted their lives to personality transformation. Since such transformation appears to rest on at least initial stages of awakening, the research seems either irrelevant or contrary to some basic facts regarding the potential malleability of human nature.

As far as the possibility of change in general, I've been amused for decades to see the ever lengthening list of what psychologists believe is impossible to achieve, regularly having to be updated by someone achieving the allegedly impossible, but never accompanied by even the least degree of lessening of psychologists' arrogance. Did any of the dream researchers who insisted lucid dreaming was impossible show even the slightest hesitation to declare other things impossible after 1981, when lucid dreaming was proven to be an empirical reality?

Not really!

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts