I *have* been writing,

just not here. 

For the past few months I've been working and reworking my term paper.  "My Theory of the Nature of Man".  It was a really cool paper to research and an even cooler paper to write.  It made me think.  It made me write down what I think.  It made me decide what I was thinking and why that mattered.

I've been learning about people, and how philosophers think about people, and how we fit into the structures of these psychological theories.

I got a B in my Psychotherapy class!  I'm so stinking excited.  Coming into the class I was pretty prepared to fail (by 'fail' I was thinking C-/D).  And I do this thing where I don't look at my grades in a class during the semester because it is just a little bit demotivating.   Think about it, if you see that you're doing really well in the class, you tend not to try as hard or be as thorough when you do homework.

You probably think it's nepotism.  I probably would too if I was looking at it from your point of view.  I mean I never got the book (it went to the wrong address and disappeared), I'm not a psychology major, this was my 3rd Psychology class ever, and it was the first 400 level class I've ever taken, I had concerts and dress rehearsals that conflicted so I missed parts of some lectures. 
From my end?  I worked so much harder on this one because I knew that the material was going to be different than what I was used to.  I participated in class- a lot- because that's how I understand things, and sometimes that is hard.  I made sure I got the lecture portions I missed (by going to his house and doing dishes with him, that's a real thing).  I read the books that he suggested off-hand.  I watched the movies that he suggested off-hand.  I spent hours in the library with the reserve book.
Unfair advantage-  I know how my professor thinks.  I think I understood his lectures better because I was getting to know him a bit better.
Another unfair advantage- I was way more oriented to the way Spencer thinks, more prepared to date him, because I was taking his dad's class.

I'm going to share parts of my paper here.  Not all of it.  1) That's a  looooong post.  2) It wasn't written for you.  I wrote it for Dr O.  I used examples and made connections that were specific and relevant because of conversations that we have had or things about me that I knew he already was aware of.

And then, yes, I'll find a way to post pictures and tell you funny stories and give you a bit of a window into my happiness which I haven't really shared with you here.  My computer crashed a few days ago so that may take a little time, but sometimes life is too good not to share snippets of.

My theory on the Nature of Man: it has changed, on an almost daily basis. I’ve written this paper so many times in my head over the past month or so. I thought I knew how life worked, or at least how I work within the framework of existence, but it’s a constantly changing thing. Most of that is your fault, whether it is your class or your son (and a lot of times it’s both) I’ve been led to think in ways that I never have before. But I stand by what I thought on the first day of class: Man is naturally selfish.

I’ve tried to find a kinder word for that. The immediate connotation is that selfish is bad and
therefore Man is bad, and while “The natural man is an enemy to God” and selfishness would fit well in that paradigm, I’m far too optimistic to agree with those words (Book of Mormon). The best word I’ve been able to replace it with is Self-seeking. I think that humans exist to fill their own needs. I feel that the needs themselves aren’t as important as the motivations behind them. You understand a person far better by why they do instead of what. A person’s perception of themselves reflects their view on the world around them; having a healthy self-image allows for thriving interpersonal relationships. Through our chosen motivations and feelings, we build habits that help us exist.

KEY CONCEPTS

I think all basic needs of humans are the same, but there are secondary needs that are tailored by the individual. I have different needs than Pol Pot did. He fulfilled his, or tried to, and I fulfill mine. I think the self-actualization that early psychologists claim we seek, is attained as a person fulfills their needs. Glasser has five innate human needs: survival, love & belonging, power, freedom, and fun.  I think that our other needs stem from these five, but I think it can be simpler. I think every action is motivated by Responsibility and Joy. Glasser defines responsibility as “the ability to fulfill one’s needs, and to do so in a way that does not deprive others of the ability to fulfill their needs.” My definition of responsibility, as it applies here, is not so benevolent or narrow. Responsibility is to fulfill one’s needs through acquisition or maintaining and be the roles which you assign yourself. That can be a little bit dark; but you have a fair amount of control over what many of your needs are. As proof that being self- seeking is not bad: I have a strong need to be useful to others; service is a great thing, but I’m serving myself because I’m serving others. But take a thief, his responsibility is to ensure his comfort and survival above the interests of others. The other motivation is joy; joy is simple. “Men are that they might have joy”, this is something we’ve known for millennia (Book of Mormon). Because Joy and Responsibility form the base of what I think self-actualization is, I think that most emotional and mental distresses or disturbances stem from not being able to fulfill oneself. My statement that man is self-seeking should work for all types of people, the benevolent and the malicious. The difference between the two stems from where you prioritize responsibility to yourself in relation to social responsibility. However, people are more than their motivations; we have a feel of who we are by what we think of ourselves. I think the benevolent have a sense of beauty that the malicious don’t have.

I believe that beauty is the perfect combination of confidence and grace. And I think that beauty is something that people strive for. We want it in art, in landscape, in our homes, in ourselves, in those we surround ourselves with. “Beautiful” has always been a bit of a hard word to swallow. It wasn’t until I decided on this definition of it, that I became okay with its application to myself. I think the ideal mental health would be being able to find this kind of beauty in you. Knowing who you are and being comfortable with that person, that’s confidence. I have so many definitions of the word ‘Grace’. Grace is not being an idiot. Grace is recognizing that you are not any more important than any other individual. Grace encompasses doing the ‘right’ thing, once you have discovered or decided on what the ‘right’ thing is. Grace is prudence. Grace is not boastful, grace is meek. Think of Christ-like attributes, that’s what grace is. If confidence is knowing what you can do, grace is being okay with what you can’t.  Man is self-seeking, so he will choose to create habits and skills that help him live in his circumstances. Change occurs when the things you were doing to fulfill your needs no longer apply. Sometimes it may be that you lose interest in what you’re doing or maybe your needs change. It isn’t always that the needs themselves change, but the circumstances change. For instance, I developed a very odd eating pattern while I was in Cambodia. I ate two fresh baguettes, some fruit, and lots of water; that was basically all I needed in a day. I went home for Christmas and suddenly my skill of functioning rather well on very little food is completely unnecessary and makes my family really uncomfortable.  That’s a simple example, but the principle holds true. The details of my existence have changed and so I’m choosing to change with it. Aha! We’ve reached Reality Therapy. This case mirrors what Glasser says are the differences between Reality Therapy and Conventional Therapies. I’m responsible for my eating habits. I can choose to keep them or to change them and I have to accept the consequences that come with whichever choice, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t choose differently later on. Nobody can change the past eating patterns and those don’t determine what my eating patterns will be in the future. I recognize that those eating habits put me in the physical state that I’m in, but delving into those and dwelling on it makes absolutely no difference. With the life I’m living now, I need to create in myself better eating habits that will serve me better in this stage.

It surprises me that Choice Theory took so long to develop. I see some of the same ideas in the
some of the earlier theories. There is an underlying theme in all of the therapies that I’m drawn to. I’m going to say that these are the more benevolent of the therapies we’ve covered.

Existentialism: From your lecture, “given the urgency of life, what are you doing now to live as
fully as you can?” (sic).
Reality: given the person and surroundings that are, what are you choosing now to make your
living experience all it can be (Glasser)?
Adlerian: “Meanings are not determined by situations, but we determine ourselves by the
meanings we give to situations” (Adler). So what are your personal meanings?

There is an idea that no matter what happens to you, you can live a happy and full life, you can
change the world around you for the better, and there is purpose in struggle. The therapies that
resonate most with me seem to have forward momentum. I believe that people need to be brought to an understanding of themselves. Once they gain that knowledge, they’ll be able to make more effective decisions. Glasser’s emphasis on Choice and Frankl’s "last human freedom" say that even when circumstances are beyond control, we have the freedom to choose our reaction. We find ourselves in a reality that isn’t always ideal, and the theory of Reality is that we choose our actions.

I like this idea from Viktor Frankl about the “will for meaning”. Existentialism is less concerned with retrospection and I like that. I feel that life does have a purpose and that you are dealt the cards in your life for a reason. Let’s go back to the non-emphasis on introspection with a lovely personal example. I probably would not be able to write a book on my semester in Cambodia.  My memories of that period are the things that I learned and the moments that brought me joy. The memories of the uncomfortable facts are sweetened by the things I learned. Even as I was there, I felt that there was a purpose. I knew that I was developing skills faster than I would have in any other way. Life lessons seemed to sweeten the pill while I was in the midst of what may have been a sea of woes. This is the idea that I get when I read Frankl. He talks about the attitude with which we face unavoidable trial as part of his three-pronged approach to the meaning of life. “[What] matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one’s predicament into a human achievement.” Making it through hard things with a sweeter attitude and a sense of purpose would be a big part of this therapy.

Frankl goes on to say that suffering is not absolutely imperative to find meaning; if you can avoid suffering, you should do so. I disagree. I think people should do hard things. I think that doing something outside of yourself and your comfort zone, to expand your experience in the world, is something that every human should take the opportunity to do. Soren Kierkegaard believed that individuals are related and ultimately dependent on God. I believe God gives us trials or experiences to teach us something that we’ll need later. I think pushing yourself and seeking after worthwhile difficulties brings us closer to what God wants for us.