But please note, it is not going to be easy to work out what your personality is, and what kind of philosophy of life would suit you.  For a start, your Good Wolf may want to live one way; and your Bad Wolf may want to live another way. I think there is an objective case that can be made that you should live according to the dictates of your Good Wolf - assuming it has been well trained by your parents and teachers.

To live according to the dictates of your Good Wolf means:

1. To develop admirable and pro-social virtues, like: love, gratitude, compassion, charity, tolerance, patience, forbearance, generosity, and so on; and to avoid engaging in anger, rage, hostility, greed, meanness, vainglory, and so on.

2. To follow the Golden Rule; Do not harm anybody in any way; Treat others as you would like them to treat you.  (This is the basis for defending greater equality, and the case against inequality).

3. Actively strive to maximize happiness and minimize suffering in your dealings with others.

The art of living in accordance with the dictates of your Good Wolf is the art of blending the guidelines in 1, 2 and 3 above, from one situation to another.

Of course, some neo-liberal will doubtless tell you that ‘morality is relative to the individual', and that greed is okay for greedy people, and poverty for poor people.  I suggest you begin to develop arguments against this kind of absolute relativism.  (Cultural relativism exists, but there is widespread agreement from society to society about the need to respect human life, and so on).  One place you can begin is with Philippa Foot's ideas on Goodness.  (See, to begin with, Chapter 10 of this book: What More Philosophers Think; edited by Baggini and Stangroom; Continuum, 2007; pages 103-114). 

Philippa Foot is a very interesting philosopher who spent decades thinking through her ideas on Goodness before she published anything; and she has now published three books on the subject.  She is very impressive if only for this reason: She has finally invalidated David Hume's claim that you can never derive an ‘ought' from an ‘is'.  That is to say, she can demonstrate that we must be moral when a logical case for being moral is made.  This is, after all, an example of living in accordance with nature: living morally in line with our reasons for doing so!

Philosophy is slippery and difficult to do; but it is, in the end, all we have got when we want reason our way through our lives.

Don't let other people tell you what to think, unless you are sure they are moral beings, who have your best interests at heart.  (Even then you should subject their ideas to the most stringent tests you can devise!)  Learn how to think for yourself, and learn how to live in accordance with the wishes of your Good Wolf.  You will have mastered your philosophy when you understand that this makes sense.

~~~

Part 3 of Using Stoic philosophy in counselling: The dichotomy of control, and fatalism A third video clip

I mentioned William B. Irvine's book - A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of stoic joy - which I want to return to now.

The blurb on the dust jacket begins like this: "One of the great fears that many of us face is that, despite all our efforts and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life.  In (this book), William B. Irvine plumbs the wisdom of Stoic philosophy, one of the most popular and successful schools of thought in ancient Rome, and shows how its insight and advice are still remarkably applicable to modern lives".

Hedonic Adaptation

While some people might fear wasting their lives on the wrong kinds of goals, others may just be unclear what is the best way to set about creating a "good life".  In Part Two of this book, Professor Irvine presents five "Stoic psychological techniques".  One of these is called "Negative Visualization".  This technique was developed to cope with the very human problem of "hedonic adaptation".  Before we get something we value, we long for it, and desire it intensely.  Once we get it, we may enjoy it for a while.  However, eventually we adapt to having it, and begin to take it for granted.  It does not matter what it is. It could be a fancy car, a big house, a great relationship, a new baby, or whatever.  The human mind - in its "hungry ghost" manifestation (which is how most of us are most of the time) - adapts to what it's got, and wants more.

Werner Erhard had a humorous way of illustrating this, in his Relationships Course.  He would talk about a couple getting together, and falling in love.  "And he (the guy in question) says ‘I love'.  And she says ‘I love you'. And he says ‘I love'.  And she says ‘I love you'.  Then, after a while, that wears out.  Suddenly one of them says: ‘What else ya got?'."

Enter the Hungry Ghost

The ‘hungry ghost' (which is a function of the Bad Wolf) is never satisfied.  Just look at the recent example of the CEO of a major multinational corporation who was earning more than GBP £7,000,000 per year - yes, PER YEAR.  Then we went to a board meeting and said: "Gentlemen.  My remuneration package is not sufficient to motivate me to get out of bed in the morning.  You should double my gross earnings per year".

But it's not just a few greedy capitalists who are like this.  (And by the way, where do you think greedy capitalists came from?  The same place greedy feudal lords came from.  And the same place greedy Phoenicians came from.  And the same place greedy slave owners and slave traders came from.  And the same place sexist husbands of all social classes came from.  And the same place sexist wives come from. And the same place oppressive parenting came from.  THE HUMAN HEART - THE BAD SIDE: THE BAD WOLF INSIDE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US).

Even "I" have a Hungry Ghost

And am I saying I am "holier than thou"?  No way.  Back in 1980 I got a letter from the tax authorities who had determined that I had been overpaying my taxes, and telling me I was due for a "substantial rebate".  So immediately the "monkey mind" which runs my "hungry ghost" got to work.  This is how it went:

"Great.  I need some new bedding, so about £200 would be enough to pay for that. So I hope my rebate is at least GBP £200.  But the bedding won't look right unless I decorate this room.  So I really need four or five hundred pounds.  Let's double that to be on the same side, which means I need £1,000.  But the new decoration will make the furniture look old, and so I'd better replace that.  Which means I need about three to six thousand pounds.  But actually my living space is too small, so I really need to buy a new place, which I could probably get for about £12,000.  But I also need a new office, so more like £25,000.  But there are running costs to meet, and my business needs quite a bit of investment, so I really need about £250,000.  But it's always good to have a savings account as a backup.  So let's hope my rebate is at least £500,000.  And then I have to get my new home redecorated and furnished properly.  And then I will be so tired I will have to take a holiday.  But a holiday on my own would not be great, so I need to hire a villa in France, and invite everybody I know, and have a big party, and a two week holiday.  Total need: £750,000!"

The Hungry Ghost is a Delusional "Thing Addict"

It was at that moment, as I heard myself say: "I need £750,000 back from the tax office, otherwise it just won't be enough" that I knew of the existence of the "hungry ghost".  The hungry ghost is that insatiable part of us that always wants more:  More things; more of everything, except what it does not like.  We can see it all over the western world today.  Almost nobody is happy with their lot; whether they have £5; £50; £500; £5,000; £5 million pounds; or £5 billion pounds; or even £5 quintillion pounds.  Nothing can fill the hole in the belly and heart of the "hungry ghost", because it is itself unreal; a phantasm; a fundamentally self-doubting, self-damning, self-important non-self!  It is the untrammelled ego - King Baby and Queen Baby, straddling the world of materialism with an appetite that will fall away immediately the individual chooses to operate from the Good Wolf side of their nature: the pro-social, loving, caring, contributing self.  The one who is willing to be the source of love in the world.  The one who is willing to make a contribution to others as their driving motivation.  The hungry ghost falls away when the individual chooses to operate from Good Wolf, because the Hungry Ghost is a delusional part of the Bad Wolf - the selfish, insecure, hateful, angry, rage-full, resistance to reality.

The reality that the Hungry Ghost is attempting to deny is that the world that works is fundamentally social, relational, and loving; that the individual is secondary to the social relationships that gave birth to it.  Even if an embryo came out of a test-tube, it could not exist today without the relationships of care that went into parenting it, nurturing it, and sustaining it, until such time as it could move out into the wider world, where it is sustained by the division of labour between countless numbers of social individuals who make the life of each of us possible.

Negative Visualization

And - I hear you ask - how does this relate to the Stoic concept of "negative visualization".

Negative visualization is almost the reverse of the Hungry Ghost. When I engage in negative visualization I tell myself: "It could happen that not only will I only get £5 from the tax office; but I could also experience business failure, and all of my income could disappear.  I could lose my current (poorly decorated) home, and have to live in a night shelter.  I could fall and experience brain damage (as happened to a friend of mine recently).  I could lose my eyesight (in a sudden accident, or progressively).  The same goes for my hearing, my ability to walk, my ability to talk.  I could lose my wife.  I could fall out with my friends and lose all of them".

This is a very different approach to that advocated by the Positive Mental Attitude movement, who encourage you to think positively about everything, all of the time.

You have to be careful with Negative Visualization that you do not depress yourself or make yourself anxious.  This will only happen if you demand that the negative possibilities of the future absolutely must not happen, and that it would be totally awful if they did. 

So what are the benefits of Negative Visualization?  I have experimented with it recently and found that afterwards I am extremely grateful to life for my eyesight, my hearing, my wonderful marriage, my home, my work, and on and on.  I have no difficulty finding things to be grateful for.

If you want to experiment with Negative Visualization, I suggest you try to do it a couple of times per day, and to follow it immediately with the Gratitude List, which is described in a PS below. (Basically the Gratitude List is a list of three things you can be grateful for, at the end of each day, which you write down before going to bed).   Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius all used the Negative Visualization technique in their Stoic practice. 

The Stoics held the belief that everything in our lives is "merely on loan to us" for our short time on earth.  For example, Epictetus suggests that: "In the very act of kissing (your) child (goodnight), we should silently reflect on the possibility that she will die tomorrow."  (Irvine, 2009, page 69).  In this way we come to appreciate the child more, to value our time with her, and treat her with the respect and dignity that is appropriate to this valued but ephemeral relationship which time will erase, as surely as the desert winds erase the footprints of camels.

Try experimenting with Negative Visualization, followed by the Gratitude List, and see what effects it has in your life.  Find out for yourself if this could be helpful for you, and help you to enjoy your life more.

~~~

I wrote about the Stoic technique of "negative visualization", in which you imagine that everything in your life today could be lost at any point in the future (and will be lost at some point in the future).  This has the beneficial effect of helping us to appreciate what we have got, instead of whining about what we have not been able to acquire: (Things, again!  The problem of desire, again!)

Today I want to write about the problem of control.  In the opening of his famous handbook on how to live a Stoic life - the Enchiridion - Epictetus said, in archaic language, that some things are within our control and some are not.  Within our control are our own thoughts and actions.  Almost everything else is outside of our control, or in the control of others, who may wish to thwart our desire to acquire them.

According to Epictetus, it is a huge mistake to confuse what is within our control and what is not, because then we make the very serious mistake of trying to control what cannot be controlled, which is a source of great frustration, which spoils our tranquillity.  And tranquillity is the core of Happiness in Stoic philosophy.

My treatment of "negative visualization" last week came from Professor William Irvine's book - A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of stoic joy - in which it appears as the "five Stoic psychological techniques".  The second of those five techniques is personal management of "the dichotomy of control".  The dichotomy of control refers back to the description of Epictetus's view that some things can be controlled and some things can not be controlled - by you, the individual - and that much of your misery comes from trying to control the uncontrollable.

Irvine begins by quoting Epictetus to the effect that "It is impossible that happiness, and yearning for what is not present, should ever be united".  What does this mean?  It means what the Buddha meant when he said that "the source of all suffering is desire".  We do not (normally) desire those things that are present.  We tend to desire what is not currently available to us.  And that sets up a tension: I want it and I cannot have it.  Isn't this awful; frustrating; and unbearable?  Why must the world be so nasty towards me?  What a miserable life; and I think I'll kill myself!

But the solution is not to kill yourself, or to make yourself miserable about the things you cannot acquire.  "A better strategy for getting what you want ... is to make it your goal to want only those things that are easy to obtain - and ideally to want only those things that you can be certain of obtaining", according to Irvine's rendering of Epictetus's insight.

What this all boils down to is this: You most often cannot change the world around you, but you can change your desires and goals in relation to the world.  So give up desiring those things which are too far out of you reach.  Aim only for goals which are realistic and probably achievable.  And if you fail to achieve them, you can try again, but if you repeatedly fail, then you should set a new goal of not desiring that thing which you have failed to acquire.

According to Irvine's reading of Epictetus, by giving up desiring what is beyond your reach, you will thereby avoid all the frustrations and anxieties associated with trying to control the uncontrollable.  And, according to Epictetus, you will thus become invincible!

"If you refuse to enter contests that you are capable of losing, you will never lose a contest". (Irvine, page 86).

If you want to be happy, you could also follow the advice of Teddy Roosevelt, who famously said:

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have!"

~~~

I wrote about Epictetus's thesis on control: that some things are within our control and some things are not.  This is referred to as his ‘dichotomy of control'.[1]   The more important element of his thesis, however, was that it is only after we learn to distinguish what we can from what we cannot control, and then restrict ourselves to only trying to control the controllable, that inner harmony and outer effectiveness become possible. 

This week I want to write about a refinement of Epictetus's Dichotomy of Control: Professor Irvine's Trichotomy of Control: What we can control completely, what we can control partially, and what we cannot control. 

I will also outline my own therapeutic process for working on control issues, which I call the ‘Conditional Dichotomy' model: Some things can be controlled...IF...; and some things cannot be controlled...UNLESS...

The Trichotomy of Control

In reviewing Epictetus's dichotomy of control, William Irvine reformulates it thus:

There are certain things over which we have complete control, and certain things over which we do not have complete control. 

He then goes on to divide the latter branch of this dichotomy into two:

Those things over which we do not have complete control; and:

Those things over which we do not have any control. 

From this conclusion it would follow that it is reasonable for us to try to control those things which are completely within our control, and those things over which we may have some control. And we should avoid trying to control those things which are beyond our control.

This strikes me as clearly an ‘academic presentation', which is not unreasonable for an academic.  However, my own experience of working with these ideas has produced a much more practical, pragmatic modification of Epictetus's thesis.

The Conditional Dichotomy Model

When I first came across Epictetus's thesis on giving up control of the uncontrollable, I began to experiment with trying to operationalize it in my life.  I set up a matrix on an A4 writing pad, as follows:

I then tried to list those things I can control and those that were beyond my control, but I quickly ran into a problem: the problem of belief! 

If I ‘believe' something is beyond my control, is it therefore the case that it is definitely beyond my control?  No, clearly not.  I can be mistaken about such judgements.

I also realized that the ‘weight of experience' would prejudice me to list as uncontrollable all those things that I have not been able to control thus far! 

So then I had to make a judgement.  How can I preserve what is valuable in Epictetus's dichotomy, and how can I render it more user-friendly?

This is what I came up with:

1. Begin by assuming that anything that cannot be ruled out as very obviously beyond my control - such as flying through the air by flapping my arms; or withdrawing thousands of pounds from my empty bank account - should be listed in column No.1 above.

2. Then, against each item in column 1, put a conditional clause, as follows:

The contents of column 1 are subjected to an analysis of what it is I would have to do to keep each item in that column.  Those necessary actions by me then become what I call "if clauses" - "If..."; "Provided..."; "As long as..."

But there was still something missing - a quantifier of each goal, as follows:

If I fail to achieve these goals in column 1, by the due dates, then I can revise those goals and try again.  I still do not know if they will ultimately prove to be controllable.  That is to say, I still do not know if these are goals which are

# Completely within my control

# Completely beyond my control

Or

# Partially within my control. 

The answer to that question has to be resolved in practice, and not in the kind of theoretical discussion presented by Professor Irvine.  And why is that?  Because an outcome could be ‘theoretically' within my control, either completely or partially, but prove in practice to be beyond my (achievable/achieved) control.

Let us now assume I have failed to achieve all three goals listed in column 1 above.  The matrix now looks like this:

However, this is still not the whole story.  I can still work on column 2, by modifying the targeted goals, and adding a new kind of conditional clause, which I call an "unless clause", as follows:

So now I have an ‘unless' clause, and I can begin to try to work on the contents of those ‘unless' clauses.  Some examples of ‘unless' clauses for the three goals above could be:

1. Unless I get a second job...

2. Unless I go on a communications skills course...

3. Unless I research and discover a new diet or supplement...

What becomes clear from this reflective process is that it is not at all easy for an individual to distinguish between what they can and cannot control.

Some things are clearly beyond our control, such as the colour of our eyes; our baldness; or lack of physical height; etc.

Some things are clearly within our control, such as picking up the phone and calling a friend.

But the territory in between is very grey and obscure.  It requires a lot of hard work to determine which of those grey areas in my life might eventually prove to be within my control.

However, the bottom line of the stoic philosophy is this: So long as I do not demand that I should be able to control something that appears to be, for all intents and purposes, beyond my control, then I will not overly upset myself.

And to the degree that I want to set goals, I should set them in such as way that my reach does not exceed my grasp!  Be realistic!  A goal that stretches you 5% or 10% beyond where you are now is much more realistic than one that assumes you can change some feature of your environment by 100% in a relatively brief period of time.

"You can't have everything.

Where would you put it?"

Ann Landers

~~~

"Nothing will content those who are not content with a little".

Greek proverb

~~~

~~~

I want to return to my consideration of some of the psychological techniques of the Stoic philosophers - Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus and Musonius Rufus - as reviewed by William Irvine in his book, ‘A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of Stoic joy'. 

So far I have looked at Negative Visualization and the Dichotomy/Trichotomy of Control, and in the process touched on Hedonic Adaptation. 

Hedonic adaptation means that whatever we get from like, we quickly adjust to it, and move on to ask: ‘What else ya got?'  We do not remain grateful for long, no matter how fortunate we may prove to be.  In Buddhism this is a manifestation of the ‘hungry ghost', or the empty, unsatisfiable ego'.  In CENT, this is a manifestation of the Bad Wolf. 

Negative Visualization involves imagining that everything we have today will be lost in the future, through misfortune, aging, or death.  Having thus reminded ourselves of what is going to be lost at some point, we also in the process remind ourselves of what we should be grateful for in the present moment, and thus we overcome our innate tendency towards hedonic adaptation.

The Dichotomy of control was expressed in the statement by Epictetus that freedom and happiness result from understanding one principle: There are certain things we can control and certain things we cannot control.  And it is only after we have learned to distinguish between what we can and cannot control, that inner harmony and outer effectiveness become possible.  I also discussed my refinement of this psychological principle, with the two-columns technique, listing what we can and cannot control, with "if clauses" and "unless clauses" on each item.

Fatalism and Non-attachment                                                              

The Stoic concept of ‘fatalism' is comparable to the Buddhist concept of ‘non-attachment'.  The Stoic view is that the Fates have already decided the outcome of every action and every life.  Everything is pre-determined.  This is also the ‘thrownness' of Existentialism.  Humans are borne into a particular family history, in a particular historic epoch, and the currents of life are already carrying their family along at the point of birth.  There is thus a huge kinetic momentum at the very core of every life, which carries it into a particular future.  This, of course, seems to rule out any place for free will, which is unacceptable to me - but I do not exaggerate the degree of free will that we may have.  (See my paper on Free Will***)

William Irvine's book is very helpful in clarifying that he believes that the Stoics were advocating fatalism with regard to the past and the present, but not the future.

With regard to the past, they were saying we cannot change anything about the past, so we had better fatalistically accept it.  This is similar to the Buddhist concept of acceptance of what is so.

With regard to the present moment - by which is meant this very instant in time, and not this "whole day", or "whole hour" - the Stoics were saying that this cannot be changed right now.  It is what it is right now - even if it proves possible to change it in five minutes from now, or tomorrow, or next week.  So we should practice fatalism towards the present moment.

However, with regard to the future, Stoicism does not rule out the setting of goals and then functioning intelligently towards them.  But if we collect evidence tomorrow that we have failed, we should fatalistically accept that outcome.  In the next moment we may, if we wish, reassert that goal, or a similar one, or a different one, and try to bring that into existence in the future.  And if we fail, we accept our failure fatalistically.

Thus fatalism is a fatalism of the past and the present, but not of the future.  We may be able to change some aspects of our future.  We may be able to steer our lives from the path of our ‘thrownness'.

One refinement:  When we set a goal for change in the future, we should not be attached to the outcome, because if we are we will spoil our tranquillity.  This applies to preferential thinking in REBT as much as it does to demanding that life be different.  It is much better, in the Stoic view, to make a commitment to make our contribution to our society than it is to wish for something for ourselves.  If we work hard to make our social contributions to our family, our community, our culture, the sick and needy, and so on, we may in the process gain some rewards for ourselves.  But the aim should not be to gain rewards.  For, just as in Buddhism, to the degree that you want anything that you do not already have, to that degree you wreck your own mental and emotional tranquillity.  So commit to want what you have, and to live a good life of social contribution, and accept (fatalistically) whatever life delivers to you.

It should all be exactly the way it is, in the past, and in the present!

~~~

I want to focus upon Stoic psychological technique No.4, which is about self-denial.  However, this is not a concept that makes much sense to most of the hedonistic consumers of modern materialist society.  The mantra of the modern materialist is this: Gorge yourself on whatever pleasures you can acquire, even if you have to sign away your future to get them.  Big houses, fast cars, rich food, exotic wines and spirits, fancy clothes, exotic holidays, expensive education for children, expensive toys and gadgets and gimmicks, gold watches, diamonds and pearls, dinner parties, musical events, films, the theatre, and on and on.  (Many adults are just like the impatient kids in the marshmallow test).  Like hungry ghosts, trying to fill up an empty void within, they gorge on the material and overlook the beauty of the sunset, which costs nothing.  The have forgotten the blissful sensation of slaking a genuine thirst with clean, cool water.  They have forgotten the simple pleasures of sitting chatting with a dear friend in simple surroundings.

Defining self-denial                                                                

Self denial is often understood to mean 'abstinence', or refraining from excessive indulgence in physical pleasures, such as sex, food, drink - especially alcohol.  One common form of self denial, or abstinence, is the practice of fasting, in some religions.  Self denying abstinence is an act which has been entered into voluntarily, and consciously, with some self development goal in mind.

Abstinence can also refer to giving up a drug, such as alcohol or marijuana or heroin, etc. 

It is probably widely agreed that total abstinence from pleasure or leisure is a physical impossibility for a human, and so abstinence is normally temporary, as in occasional fasting; or selective, as in giving up alcohol, but not all enjoyable drinks.

But what are we to make of the Stoic advocacy of partial and occasional expressions of ‘self-denial'?

Self-denial in CENT

CENT is unlike any other modern philosophy or therapy, in that we do not admit of the possibility of a ‘unitary self'.  In CENT, the self is split in several different ways:

We are each split, by our nature, into good and bad urges and tendencies, which we call the ‘Good Wolf' and the ‘Bad Wolf'.  We are also split into Parent, Adult and Child ego states.  This is shown in the illustration that follows:

~~~

This seemed to me to be quite straightforward. 

1. Hedonic adaptation means that we get used to the goodies we acquire, and we want more, and bigger, and better goodies to replace them.  (‘Much wants more', as people say in Yorkshire!)  We take them for granted; we tire of them; we get bored with them; we want some new ‘excitement'!

2. Negative Visualization means that we imagine that we have lost some of our goodies - really feel what that would be like.  Then remind ourselves - Oh. Look.  I haven't lost it after all!  What joy!"  And we can thus learn to re-appreciate what we have already got - instead of becoming ‘hedonically adapted' (or accustomed) to them.

I than made a video clip referring back to this blog.  One person who saw the video clip (but did not read the blog - as far as I can tell) raised a concern.  Let us call her Miss X.

Miss X pointed out that she was prone to anxiety, and she wanted to know - I think - whether I would agree that Negative Visualization is likely to induce anxiety in those who practiced it?

This is a very important question.  It is an ethical question.  I am aware of the concept of ‘ontic dumping', which means dumping a new or contrived ‘reality' into the mind of somebody who is then disadvantaged by that dumping.

To illustrate ‘ontic dumping', we could say somebody, called Person A, is quite happy, watching the sunset, for example, and Person B comes along and reminds them that there is a vicious war going on in Country X.  This is an example of ‘ontic dumping', where ‘ontic' refers to ‘what is', or ‘what exists', and dumping means ‘dropping a thought into the mind of another'.  Person B in this example may go from feeling relaxed and happy to feeling a sense of dread about that tragic war.

If I advocate Negative Visualization - which is about thinking into the future and imaging that some current valuables or assets, relationships or states of being (such as health) have been lost - am I not teaching individuals how to ‘ontically dump' on themselves: to dump negative expectations into their present consciousness?

If the answer to that question is an unequivocal ‘Yes', then I should disavow the use of Negative Visualization at once, and apologise for ever suggesting it.

However, I do not advocate Negative Visualization as a stand-alone approach to developing happiness.  This recommendation must be seen in the context of a long list of my recommendations which go back at least a couple of years.

There is a joke about the idiosyncratic perceptions of some Irish people, in which a British tourist is driving through Ireland.  He stops his car and asks a local farmer, sitting on a wooden gate: "Could you tell me the way to get to Mullingar?"  The farmer pushes his cap back to the back of his head, scratches his forehead vigorously, and replies: "If I was going to Mullingar, I would not start from here!" (Boom, boom!)

And, in a less jocular vein, I must say that, if I was teaching somebody how to be happy, starting from scratch, I would not start with Negative Visualization.  It's the wrong place to begin.  A better place to begin is described on my page entitled: Zen Tigers and Strawberry Moments.*** This is about learning to live in the present moment - in ‘day-tight' compartments. The three elements of that advice page are:

1. Regarding the past: There is no use crying over spilled milk.

2. Regarding the future: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

3. And regarding the present moment: By staying inside my day-tight compartments, I can enjoy the (‘strawberry flavoured!') present moment.

I think this would be a better place for Miss X to begin working on her mind control.  Negative Visualization would be a long way down the road.

Once she has got a good grasp of the Zen Tigers model; I would want to teach her to meditate, as shown on my How to Meditate page.***

Then I would refer her back to the beginning of this blog, where I begin to build up a set of insights into how to be happy.

~~~

Having said all that, it might be that Miss X just failed to do the complete activity.  This is how it is supposed to go:

Negative Visualization means that we imagine that we have lost some of our goodies - really feel what that would be like.  Then remind ourselves - Oh. Look.  I haven't lost it after all!  What joy!"  And we can thus learn to re-appreciate what we have already got - instead of becoming ‘hedonically adapted' (or accustomed) to them.

Perhaps she forgot to remind herself that "it hasn't really happened.  No real loss has occurred!"

But perhaps her problem is that she is now more aware that it either could happen in the future (e.g. the loss of her job), or that it will definitely happen in the future (e.g. the loss of her life, at the point of inevitable death!), and she is now anxious about that.  If so, she needs to understand anxiety better, and I will return to that subject in my next post!

~~~

I have been writing about the way in which we humans tend to downgrade or depreciate (or become complacent about) what we have in our possession. (This tendency is called hedonic adaptation). I have also written about how imagining that we have lost some of our possessions, or some of our faculties, can cause us to increase our appreciation of those possessions or faculties. (This process is called negative visualization).

I also wrote about Miss X, who was concerned that negative visualization could cause her, and others, to experience anxiety about future potential losses.

In response to Miss X, I said that negative visualization might not be her cup of tea, and that she should not feel obliged to use any process that might seem to harm her in any way.  However, since that time, I have remembered the process called Rational Emotive Imagery.

Rational Emotive Imagery (REI)

REI was created by Dr Maxie Maultsby, and adapted by Dr Albert Ellis in a more emotive form.  Basically, REI calls on a therapy client to "imagine the worst".  Then get in touch with their feelings about what they are imagining: "Feel, it; feel it; feel it".  Then, without changing anything about the bad thing being visualized, the client is asked to "change your feeling about it so that it is less intense, less disturbed".  This usually means feeling anger, and trying to reduce it until it is mere irritation and annoyance; feeling depressed, and reducing it so it is just sadness; feeling anxiety (which was Miss X's feeling) and reducing it to concern.

The method of reducing these emotions, taught in REBT***, is to give up demanding and awfulizing about the ‘bad thing' being visualized; and to stick to only preferring that it not exist, and recognizing that it is not 100% bad.

Miss X might be making the mistake of telling herself: "If something could be frightening, or anxiety-inducing, I absolutely must avoid it, because bad feelings are not nice experiences".  If she is, then this would constitute ‘repression' of her thoughts/feelings, which in the psychodynamic perspective is very bad.  "Whatever you resist persists".  And once you repress a fear, it become far more damaging, as it now ‘rattles around in the subconscious mind' causing all kinds of ‘free floating anxiety'.

So it might be better for Miss X to study the REBT philosophy***, and then practice REI on her upsets.

Cognitive Emotive Imagery (CEI)

CEI is simply the process of applying the Six Windows model*** to a future noxious event, which might be a source of anxiety; or a past noxious event, which could be a source of traumatic memory.

Imagine the worst, while looking through the six windows, one after the other, and you thus effectively reframe your problems.

Once you have reframed your problems, they ‘show up' differently.  They no longer have the same ‘meaning', or emotional affect.

Using "what if" visualization

Humans typically treat their past as a fixed entity.  It was the way it was, and it could not have been otherwise.  This feeds into hedonic adaptation.  We take it for granted, become complacent about it, and thus our valuation of it drops.

In "what if" thinking or visualization, we assume that our past was different from how we normally think of it.  For example, we could imagine that we never met our marriage partner, and we try to think/feel what that would have been like.  Afterwards we might find that our appreciation of our marriage partner may have gone up, as hedonic adaptation is broken down.

It seems some psychologists and scientific researchers are beginning to take an interest in this kind of ‘what if visualization'.  According to an article by Wray Herbert, in the current issue of Scientific American Mind[2], "Some scientists are beginning to think that imagining an alternative reality might have ironic and tonic effects.  Indeed, it might be a practical tool for strengthening commitment to country, workplace and relationships".

Needless to say, of those three areas for improvement, I am only interested in improving relationships.  "One of the first studies to explore this effect looked at people's satisfaction with their romantic partnerships.  Social psychologist Minkyung Koo[3], then at the University of Virginia, and her colleagues asked individuals in committed relationships to write for 15 to 20 minutes about how they might have never met or gotten to know their partners.  Others wrote the story of how their meeting really happened, and still more people wrote about a typical day's activities or a friendship.  After the exercise, the people who had imagined not knowing their partner displayed the biggest increase in relationship satisfaction..." Herbert, 2011, page 66.

Herbert (2011) points out that the scientists who have investigated this process "...were curious about the ‘near loss' experience - specifically the feelings of poignancy that occur when what we cherish disappears.  When we feel we are losing something - that time is becoming scarce, for example - the bittersweet mix of happy and sad emotions can reinforce our appreciation of what we have".

Herbert fails to link this phenomenon back to the Stoic technique of negative visualization, which is essentially what it is.  The ‘what if' process simply asks the participant to imagine losing something from their past, while the Stoic technique of negative visualization ask the participant to image losing something in their future.

Dale Carnegie on Imagining the Worst

In Chapter 2 of his wonderful book on How to Stop Worrying and Start Living, Dale Carnegie presents a formula which is relevant here.  It is a way to quickly handle any kind of worry, such as worry about the fact that you have been told you are soon to die, or you have discovered your company is collapsing, or you are about to be made redundant - or your partner is about to leave you.  The formula goes like this:

1. Analyze the situation fearlessly and honestly and figure out what is the worst that could happen here.  (Imagine the worst case scenario).

2. Reconcile yourself to accepting the worst case scenario, if you have to. (At this point, relaxation and a sense of peace are likely to emerge!)

3. Now devote your time and energy to trying to improve on the situation which you have already accepted mentally.

Face up to your fears.  Face up to your problems.  Do not try to run away from them.  Just because they might involve discomfort, this is not a good reason to run away from them.  You can handle feeling worry and anxiety.  It is only by looking at your worries in the face that you can figure out (1) what it is you had better accept; and (2) what you should now try to improve upon.

Imagining the worst is a very helpful process, and imagining loss can be very beneficial.  But don't overdo it.  Little and often is probably best, and go back to focusing on the positive for the rest of the time.

~~~

I have given some more thought to the Stoic concept of Self Denial, and this is what I think.  Stoics deny themselves certain pleasures in order not to become addicted to pleasures.  Since we often cannot control the availability of pleasures in our lives, it is not self supporting to allow ourselves to become dependent upon something that may disappear!  It is also the case that, because of the problem of Hedonic Adaptation, we will adapt to whatever level of pleasure we have in our lives, and thus we need more an more pleasure in order to achieve equanimity, much less happiness.  Thus, a good Stoic should discipline him/herself with:

(a) Negative Visualization - or imagining we have lost something pleasurable from our lives, so that we will appreciate it the more when the visualization is over; and:

(b) Actual self denial - such as not eating cake just because it is available, and learning to take pleasure from the eating of smaller portions of plainer foods. 

If our economic circumstances change for the worst, we will know that we can handle the resulting deprivations.  It is also the case that we are likely to feel less anxious about the future if we have ‘imagined the worst' and figured out how to cope with it, minimize it, and optimize our response.

~~~

I am currently (April 2011) writing a new book on anger management, and I have included a substantial section in it on the Stoic approach to anger management.  This should be very helpful for many counsellors and therapists.  Here is an extract from that section:

The Stoic perspective on anger

"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable (wo)men.  All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill".  Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.

The philosophy of Stoicism has much to teach us about anger, especially Seneca's essay ‘On Anger'.[4]  But Stoicism has strengths and weaknesses in its explanation of anger.

Stoicism is an empowering philosophy of life - including a system of logic and a unique cosmology, combined with a compensatory philosophy for coping with the undoubted difficulties of life.  The cosmology of Stoicism does not contain a transcendent deity, or god/gods, but rather it posits an indwelling rational principle of a ‘fiery substance' of which each of our souls is seen to be a part.  (Aurelius, 1992[5]; Epictetus, 1991[6]; Irvine, 2009[7].

Stoicism was created by Zeno of Citium, in ancient Greece, about 300 BCE[8].  Zeno had studied Cynicism with Crates, plus some of Plato's philosophy at the Academy (Irvine, 2009, pages 32-33).  His own life had been seriously disadvantaged by a shipwreck at sea, in which he lost all his material assets, and his philosophy partly constitutes a coming to terms with the harshness of life as he experienced it.  Stoicism survived for at least 400 years, in Greece, and, in slightly modified form, in ancient Rome.

According to the Stoic view of life, anger is one of the ‘passions'.  Seddon (2000)[9] tells us that: "In Stoic theory there are four primary passions: desire ... is an impulse towards some anticipated thing regarded as good; fear ... is a impulse away from some anticipated things regarded as bad.  The other two (passions) are: delight ..., an impulse towards some present thing regarded as good, and distress ..., an impulse away from some present thing regarded as bad...  Anger, sexual desire and love of riches for instances, are types of desire ...  The Stoics explain the passions in terms of the judgements we make regarding the circumstances we find ourselves in". (Seddon, 2000, page 2).

This taxonomy of passions has its appeal, and it seems in many respects to be intuitively right.  However, it is probably better to see anger as a response to the blocking of some important desire, rather than an expression of a desire.  (In CENT, we see anger as being pretty central to the emotional state called the Bad Wolf.  While the Good Wolf is driven by love, the Bad Wolf is driven by hatred, and anger is a manifestation of hatred).

Returning to the pure Stoic perspective, anger for a Stoic is a passion, induced by a judgement that something bad is being done to us, and we have to retaliate:

"...the passions have an essential cognitive (or thinking) component without which they would not be able to serve, as they do, as ways for us to relate to what goes on in the world.  Passions are grounded in how we find the world, in how we judge matters; this being so, the passions can be evaluated as appropriate or inappropriate, justified or unjustified". (Seddon, 2000, page 3).

This is what Epictetus meant, in the Enchiridion, when he said: "(Wo)men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions[10] about the things. ...  When, then, we are impeded or disturbed or grieved, let us never blame others, but ourselves, that is, our opinions". (The Enchiridion, page 14).

We do not accept this extreme perspective in CENT.  Why not?  Because, if I become angry when a man punches me in the face, I am angry...

(A) Because of the punch; and:

(B) The precise intensity of my anger is a result of the nature of my opinion (judgement).

I am angry because of the punch in the same way that any animal will respond with fight or flight if you strike it.  And the more demanding I am that "you absolutely should not have punched me", and the more insistent I am that "it's awful that you did", the more intense will be my anger.  So the correct equation here is this: The EVENT multiplied by my JUDGEMENT causes the EMOTION (mild or intense anger; irritation versus rage).

I can reduce the intensity of my anger by making my judgements (opinions/beliefs) less extreme.  But it would not be sensible/appropriate for me to be completely unmoved by (or completely indifferent to) this unjustified physical assault upon my vulnerable body, which can feel unpleasant pain.

...End of extract.

~~~

When my anger book is completed, you can find it here.***

~~~

LINKS:

Homepage

16 videos on counselling

Site Map

What is counselling?

Site Description

What is CENT counselling?

Counselling and therapy all over the world

Seven counselling specialisms

~~~

[1] Dichotomy refers to ‘separation' or ‘contrast' between two events or objects, or concepts, etc.

[2] Herbert, W. (2011) The midnight ride effect: How imagining a different past increases our appreciation for the present.  Scientific American Mind, Jan/Feb, 2011. Pages 66-67.

[3] Koo, M. (2008) It's a wonderful life: Mentally subtracting positive events improves people's affective state, contrary to their affective forecasts.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 95, No.5, Pages 1217-1224.

[4] Seneca (1995) On anger.  In Moral and Political Essays.  Trans. John Cooper and P.F. Procoupé.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[5] Aurelius, Marcus (1992. Meditations.  Trans. by A.S.L. Farquharson.  London: Everyman's Library. 

[6] Epictetus (1991) Enchiridion.  Trans. by George Long.  New York: Prometheus Books.

[7] Irvine, W.B. (2009) A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of Stoic joy.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[8] BCE = BC in the Christian system of dating events before or after Christ.

[9] Seddon, K. (2000) The Stoics on why we should strive to be free of the passions.  Practical Philosophy, Vol.3:3, November 2000.  Available online: http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/stoa/seddon2.htm.  Accessed: 14^th March 2011.

[10] Opinions here equal (or amount to) perceptions, judgements, and evaluations.

~~~