Despite all the graduation speeches enjoining us to "be passionate" about something, the experience of deep, passionate emotion is not an easy one to achieve, much less sustain. This talk offers guidance for achieving that rarified quality which Ayn Rand ascribed to one of Atlas Shrugged's heroes — a "disciplined capacity to feel too deeply." The talk by Gena Gorlin, a postdoctoral fellow at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, integrates tools from cognitive-behavioral therapy with insights from Rand's theory of values, without assuming prior knowledge of either.
This talk was recorded live at Objectivist Summer Conference 2017 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, June 11, 2017.
IMAGE CREDITS:
4:24 Aaron Escobar [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)], via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
11:00 Photo by Belizian, GNU free documentation license https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...
45:07 License CC0, no attribution required. https://pixabay.com/en/compass-instru...
50:11 Public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_R...
53:56 #1: By SAndrex333 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)], via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
53:56 #6: License CC0, no attribution required. https://pixabay.com/p-1698771/?no_red...
Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Is it how it is done or the fact it exists? (Reality, Reason, Morality and Rights with regards to S.O.C.E.within a therapeutic practice)
Let me begin by painting a picture of a hypothetical situation for you to explain the context for this article. Now let us say there is a grown up man and he was abused as a younger man. Let us say maybe he suffered a horrible thing like molestation or rape. Now let us say that following this raping he becomes confused and he begins to re-enact the scene of the sexual crime by adopting a homosexual/gay or in his confusion possibly bisexual identity. Now one day he decides to go to therapy for help with his issues this has caused.
While at a perfectly legitimate and non-religious standards following psychotherapist he is told that he can be assisted in elevating his stress and issues. This might or might not require an actual anxiety or anti-depression medication depending on if it will help or not. However, the therapist mentions an after effect a possible, but, not in anyway guaranteed byproduct of working on and repairing the damage of this man's mind. He has in his experience seen quite a few men whose erotic code and arousal patterns changed when they have began to heal their internal wounds.
He tells you how he has seen many of his patients go from gay or bi to being mostly or even completely straight in their self-identity and their orientation as a result of dealing with the deeply confusing reaping wound of how their male anatomy responded to being violated and broken. He makes it very clear his therapy is not intended to cause such a change, but, nonetheless via the therapy to repair their broken brains their brains healed/changed themselves. Sometimes midway through and other times a year or so in as their client they turned out to be heterosexual after the therapy.
That his clients reported not being able to even get an erection in some cases from men anymore and all same sex attraction or desire vanished in these men as an unintended side effect of healing their wounds. He or she stresses that it is not the intended outcome of his or her therapy, but, an unintended consequence not in all, but, many men. That in essence a side affect of his or her therapy is a form of unintended sexual orientation change effects within a therapy framework. That it is also seems in follow ups to not go back in not all, but, again a great deal of the men he or she helps. That is seems stable and fixed once said person goes straight. He or she then asks you if you are OK if this did happen?
Is the above scenario immoral or wrong in anyway? The person clearly in most cases became or at least took on the identity of a non-heterosexual not from internal from birth longings about being different or being Born that way naturally if you will gay. This person seems to have been born as heterosexual as most people and the abuse was the reason for his adapting in this case the homosexual or bisexual orientation not their nature as a being. If this was the case and therapy for simply helping their other issues causes a mostly or even complete sexual reorientation experience in that person is that by its very nature what is wrong with said therapy? I want to argue no and that S.O..C.E. Or sexual orientation change effects in therapy is not immoral it is the context which changes the nature of things.
There is at least 4 different ways sexual orientation changes could take place within a therapy setting and only one is really immoral and wrong. The first one would be the immoral version which is someone pressured by society, their church and or possibly even fully coerced into going to a Ex-Gay based therapy. This would be the immoral, wrong and evil version of this story. However, 3 other possible scenarios exist which I would argue as long as within the bounds of reality, reason, morality (self) and consent can be perfectly moral choices for a therapy with such affects involved.
The first moral version is actually not that controversial if you really think about it. Someone in the scenario specifically that I described in my own article. Someone whom is trying to get help whom is a victim of an injustices and whom adopts their non-heterosexuality due to abuse, rape or other forms of abuse which caused them to adapt this identity as a way of not dealing with the true issue as a band-aid. Whom is not going into therapy for the change, but, for whom change might happen when in therapy. Thus it is an unintended consequence and not at all from trying to will a change.
The second moral version is someone whom is suffering due to abuse and knows his mental state is not that of a gay or bi man. Whom knows that his rape caused him to adopt homosexual or bisexual orientations and wants to using the Spectrum/Continuum view of human sexuality go towards a lower place on the spectrum if not get to 0 on a Kinsey scale of possible. Not that he thinks persay he can become heterosexual through therapy, but, does understand sexual fluidity and wishes to see how flexible he truly is, but, needs professional help in the process.
A third possible reason for such therapy is to through honoring reality, reason, self and consent honestly ask for assistance with natural orientation shifts. If you find upon inspection that you are sincerely happier being heterosexual and you are among the people whom are capable of natural orientation shifts therapy helping to affirm and nurture your straightness I do not see an issue with. I am going to cause some people to want to barge out of the doors of my blog right now for saying that. However, standardized and properly controlled therapy that did have such an effect if proven to work would be fine if the man or woman was doing so through self-determination. By this I mean without social pressure or coercion and of appropriate age range.
The problem with the Ex-Gay movement is not that some people are naturally flexible and able to switch teams after time. The problem is the methodology and the reasoning behind its existence is one of "curing" homosexuality and not that people can change teams or reorient themselves in various ways naturally over time. The problem is that it uses things like touching therapy or at least it used too. The problem is the calling gay a sin and evil. It is not that there are therapists that dare to say natural change over a life cycle with same sex behavior happens a lot and maybe, "maybe" you are one of those people and just need a little help with your "potentiality." It is because they do not support "natural" change or sexual fluidity they support a "cure" in therapy.
The true evil of the Ex-Gay movement is that it is a form of faith based gunk. It is anti-mind and anti-reason. It preaches that if efforts do not work not that the therapies methodology was wrong, but, to instead just turn to Jesus and a nonexistent man in the sky for help. It is the reasoning behind the movement and not the idea of change. Or the idea of sexual fluidity or flexibility in a person even within some more standardized and seriously tested form of therapeutic assistance. It is the idea that it was started due to being anti-gay and pro-Evangelical Christianity. I am fine with reasonable, rational, reality based, self-determined, non-pressured and non-coerced fluidity or flexibility inspired therapies existing for people that desire them. I agree with the article quoted below from Scientific America.
If we define being gay as engaging in homosexual behavior (the concept of “gay” as an identity is a Western cultural concept – people who have sex with both men and women may call themselves gay, straight or bisexual, depending on the rules of their culture or subculture), then people stop being gay as soon as they stop engaging in this behavior.
I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay by choice have the right to remain that way
(Of course, there are abusive and unhealthy gay relationships that should not be tolerated, just as there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships that should not be tolerated.)
If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.
There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.
Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that’s not how science works.Science doesn’t change in order to support political opinions.Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear.Get used to it.
The emphasis and the code word is consensual change and not cure. (With no shame for not being able to or choosing not to want to change either.)
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Neuroscience supports the existence of Free Will and it is not a delusion nor an Illusion
There is a very dangerous myth that is out there surrounding free will and neuroscience of the human mind. There are people whom are spreading misinformation out there and unfortunately one of them is Sam Harris. Someone whom in so many other ways has always been so great at defending the reality of The Universe against the unreality of theistic mysticism. Yet, on and on in the passed decade he has slowly faded into insanity which includes denying the existence of the self and the will of that self.
The idea that the self is not real is not scientific at all. The self is the way of identifying all of the processes within your brain between your ears. The fact that the self is a natural thing that is your brain and not supernatural does not mean the self does not exist. The nonexistence of a literal soul does not mean there is no mind as your mind is the workings of your brain. Thus your brain is that which mystics call your soul and that is itself the humans individual mind.
Within the workings of your mind of course is cause and effect. It is a naturalistic and materialistic in the meaning of the word vs immaterial nonexistence of a supernatural soul or spirit. However, that does not all mean we have no free will at all. In fact, quite the opposite we have in a sense been determined by the very nature of our homo-sapien brains to be free in our wills. In this sense there is for sure determinism in our nature.
We do have evolved psychologies and many of our predispositions and tendencies certainly are coming from this evolved nature of our psychology. No doubt many of those very true sex based differences between males and females have came from these evolved differences. Our instincts that we do definitely have come from this very evolved nature. However, the existence of these evolved traits of our both divergent and shared human traits does not in anyway equal us not having self-regulation, self-control or a will of our own. The existence in us as in all material in this world of a cause and effect does not mean we are predetermined by these instincts and lower order natures as it were.
Yes, evolutionary psychology is more than likely the least incorrect view of psychology that humans would fall into. However, the fact that there is cause and effect. The fact that were are determined in this way does not make us deterministic creatures in the sense of hard determinism and predetermined to be x, y or z. We are in fact as I mentioned earlier determined to be free and science is showing that this very evolutionary psychology is what causes that sense we have known as free will. Of course, where else would a will come from, but, evolution we are evolved animals it could come nothing, but, evolution.
We can know free will exists very easily and this is an experiment done by Daniel Dennett in his lectures on free will. Which is that if someone throws a ball at someone that person can either move and not be hit or not move and be hit dead on. The fact that you can choose to move or choose not to move is in fact a very fundamental evidence of at least a decent enough sense of freedom to matter to anyone. The fact that people could stay at his lecture or leave or not even have came is also an evidence of free will.
There is measurable free will and it literally can be measured in experiments. We have a will, we have self-regulation and self-control. We also above all else can choose to think about a matter or not to think, and, then to act accordingly. It is this that is one of our main freedoms of will as the animal we are as a homosapien. As long as one can choose to think or choose not to think of the consequences and then act accordingly we have as free of a will as we as a species would ever want. Free will does not mean there is no causes and no effects. It does not mean there is no predispositions and no tendencies or pushes or pulls of primordial pre-modernity within our minds at all.
We have all kinds of subconsciousness within our minds no doubt and no one that has ever defended the existence of free will would say otherwise. This does not invalidate the idea of freedom of will which is based primarily on the reality that we are not predetermined entities where everyone man, woman and child will always act the same way and will make many different decisions in their lives. Neuroscience does not as some have said disprove free will in fact neuroscience is proving the existence of this aspect of human nature more and more over time. Despite what the really delusional anti-free will hard determinism myth preaches free will is alive and well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayn Rand In Her Own Words
The roots of what made Ayn Rand who she was, and why it's so important to understand the background before judging the outcome.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Semitism with Yaron Brook
"Wherever you find a group that is railing against capitalism, it won't be long before you attract types who want to blame Jews"
For centuries, financial and economic crisis have led to a marked increase in anti-Semitism in the west. This is certainly true today. In this talk, Dr. Brook discussed discuss the history of anti-semitism's connection with anti-capitalism.
Dr. Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is the coauthor of the national best-seller Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government and a contributing author to both Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea and Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. He is a frequent guest on national radio and television programs and has been a columnist at Forbes.com.
A former finance professor, he speaks internationally on such topics as the causes of the financial crisis, the morality of capitalism, ending the growth of the state, and US foreign policy.
Capitalism Without Guilt - Yaron Brook
On 21 January 2013, Director of the Ayn Rand Institute in California, Yaron Brook visited Saxo Bank's HQ in Copenhagen.
More than 350 clients, politicians and other interested individuals attended a public event in the evening about "Capitalism Without Guilt - Ayn Rand's radical defense of Free Markets".
Being Selfish : The Virtue of Selfishness | Dr. Yaron Brook | Full Length HD
Dr. Yaron Brook (M.B.A., University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D., Finance, University of Texas at Austin) is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a leading advocate of Rand's ideas. A former finance professor, he speaks internationally on such topics as the causes of the financial crisis, the morality of capitalism, and ending the growth of the state. Yaron is a columnist at Forbes.com, and his articles have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and many other publications. A frequent guest on a variety of national television programs, he is co-author of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea and contributing author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His newest book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, co-authored with Don Watkins is now available. To follow Yaron and see his most current activities, please check out Yaron Brook and Don Watkin's blog Laissez-Faire: The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism.
Born and raised in Israel, Yaron served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence and earned a BSc in civil engineering from Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Yaron admits to being a socialist until the age of 16--then he read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Despite his best efforts to poke holes in Rand's arguments, he couldn't, and went on to become a student of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.
In the late 1980s, Yaron and his wife started thinking about where in the world they would want to live their lives and raise a family. Where could they find the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of opportunity? The answer was clear, so in 1987 they emigrated to the United States. He would go on to become an American citizen in 2003.
Yaron received his MBA and PhD in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. For seven years he was an award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, and in 1998 he cofounded a financial advisory firm, BH Equity Research, of which he is presently managing director and chairman.
While in America, Yaron continued studying Ayn Rand's philosophy. In the mid-1990s, he joined the Ayn Rand Institute's new educational program, the Objectivist Graduate Center. It was in the OGC (now expanded into the Objectivist Academic Center) that Yaron deepened his knowledge of Objectivism.
It was also during this time that Yaron launched Lyceum International, an organization that for many years ran conferences on Objectivism.
In 2000 Yaron left teaching to become the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and go-to source for laissez-faire policy. Yaron's field of speciaties include Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), capitalism, finance, business ethics, venture capital, economics and foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)