The vast majority of problems and tensions that people encounter are the result of not knowing themselves. It is therefore by getting to know oneself that one will be able to free oneself from a great majority of conflicts, whether they are psychological or physical, because the two are linked.
Discovering the subtleties of inner disorder, fears, representations, judgments, guilt and the overall emotional state implies total attention. But we are champions of avoidance. The incessant search for pleasures and distractions attests to this. We prefer to run away, condemn or justify.
We have many ideas and images about ourselves, but this does not usually reflect the reality of who we are, this amalgam of memories and sensations. These condition the moment and make us prisoners of the past, afraid of the future.
Traditional psychology and psychoanalysis are still based on Freudian methods. Sigmund Freud developed the theory of ego, superego and id, suggesting an inner state torn between pleasures and desires: the id, and judgments and condemnations: the superego. He also developed the theory of the unconscious, and he focused on sexuality, giving it enormous importance in the role it plays in everyday life. He considered sexuality as much as the need to feed oneself. It is from this "biased" vision that he elaborated another concept: the Oedipus complex, that is to say: wanting to kill his father to sleep with his mother. We reject all this.
Let us take up the different points one by one. Does the unconscious really exist or is it not rather a single global movement of thought which, in the absence of knowing how to solve its problems, ignores them, thus generating all sorts of disturbances? The unconscious is not so much an isolated space, as the fact of not addressing a problem, that is all. As for the process of the ego, the superego and the id, why do we want to separate these three functions coming from the same thought process?
As to sexuality and the Oedipus complex, let us recall that Freud was misogynistic, his great friend Otto Rank affirmed it and it is no longer an open secret. Freud said of women: "Women gain nothing by studying and that this does not improve the condition of women on the whole", "The intellectual inferiority of so many women, which is an indisputable reality, must be attributed to the inhibition of thought, an inhibition required for sexual repression", "The secret of the physiological imbecility of women lies in the fact that it is a consequence of sexual repression. Since they are forbidden to think about what is most valuable to them, the activity of thought in general has no value at all.
Freud could not see otherwise than from the psychological space of his repressed sexuality. No wonder he could conceive such absurdities. His theories emerged because he knew how to make people talk about him. However, it is not a question of putting anyone on trial. It is only important to point out the reality of the methods in force in order not to succumb to illusions and excessive optimism. Otherwise, disappointment and disenchantment will be accentuated.
The modern psychoanalysis is marked by this narrow vision and conditioned by individuals lost in sexuality, the contempt of the woman and the glorification of the male archetype. All this is a contest of conditioned images and representations. After 70 years of good and loyal service, it is time to proceed to the great spring cleaning. All these theories have only contributed to fragment the individual. There is no unifying process or holistic approach in his approach.
When we take the time to study the history of psychology since the end of the 19th century, we realize that it has been built on pieces of studies giving rise to partial and fragmented theories. Each one of us has his own ego and his need for recognition in order to put forward assertions based on observations, not always in relation to the rest of humanity. The result is a mass of knowledge without form or intrinsic substance, incapable of addressing global psychological well-being. Explanations are legion, but the reality of their effectiveness remains to be questioned. For the isolated pieces never make a coherent and unified whole.
Whether it is Wilhelm Wundt, William James, Freud, Watson, Pavlov, Jean Piaget, Beaumeister, Stanley Milgram, Hens Eysenck, James Flynn, Jean-Charcot, Rosenham, or the cognitive therapy of Aaron Beck, Simon Baron-Cohen, or the absurd theories of language of Benjamin Worf and Edward Sapir, the whole edifice is only built on distinct pieces, often in opposition to each other.
Another approach to self-knowledge must emerge, more immediate, pragmatic and intuitive. It is by carefully observing one's intentions, motives and contradictions that one can put the house in order, so to speak. There is no need for specialists or psychoanalysis, which is often extremely long, costly and questionable in terms of final results. We must reappropriate the subject of self-knowledge and no longer depend solely on the psycho-medical castes and specialists in complexification.
Today, another approach is flourishing which takes the opposite view of these disciplines, in an oversimplification and infantilization. This is personal development and the happiness business. The methods and systems compete with marketing arguments to explain that it is enough to be positive to attract the positive. According to the new gurus of this juicy business for gullible individuals, we would be the architects of our own happiness. It would be enough to decide to be happy for it to be a reality. Being unhappy would therefore be by choice. Is that so?
Again, we reject all this!
We assume that we are in the best position to discover for ourselves what we are. This implies a deep desire to change, a serious, honest and passionate spirit, and the ability to question ourselves. We will then discover that everything we take for granted is often based on abstract ideas and concepts, as well as on accumulations without much value. It is therefore a question of cleaning up our common places and not being afraid to start from a blank page. For it is often our convictions and our certainties, our beliefs and our ideologies that fail us.
Only what we perceive to be true because we have observed it in ourselves has value. What matters to us is to perceive the indisputable fact and not the idea. For this we need a quiet mind, where thought remains silent. For it is the mind that creates the inner noise, the comparison and the judgment. It is thought that measures, weighs, evaluates, filters, distorts and interprets. We must therefore be free of thought. What a strange perspective, isn't it? Who would have thought that thought could be an obstacle to understanding? Thought is useful in certain technical disciplines but poses a problem when it comes to better understanding oneself.
To understand ourselves well is first of all to observe ourselves in our different interactions, because to be alive is to be in relation with others, ideas and things. Without relationship we do not exist. It is in the interaction that we react. It is the latter that sheds light on our intentions and motivations. Then there is the I, the ego, the center, the one who says I, this abstract entity made of images, concepts, memories and experiences, fears and traumas etc. It is important to understand that the often excessive importance that we give to what we are, this conditioned being in lack of singularity, maintains the division and the fear.
The thought is a reaction of the memory, which, by modifying itself, approaches the present while projecting itself in the future. It is therefore incapable of living in the present moment. It is by observing the action of the psychological time that we understand that the past, just like the future, are skilful means of the thought to flee the moment, which very often is synonymous with existential emptiness.
The search for pleasure and sensations then takes all the available space, giving birth to emotions, which are reactions to different stimuli. They express agreement or disagreement. But we have made them a huge subject, disproportionate, just like sexuality. We have identified ourselves with emotions thinking that we are giving substance to a singularity, our own. The fact is that there is so little singularity in us. Conformity is at the center of our concerns. Emotions generate attachment when thought identifies itself and tries to intervene to regulate them. By trying to control them, it only reinforces and amplifies them. From attachment comes the pleasure of possessing, and the fear of losing the object of one's attachments. It is a vicious circle. It is in the identification that the thought gives birth to the ego. Without images, there is no ego. Thought seeks to identify itself with sensations because it is subject to the insecurity of its images and its perpetual movement. It is in search of certainty and stability. It then seeks security by identifying itself with pleasures and emotions.
Understanding who we are is essential for anyone who wants to live a fulfilling life. We have been told since childhood that only specialists can help us. We have accepted all kinds of authorities, thus neglecting the inner quest, the only possible source of stability. It is the quest for psychological security that creates insecurity.
It is by reconsidering our relationship to knowledge and intelligence that we will finally be able to "think" for ourselves. Observing all this offers the possibility of welcoming a new framework, a new reading grid suitable for approaching self-discovery outside the traditional schemes and conventional diktats. It then becomes possible to understand one's emotions, one's selfishness and one's need to mortgage the moment for an improbable future. It is from this observation that a profound change can operate.
Comments