Should We Ignore Or Help Difficult People?

In my last article, “The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?”, I  said that “It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they draw it upon themselves, apparently).” Some people have argued that “The Secret” implies a  shunning of these people, that negative thoughts are contagious and that you must not draw them – or the people who think them – upon yourself.

I have wondered about this for a long time; what are you supposed to do with people who are just, well, negative?

A few years back, I suffered from panic attacks and an obsessive thought disorder known as depersonalization. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the Internet as a research tool, I found that using it as such in this case was extremely dangerous. Why? Because almost all of the forums in which you would expect to find support were actually inhabited by people who had no intention of getting better. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s true. People logged in day after day, broadcasting their self-pity on a digital soapbox. These posts usually amounted to little more than reassurance of the grimness of everyone’s situation, which is particularly demoralising to an individual with an obsessive thinking disorder. According to these people, nobody ever gets better from these conditions, and most people who logged on to say they had were branded a liar (I was one of them).

After my recovery, I wrote and began selling a guide on how to deal with obsessive thinking; one of the golden rules of that book was to never, ever go into a forum again. I have told everybody, and I mean hundreds of buyers, everyone who has read the book – to never speak to the people in the forums again, to have nothing to do with them. Because they will drag you down, they will infect you via emotional osmosis and make your own recovery that much more difficult. It happened to me many, many times before I noticed the pattern and stopped it.

And that’s the dilemma. Is it our duty to help and be kind to people who are, on the surface at least, cruel and hurtful? Or, to be exact, is it our duty to do this continually for that person?

I have been blessed with a wonderful family, with whom I get on very well; but I know people who have had to practically cut relatives out of their lives, purely for the sake of ease. Again, it sounds terrible, but if that person’s mood and demeanour affects yours (as it almost always must), how do you deal with a regular barrage of pessimism and ignorance that sucks the energy and vitality from yourself? And let me be clear; I am not talking about depression or sadness in a person. Of course, these absolutely must be dealt with, thoroughly and attentively. But in this case I am talking about negativity, insults, put-downs, bullying, manipulation and exploitation.

I had the experience of spending a good deal of time with one individual who had been “cut off” by another close member of their family, simply because the latter was totally unable to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the former. Despite my initial scepticism towards this way of dealing with the situation, I had to eventually conclude that it was the only practical way of doing so. The assumption, however hopeful, would be that the person in question would in the future, find a level of maturity on their own to allow for a reconciliation.

But until then, is there really any other alternative? Talking things out is not always a viable option. Often, when someone is confronted with what they perceive to be an assault on their ego, they can respond with tears, shouts or even violence. Indeed, arguing one worldview versus another is generally a exercise in futility. For example, take your average college debate. Let’s say that one side comes up with a long list of trump reasonings for their argument, while the other side fails to respond with anything remotely cohesive. Do you think that at any point, any member of the latter team will stand up and say “You know what? You’re right”, and join the other side?

Of course not. Why? Because most of us have developed this silly idea that our viewpoint is somehow connected to our ego, that changing one’s mind is somehow evidence of defeat, of not having thought things through. A healthier stance would be that changing one’s mind is evidence of adaptability, of willingness to change and evolve.

That’s why confronting someone who you believe to be mistreating others or acting in an ignorant manner can be so dangerous; because you are criticizing their behaviour, the way they interact with the world – and deep offence can be taken.

On the other hand, let’s consider the audience of the debate. These people are prone to great variances in opinion between the beginning and end of the verbal contest. In an excellent, ongoing series of podcasts, the moderators measure the listeners’ attitudes before and after the debate, which often produces huge differences. Why does this happen to the audience and not the debaters? Because the audience are spectators; they have no immediate social investment in the belief being contested. Not only that, but they are part of a gathering where the adaptation of thought is accepted and even encouraged.

They weigh up the evidence, and decide for themselves. And that’s a great microcosm for one’s personal ascent to maturity. Telling someone to change won’t make them change; demonstrating the value of change will allow them to make the decision for themselves. The famous therapeutic hypnotist Milton Erickson accomplished this brilliantly: For example, he had a rule of never telling his patients what not to do (i.e., “Don’t laugh”, “Don’t worry”). Also, he used techniques such as metaphorical stories to insinuate that the patient could get better. The bottom line was that everything was accomplished on the patient’s terms, a revolutionary approach that allowed for full recoveries in astonishingly short periods of time. Why? Because the patient figured out for themselves that they could do just that, for themselves.

It’s like the Buddhist saying, “When the student is ready, the lesson presents itself.” And the Desiderata says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.” If we take these sayings together, we might conclude that sometimes, it’s necessary to just leave some people alone and hope that they figure certain things out for themselves. This can be very tough, especially if that person is or has been close to you.

r

But if the student isn’t ready, maybe there is little you can do but wait and hope for the best.

r

The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?

Rhonda Byrne’s book, “The Secret” – and the film of the same title – have become true global phenomenon. Millions of people around the world have purchased this guide in its various forms to get in on this supposedly life-changing, clandestine information.

It’s all based on the non-scientific “Law Of Attraction”. This theoretical law suggests that if and when you desire something, you must a) Ask the Universe for it, b) believe totally – and act – as if you already had the object of your desire and then c) wait. The book suggests that that which you long for will be with you before long. This can apply to everything; from a parking space outside the local Supermarket to that mansion to house you and your supermodel wife.

Of course, this mini-movement has many, many detractors. The fact that whole enterprise has virtually no scientific basis whatsoever is probably its Achilles’ Heel, at least for those who deem impirically measurable evidence a basis for belief. And that, as a self-contained theoretical argument, is fairly airtight.

But things are rarely as simple as that, at least in terms of actual human experience. The fractal, multi-layered nature of the mind, and how it moves and works, is something that all of science has only been able to accurately rationalize in a few fleeting bursts of brilliance. And even at that, many of those same theories are discounted in time and viewed as little more than historical curiosities (i.e., Freud’s fetish theory).

What something like “The Secret” does is offer the reader something much more simple and applicable; it lays out a practical set of instructions for achieving your hopes and dreams. It is a user’s manual for the mind.

And while many people, especially those of a particularly religious bent, are up in arms over the system’s seemingly Atheistic timbre, most have failed to notice that none of the information in the book is new. For example, Wallace D. Wattles wrote a book called “The Science Of Getting Rich” in 1910, which is essentially the inspiration for “The Secret” (but that applies more to the “monetary gain” side of  the theory). Indeed, the fundamental idea that what you believe in is what you experience, is not new at all. Robert Anton Wilson has made reference to it countless times in his work. One of his more famous examples is probably that of the number 23; Wilson proposed that this number was consistently used more than other numbers, and that if you kept your wits about you, you would notice this phenomenon too.

In this statement, however, Wilson had an ulterior motive (as he almost always did). The basis for the experiment was not to find that, yes, 23 is indeed everywhere, but to understand that yes, 23 is indeed everywhere if you are looking for it. And so is everything else; wealth, opportunity, poverty, love, hate etc. The mind finds what it wants to find – or, as Wilson put it, “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves“.

I think that that single, beautiful axiom fairly explains, or at least, acts as a guide to a great amount of the human experience, with all its bizarre proclivities and aversions. The brain is a filtration system, and what you choose to filter is how you will see the universe.

“The Secret” seems to bypass explanation of this mechanism, and instead offers an overview, using different metaphors, of how simply to use it. It tells the reader that after they have decided upon a desire, they must think and act as if they already had it. Re-introducing Wilson’s theory, this is simply another way of telling the mind to look for evidence of your success, of the attainment of your goal, everywhere. If this is accomplished, you will have set up a miniature belief system, which, almost by definition, rejects any conflicting information (in the same way that someone on the lookout for 23 will all but ignore 1-22 and 24-infinity).

According to “The Secret”, this sets in motion a cosmic mechanism which will begin to draw that which you want inexorably towards you. This is what the book refers to as “The Law Of Attraction”. One might argue that this is not actually an ethereal attraction, but rather the end result of a mind that is trained to filter out all possibilities other than triumph. Sports psychologists have long been aware of this trend; it is rarely the physical exertion alone that wins a contest, but rather the mindset of the competitors. Any physician worth their salt knows that the patient’s mindset can totally overrule the physical prognosis, be it for better or worse.

In his book “The War Of Art”, Steven Pressfield describes how the very act of working creatively seems to generate all sorts of ‘lucky breaks’ for the author:

“A process is set in motion by which, inevitably and infallibly, heaven comes to our aid. Unseen forces enlist in our causes; serendipity reinforces our purpose.”

I have observed this myself first hand. When crafting something new, the most discrete elements regularly fall together in unpredicted harmony. Combinations of musical notes and chords arise as if by accident, video edits sync up to create effects that exceed your original expectations, ideas fall from the sky to tie two disparate, awkward paragraphs together. You can argue about the mathematics of chance all day, but the fact remains that this happens with alarming regularity. Deciding to create something seems to draw the Muses down from the heavens.

It seems especially astounding that many of the mental techniques described in “The Secret” are adaptations of methods considered “occult” not long ago. The entire process of Sigil Magick, for example, is based on deciding to do or get something, writing it down, warping the words into an image, mentally sending the image out into the ether… and then waiting for the actuality to come to you. Techniques like this were once used by social misfits like “The Great Demon” Aleister Crowley; now they are sold as part of a glossy movie with a tie-in book, and featured on Oprah.

Regardless of the metaphors used to describe the incredible results of human determination, the simple fact remains that the ability to harness it is a wonderful thing. And while some of the constructs in “The Secret” can come across as terribly overwrought at times, it is based on old information that people have used for centuries. It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they drew it upon themselves, apparently).

But at its heart, it is simply trying to say that good thoughts and good actions will bring good things. It implores that generosity is a supreme virtue. It advocates laughter, love and gratitude as essential tenets for a happy life. And no matter how OTT the presentation or dubious the science, anything that promotes those kinds of ideals has to be admired. As for the Law Of Attraction? Well, it might be cosmic movements and it might just be human determination. 

Whatever the case, if it looks like it works and it feels like it works, then it works.

f

f

f

Further Viewing:

“The Secret” – Entire film viewable on Google Video

“Robert Anton Wilson – Maybe Logic” – Entire film viewable on Google Video

Evil Advertising 2: Suzuki Saves Africa

My jaw hit the floor when I saw this ad. Car companies have been one of the most blatant culprits to the destruction of the Earth’s environment since the Industrial Revolution. Because of their links with fuel companies (like Shell, who, by the way, made a record profit of 27.6 billion dollars in 2007) , they have purposely delayed the release of all non-fossil energies, in spite of their myriad advances. All this sanctimonious Toyota Prius stuff seems pathetic when you know that electricity and even water alone can be used to power modified engines efficiently, and without any of the rancid emissions that accompany Shell’s product – but companies like Shell won’t allow that to happen.

But for a car company to suggest that their vehicle has something to do with saving African wildlife?? Multinationals like Suzuki have been raping third-world countries, Africa included, non-stop for a good century now. The history of human rights abuses committed by unscrupulous companies is long and gruesome.

Even to give a recent example: Countries like the Sudan cannot afford to harvest their own oil reserves, and so are farming it out to Chinese and US companies who have exhausted their other resources. These companies will gladly purchase fuel from corrupt governments, while at the same time turn a blind eye to genocide and ethnic cleansing in these same countries.

But, no, forget all that. We’re saving the world now. We’re protecting rhinos. Yes, that’s why Irish people buy SUV’s. To tear across the Serengeti with Tony Fitzjohn, looking for nasty poachers. It’s not the Soccer Moms with one lonely child in the back, driving around streets in Cork that are about half the size of the vehicle itself. It’s not the emasculated fathers whose brainless rationale is usually, “Well, I want to keep my family as safe as possible” (and let’s not forget the unspoken addendum to this delightful morality; “And if I crash into some lower-class family driving a lesser car, to Hell with them. I’ve got bullbars, for Christ’s sake.”) No, it’s none of those. We’re saving rhinos, people.

How dare anyone compare owning a gas-guzzling, street-hogging, brat-freighting, tailgating SUV to saving the lives of endangered species in Third-World countries. It’s an insult to your intellience and mine. And doe-eyed Soccer Moms nothwithstanding, I’m hopeful that at least some Irish people are informed enough to be angry about this – and to tell Suzuki to cop on to themselves.

Evil Advertising: Specsavers and Edith Piaf

Has anyone seen the new Specsavers advert “featuring” Edith Piaf? 

In it, she sings probably her most famous song, “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien”. The subtitles show an incorrect translation of the French lyrics, saying that her only regret is not having bought glasses at Specsavers.

This is a song about and performed by a chronic alcoholic and drug user looking back on her life, and saying that she regrets nothing; that all the pain was worth it for her to become the person she now is. It is poignant and heartfelt.

Specsaver’s hijacking of the song and the woman to offload a couple of pairs of glasses is, in my opinion, beyond reprehensible. Aside from the fact that it takes the personal, emotional core of the song and castrates it for the sake of corporate “humour”, did any of the firm’s copywriters do any research on the woman whatsoever? If they had, they would have known that from the ages of three to seven, Piaf was blind as a result of the disease Keratitis. That’s right, Specsavers have tastefully chosen to parody a dead alcoholic who had no sight as a child.

How could this ad have been passed as suitable for broadcast? How could noone have objected to it? Using a dead person to sell a product is tantamount to graverobbery. It’s just as classy as Benetton’s ad featuring a young man dying of AIDS.

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

I think that controversy is a wonderful thing. But in the hands of advertisers, it is always suspect. There is always the ulterior motive, the hidden agenda. Everything they show you is designed to get you to do something. To not only buy a product, but to buy into a lifestyle (as Naomi Klein brilliantly argued in “No Logo”). Slogans like “Drink Coke” are not suggestions; they are orders, screamed at you from every poster and billboard, every television, every radio.

I feel embarrassed if I am watching a movie or programme with someone and the ads come on. It’s like a group of corporate idiots have marched into the room and started barking commands at you and yours. I find ads depressing in general; when the local companies have Christmas “all wrapped up” (brilliant) and multinationals are using Edith Piaf, there is little creativity in the divide.

I’m not getting my anarchist on; far from it. I know that advertising is a necessary evil. Much brilliant creative work is funded by it. But when it’s so evil it can reanimate the corpses of our dearly departed, it must be stopped.

It brings to mind Bill Hicks’ famous words about advertisers :