I have a declaration. I am a Rogerian or some of the older ones might say, an Adlerian because my foundations are humanistic.

Tony Merry has a beautifully written book called "Person Centred Psychology". I learnt lots about what i have learnt. Funny way to put it i guess. Really, i knew the things he has written about from newer works that has evolved from him. Neuro-Semantics, NLP etc.

I have come to understand why it is so difficult for me to be more congruent with my Dad. My Actualising Tendencies have been distorted all this while. In what sense, his values of thrift and maximization imposed on me has caused me to be like him in certain ways. Although i am so much more aware of these tendencies than him, i still make those mistakes and jump into it very fast, much especially in my reactions towards him. With Jacq its a therapeutic intervention. I am less cautious about maximization and thrift. Her very being and behavior portrays organismic values processing very well. Left to be by herself and especially without threat, she makes wonder decisions, does wonderful things, relates wonderfully well and treats people wonderfully. Like Carl Rogers said, if only we were not taught those stupid values, beliefs and principles from our parents.

Our Self-Actualizations would have been boosted if it wasnt for the shit that we were taught. We would not be so fault finding, but more solution constructive, values motivated and produce more positive things in our work of life. Organismic Values Processing allows us to live without conflict or even overcome difficult situations that we do not have complete knowledge about. We should always live like that.

Self prophecy is even more real than the reality we are conscious of. It would be to our distinct disadvantage if we keep our negative reinforcements of valueing the exaltation of negative actualising tendencies. The terrible labels we put on our family and friends must stop. Shoudl we be in need of a believes, values and principles repair, we would need a mental re-education which is CBT; Our esteem just cannot be dependent of external conditions provided by the people we deem important. It is only the unconditional positive regard of the Love of God that we should live by. I say this for the Christian, that believe Jesus Christ is their savior and through Him, God has become our Father. For those who are not believers, I wish them well with their parents and those they deem important in influencing their behaviors as old as they are still. The unfortunate part is, they will not be able to relieve their childhood like the way the believer can.

Freud offers the dark side of the human race in terms of the intentions and tendencis of our being. While it is true that we do have natural destructive tendencies, i advocate the fact that we have a greater will towards positive, constructive and life giving and forgiing tendencies. We need to look at beings with greater potential of good rather than the bad.

I have learnt much and am very happy to be born after the Rogerian age

Good night

MeL

M.Ed, ACMC
DISC(L), NLP(P)

An Article on Naturally Increased Capacities of Physically Impaired People

I have recently got very interested in Emotional Intelligence, i find that people born with a low IQ capacity have got a very high EQ ability. The same is obeserved with people who are physically impaired with either being deaf or mute etc. Because they have to feed on information through written mediums, they seem to recieve less junk from anyone they meet who talk negative or provide inaccurate sources of information. They appear to be more intellectually intelligent than the normal person despite their handicapped disability.

The same is with myself, people who have Tourettes. Dr Erle too observed this at some level. He said that his patients with Tourettes seem to be very intelligent intellectually and emotionally and are capable people, as in those who can cope, not those that are wheelchair bound. His patients are running businesses or doing well in something. The point is, that when such "disabled" people are lacking in one thing (example, IQ) they are forced to communicate to the world (example, using the EQ capacity). Therefore it seems that in their forced situation, they increase in their alternate capacity to react to the world.The dumb and deaf's intellectual capacity to handle information is greater thereof than the average person. Why? Its because, they are forced get their sources of information from more directive written mediums such as reading books, internet search, newspapers and other literature off and online.

It is not a very suprising discovery on my part. It is only logical as these people are forced to go an alternate way to react and communicate to the world since they experience some form of hardship through their physical impairment. They are forced to analyze the world, make meaning and purpose through an alternate source of reacting/recieving and communication, thus they become even more resiliant and even capably intelligent people in life. They are not easily depressed as they were initially becoming impaired or having found out.

I have a great suspician that these people are actually happier than the so called "normal" person in many areas of life.

What do you think?

From meL.

M.Ed

Greetings all,
I have an interesting discussion at hand. It is a matter of empowerment as what Mr.DC calls it. Well, the debate goes like this. Mr.DC said that he doesnt like the idea of seeing called a therapist or even the terminology itself. What being a therapist to him means is that, people are unable to take charge of their life and access their resources to solve their problems. The phrase "to solve their problems" might be seen as something vague by some, but thats the whole point. The context is meant to be general. If i were to narrow the context, the kind of problems would the sort that is social. Stuff like goal settings, managing anger, time, money, psycho problems etc.

From my perspective, i dont think that it is neccessarily disempowering if anyone makes a choice "to solve his problems" by seeing a therapist. Why? It depends of who is seeing the therapist. The person may be the kind who is either prone to being dependent on the therapist or independent of the therapist. Perhaps, for the one who is independent of the therapist, making the choice to consult the therapist could be a inquiry to search for the "technical how tos", "to solve his problems". What i am suggesting is that, the person is just seeking for resources or "tools" rather on how to go about dealing with his problems. In other words, the therapist is not the tool but what the therapist teaches and advices is the "tool".

Here we have two very different perspectives. Let me bring discussion even deeper. Mr. DC and i went on into discussing about a statement i came up with. The statement is, "I want to take charge of my life by seeing a therapist". Mr. DC questions that statement. He asks why does he neccessarily have to see the therapist? Isnt he depending on the therapist to solve his problems? My response to that was, "no, not neccessarily. He doesnt have to depend on the therapist. It could be a one time off thing or just a few sessions and thats it". Mr.DC's response to that was, "yar but still, cant he solve the problem himself instead of using someone else? Why dont he say instead that, " i will take up a program to learn how to deal with my problem?"".

Well in essence, Mr.DC doesnt agree with the idea that you have to get another person to be involved to solve your problem. He sees that as leaning on another person which is disempowering. My internal dialogue argues that, isnt going to a training program involving the trainer too? Yes it is. In other words, you still need someone else to impart/coach/teach you "to solve the problem". Is Mr.DC's perspective that is a little to extreme for me? Yes, i think it is. Why? Simply because you cant read your way into solving your problem with a psychological or self help book and neither can you teach nor coach yourself to solve problems 100% of the time. I do agree that we can coach ourselves on some and even numerous occassions to solve problems, but even this depends on the other variables in context. An example, the state of mind of the person (psychological health).

It is important to note that our arguement comes from certain assumptions or presuppositions which we both carry differently. Mr.DC assumes that people always have whatever resources they need to solve their problems regardless of their condition, whereas i end of this statement differently. I view that people majority of people in general do have all the resources they need. However, they ought to be in a condition whereby they have the cognitive ability to carry themselves adequetely in order to dissassociate from their problem and solve it. What this means is that i am suggesting, some people, minority, are not able to. My stand on this issue is, you cant expect a person who just lost a family member or a leg in a tragidy to "self-help" (coach) himself out of grief. In this example, such as situation would require the person involved to acknowledge the lose. The person looses a sense of meaning in life because these are the things that construct the meaning of life to him. To be able to share a life with another, to move around with a full body. These are the things that carry great meaning. Logotherapeutical change treatment would be a suitable prescription in such times.

In the examples i quoted, its a sense of lost that must be dealt with and not psychological coaching for a search for more resources. The person may have all the money, family support and other resources in the whole world but yet refuses to move on. This is because it is the lost of meaning that must be dealt with, not the lack of ability (resources) to deal with the lost. In other words, the lost of meaning is to be acknowledge and a new meaning must be found or constructed to honor, or maybe replace what has been lost in order to fill that void.

What do you say?

Welcome to my psychological journal. In this journal, i will present my internal dialogues from day to day occurences and judge all philosophical teachings, concepts and appplications that come across from a critical perspective founded on enablement thinking.

As this is my first entry, i will establish briefly that enablement thinking is a concept which mostly involves the interaction of individuals working or living together in a cell unit. Enablement thinking is a therapeutic approach which critically explores what is effective in learning and doing.

The fundamental view of enablement thinking is that it views individuals as unique, thus the frame methods employed in enablement thinking come from a cognitive humanistic framework. Like other forms of therapy, nlp, choice and reality therapy, enablement thinking too believes that people 1) Have to power to decide / or overcome, situations in life and work. To get a complete idea of enablement thinking. Much of what i have written on enablement thinking can be viewed in my thesis titled: Enablement Thinking Versus Control Thinking. I will make it available for viewing shortly. Please bear with the waiting.

Having establised my own school of thought in the study and development of enablement thinking psychology, it is also my intention to invite constructive critic and scholarly discussions and feedback upon the prospective articles which i will post.

I look forward to hearing from all walks of psychological practitioners, enthusiast and casual readers.

Thank you

Regards

meLvin Lau S.C

D.EE, M.Ed, NLP(P)