Today I will be writing about my principles of "life fixing" that I personally have had success with and have used to help others around me.
First off I would like to say something about the "natural" level of physical and social activity and its relationship with modern psychological and physiological problems. I argue that at least two enjoyable voluntary hours of physical and social activity is the prerequisite of physical and psychological diagnosis. I believe this to be true due to the fact that humans have lived in social working or hunting groups for hundreds of years making the new physically inactive and socially independent individual a modern phenomenon that may have significant psychological consequences such as anxiety and depression and more obvious physical consequences such as muscle infiltrations and obesity.
2 hours of fun training:
Psychologically it seems that + two hour workouts trigger the release of rewards chemicals in our brains for example "runners high" and all the physical benefits of cardiovascular and strength training have been documented abundantly.
2 hours of quality socializing:
Identity is not something that should be taken for granted one might say that it is constantly negotiated in social interaction, if this is true it will be important to reconstruct identity on a daily basis and do so in supportive and positive relationships. I call it having a team, something that is important to me. Having a team means that a group can pool their resources, practical, emotional and social and help each other out without an expectation from anyone team member to deplete their resources and with constant advantages for all involved. To put it simple my team philosophy is that I only have people with strong integrity, passion, and competence on my team so that they they strengthen these values in my-self; of course everyone has periods of introspection and distress, which makes having a team all the more important as one can discuss the challenges of living an active life as well as the challenges of being human. Personally I like to socialize until I want to be alone and have the opportunity to hang out with people when I want, I have tried being alone with very little social contact and it makes all the difference to me when being alone is a choice.
Live the dream:
For some reasons that one may be able to discern parts of based on analysis of childhood, social and, economic situations most people are fascinated by something. Never mind why this fascination is precious and having your everyday life structured around these fascinations gives one drive and passion about what ones is doing, it also presents you with a lot of real challenges victories and failures when trying to live out your dreams making them a real part of your life in stead of an escape from your current situation.
onsdag den 30. juni 2010
lørdag den 12. juni 2010
The reality of feelings.
"I feel that" nothing annoyed me more as a undergrad student than these three words. They signified subjective irellevant opinions of people who had not bothered to take the time to read the text and sourounding texts and now wanted to exist by uttering some useless chitter chatter.
As an academic I am currently engaged in the field of social and neuroscience. The academic dicipline it seems to me, is about researching new subjects as well as acounting for their relationship with excisting academic theories within the respective dicipline. Whether one engages a nature, culture or artistic academic dicipline, one is, or should be, trying to describe reality as accurate as possible. As Rorty said reality is the most effective means of describing an event in relation to a certain intent.
As a psychologogy student I am currently engaged in the shared reality of feelings, that is collective patterns of emotional reactions to certain events. Take for instance "big" feeling such as love, loss, hatred, fear. These are emotions that are for a large part triggered by the same events in many if not all humans; the loss of a loved one, fear of death and so on, what is interesting about psychology is that it to some extent measures and quantifies feelings, tt objectifies the subjective by enagaging feeling with intellectual scrutiny. This raises the question of whether intellect is at all more objective than feeling. We are able to use intellect and enginering to send men into space and split the atom but the shared experience of being human, the physics that give way to emotions are global perhaps one should have a little more respect for the annoying " I feel that" argument that is scorned in academics.
Actually I do not think so I believe that what makes psychology a science is that it employs sientific methods to make sure that when addressing feelings it does so above the individual level to a more collective level of emotions associated with a specific event.
Thats what I feel:)
As an academic I am currently engaged in the field of social and neuroscience. The academic dicipline it seems to me, is about researching new subjects as well as acounting for their relationship with excisting academic theories within the respective dicipline. Whether one engages a nature, culture or artistic academic dicipline, one is, or should be, trying to describe reality as accurate as possible. As Rorty said reality is the most effective means of describing an event in relation to a certain intent.
As a psychologogy student I am currently engaged in the shared reality of feelings, that is collective patterns of emotional reactions to certain events. Take for instance "big" feeling such as love, loss, hatred, fear. These are emotions that are for a large part triggered by the same events in many if not all humans; the loss of a loved one, fear of death and so on, what is interesting about psychology is that it to some extent measures and quantifies feelings, tt objectifies the subjective by enagaging feeling with intellectual scrutiny. This raises the question of whether intellect is at all more objective than feeling. We are able to use intellect and enginering to send men into space and split the atom but the shared experience of being human, the physics that give way to emotions are global perhaps one should have a little more respect for the annoying " I feel that" argument that is scorned in academics.
Actually I do not think so I believe that what makes psychology a science is that it employs sientific methods to make sure that when addressing feelings it does so above the individual level to a more collective level of emotions associated with a specific event.
Thats what I feel:)
tirsdag den 2. februar 2010
Goffman a sociologist or an anthropologist?
So what I would like to diskuss in this blog today is Goffmans and wether he is a sociologist or an anthropologist.
First of all from an anthropologist point of view Goffman might be called a sociologist and one might criticise him for being to general as well as the main goal of his work being that he look for theories which can be stated to apply in general.
But he has also been called to emperical and micro social by sociologists, so which one is it?
Well if we go way back to what anthropologist Franz Boas suggested in the early 1900 in "the limitations of the comparative method", as you might guess from the title he is a particularist and thus we might expect to find a standpoint with wich we can criticize Goffman. But the thing is that Goffman uses so many emperical examples and leaves us under the impression that he has done a massive amount of emperical work prior to his general theories on "face" and "frame" so he actually does excactly what Boas suggests when he says that one should first describe a sufficient ammount of cases before one begins to compare them.
Another point, made by Hastrup among others, is that anthropology´s hallmark is its relatively long fieldwork, an argument that is perhaps made in order to make anthropology destinct from our sometimes more philosofical sibling sociology. If that is the case then ceartaintly Goffman is a sociologist unless doing fieldwork within ones one culture and gathering data herin is also anthropology?
First of all from an anthropologist point of view Goffman might be called a sociologist and one might criticise him for being to general as well as the main goal of his work being that he look for theories which can be stated to apply in general.
But he has also been called to emperical and micro social by sociologists, so which one is it?
Well if we go way back to what anthropologist Franz Boas suggested in the early 1900 in "the limitations of the comparative method", as you might guess from the title he is a particularist and thus we might expect to find a standpoint with wich we can criticize Goffman. But the thing is that Goffman uses so many emperical examples and leaves us under the impression that he has done a massive amount of emperical work prior to his general theories on "face" and "frame" so he actually does excactly what Boas suggests when he says that one should first describe a sufficient ammount of cases before one begins to compare them.
Another point, made by Hastrup among others, is that anthropology´s hallmark is its relatively long fieldwork, an argument that is perhaps made in order to make anthropology destinct from our sometimes more philosofical sibling sociology. If that is the case then ceartaintly Goffman is a sociologist unless doing fieldwork within ones one culture and gathering data herin is also anthropology?
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)