Of course for many of us, there is a great quantity of space between “perfect zen balance of peace and understanding” and having random thoughts about physical violence on absolute strangers who have annoyed us.
YMMV.
Of course they do. It IS the Mets we’re talking about after all . . .
You obviously haven’t spent much time in the NYC subways during rush hour. In this old thread even the delicate flower we all know and love as Delphica had this to say:
Now, Mtgman:
I AGREE. The whole point of this thread is to warn the unawares of just this fact. Francesca has got the right idea. These thoughts can have a place and can be shared, The Pit just really should not be that place. As you said, people here do not have to be, and usually are not, sympathetic to the ugly side of the human experience.
Lib: What is the source of negative thoughts? Man, can you ask a loaded (yet tiny) question or what? Ultimately that depends on what the definitions and nature of self, perception, and thought end up being. For some of us, those are the deepest and most unresolved philosphical questions known to man. The answer, I know not where my self comes from, only that I must deal with it in all of its glory and with all of its flaws.
DaLovin’ Dj
Right. I’ll do you for that! Come here! I’ll bite your legs off!
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, and DJ, I understand that we’re, mostly, saying the same thing. The bit I’m saying is that people shouldn’t have had those expectations(venting their ugly side with no fear of judgement or reprisal) in the first place. As I said, this is the pit, not the couch.
Enjoy,
Steven
DJ all I gotta ask you man is what is it with you and ice cream guys, huh?
In defense of da, I’ve fantasized about some pretty disturbing stuff as well, esp. when I’m angry. In middle school, there was this shy scruffy-looking white kid who a lot of the “tough kids” liked to push around every day, ranging from stuff like tripping in the halls to stealing his notes and such. One day, he was pantsed in the cafeteria, and everyone laughed at him. At that moment, I was fantasizing about shooting every one of their brains out, with vivid images of skulls inwardly deforming as the bullets penetrated, until the bone could not take the stress anymore and snapped with a satisfying gooey crunch.
I tend to think that vengeance fantasies such as these are not too uncommon. My history teacher said that he often had toughts of sticking his landlord inside an empty room with a bunch of hungry mosquitos and watching the blood get sucked out of him. And this was a nice, mild-mannered guy who had refused to go hunting with his father when he was a teenager (yes he liked to tell a lot of personal stories during class).
There is a dark side to a lot of people, methinks, though most do not choose to soak in it.
For those of you who believe that man has a “dark side”, and therefore has a dual nature in the context of ethics — do you also believe that man has a “spiritual side”, and therefore has a dual nature in the context of metaphysics?
Valid point, and I had been looking to see if there was something specifically on writing - I didn’t see anything.
Nonetheless, it would seem to me that the underlying theory is the same in both cases. This being the idea that keeping anger “bottled up” is harmful, and that expressing it provides therapeutic relief. If that theory has been debunked in the case of physical expression, it provides a serious obstacle to anyone trying to promote a parallel theory with regards to verbal expression.
I will grant that it would make sense that the harmful effects are less in the case of someone who only expresses it verbally. But the idea that it is actually beneficial is unsupportable based on evidence to date, IMHO.
I was hoping someone would pick up on that. I was just making a silly reference to this thread (for those who were wondering what BottledBlondJeanie is referring to - great screen name and location by the way). It’s funny to note that the thread mentioned was an exercise in written catharsis by yours truly. I’m still a little bitter about the evil Ice Cream Cabal I must admit, but that thread did wonders for my rage at the time. In this thread, I was trying to think of an example of someone who is disgusting in every way and an Ice-Cream selling Mets fan seemed to meet the description to a tee!
Thanks. You know, in my head, I’m a matrix jumpin’, unliited ammo havin’, sword wielding death machine who cuts down any and all in my way. But it is just fantasy. The real violence I have been around was absolutely horrible. I hate RL violence with a passion and have often posted as such. Still, I have these aggressive thoughts. I don’t think it makes me bad or even that unusual. As long as I don’t act on the urges I’m cool. Fantasy is fantasy. My governors are in working order so I am able to not kill most people.
Lib and IzzyR, I’ve got posts coming for you guys (you have both raised very interesting questions), but I need to do a bit of research and compose my thoughts properly. Thank you for the contributions. It seems I’m about to learn some stuff. . .
DaLovin’ Dj
I would think of it less as a dual nature than as a continuous scale of tendencies (or desires, or what have you) - from Jeffery Dahmer through Joe Average to Mohandas Ghandi. People are a blend of good and bad tendencies, the mixture varying from person to person.
I’m afraid that doesn’t let you off the hook. “Dual nature” does not necessarily imply a dichotomy. If Dahmer is one end of the continuum and Ghandi is the other, then Joe Average still has some percentages of each.
Lib, I guess that was the point I was trying to make.
But to me, the term “dual nature” does imply that our individual desires are either pure as snow or black as night, and I don’t think it’s as simple as that.
Clearly the thought “I want to push that slow, doddering old lady down the subway stairs” can be categorised as 100% evil and “I think I’ll help that slow, doddering old lady carry her shopping down the stairs” is 100% good. But what about “damn, I wish that slow, doddering old lady would get out of everyone’s way”? You’re not wishing her harm, but you’re not wishing her well, either. Isn’t that only a bit evil, with a bit of good mixed in (better access to the subway for everyone)?
I dunno, maybe I’ve gone off on a tangent here.
Surely you did not think that I meant to imply that all people are either pure as snow or black as night — unless you believe that I am dumb as shit. 
Well, you are aware that I’ve recently evolved into a higher form of life, far removed from the petty squabbles of you lesser mortals, right? I keep meaning to put that in my profile…
Okay, seriously: you’re absolutely right that I have those thoughts, same as anybody. I guess what I’m reacting to is the idea that sharing those dark impulses with other people is proper in any sort of social situation, on-line or otherwise. As such, your “warning” seems entirely superfluous. It’s like saying, “By the way, while you’re a guest in my house, please don’t piss on the carpets.” It’s the sort of thing you shouldn’t need to explicitly tell people. Anyone who would need such a warning isn’t emotionally equipped to follow the advice in the first place.
Besides, if you warn them ahead of time, it spoils the trap.
I agree that there’s far too much self-righteous crap in the pit. Please don’t come in here if your only purpose is to spread enlightenment and wisdom (which is most often actually hypocrisy and mob-lynching). I often enjoy attacking the OP in the pit, but I try to do so for the love of cruelty (or cheap jokes) rather than any kind of moral high ground. There is no high ground: this is a pit.
What an ineffably stupid post.
I don’t think 3 pages of me saying “I’m so fucking tired. Getting out of bed sucks.” is gonna do me any good…
Heck, if you just wanted the catharsis of writing down your angry thoughts, but didn’t want to get any feedback, you may as well just write them in your own diary.
And if you really wanted to vent, you could write in the blood of the freshly-killed door-to-door salesmen who annoyed you in the first place.
It seems to me as though people often vent steam in the Pit not by posting a rant, but by attacking someone else’s rant.
That was my thought on reading the first few posts - it was that particular experience of reading and participating in this forum that was called to mind. And then when I scrolled alllll the way down and at least skim-read allll the posts, I got to the one that had this:
which is what I’m getting at - either venting bile or enjoying being an arsehole by replying excessively scorchingly to a rant (cheap jokes notwithstanding, I reckon a little levity can be a great thing). Of course, some OP rants are just fucking shiteawful, and some OPs need to have the ignorance educated out of them fast. But others are just reports of annoyances, and maybe the OPs aren’t such idiots, or such horrendous people as some of the responses make out.
You know, I’ve been writing two posts - one an answer to Lib, and the other an answer to IzzyR. I decided to start with IzzyR’s question first. His posts suggested that perhaps the idea of aggression as something that can get bottled up inside of us and needs to be vented (less one risk it overflowing at the wrong time and place) is a theory lacking much evidence in support. He seemed to suggest that this venting (catharsis) may have the reverse effect - namely making an individual more likely to be angry/aggressive. Now to address this point, I found myself reading a TON about the history of catharsis, which in turn led to reading a ton about psychoanalysis, which in turn led to reading a bunch about the validity of therapy in general. Very interesting stuff, and this is gonna be a long ass post to share what I found. It’s even gonna have an index. Feel free to skip it, cause really it’s a hijack, since this thread is really supposed to be a warning to people to keep their internal worst out of the SDMB lest they be attacked and scorned. It wasn’t supposed to be a debate about the validity of therapeutic techniques, nor a launching point for a discussion about the nature of man and spirituality. I love a good hijack though, and I’m diving right in since I find both subjects interesting. Apologies if I get long winded something fierce . . .
Before I start, however, I’d like to share an interesting realization I had along the way. I started the post to respond to Lib’s queries at the same time I started this one (intended as a response to IzzyR). I wrote the intro and then decided to finish that response after I finished here. It seemed that the questions Lib is raising are not really related to the ones IzzyR is asking. On one hand I’ve got someone saying “Where is the empirical evidence for catharsis as an effective therapeutic technique?”. On the other, I have someone asking me “Where does negativity come from, and what does that suggest about the nature of man in a metaphysical sense?” I know from past experiences that Lib is a supporter of the idea that empirical knowledge is not the only (or perhaps even the best) way to the capital-T-Truth. He and others, if I have understood correctly, have suggested that there is a way to Truth that empiricism cannot reach. This seems to be barking up a whole different tree than someone asking for specific empirical evidence & suggesting the lack thereof as a weakness. However, I found that in researching one question, I was finding the answers to both! Each inquiry led to the same questions and answers the more I looked. I can do this in one post! Not only that, but a third subject has naturally weaved itself into my research - and it is a subject that I am quite fond of. That being of course the future of technology and what it will teach us about ourselves. I didn’t see the connection until I had been reading for a few hours, but sure enough, it’s a discussion trifecta. I get to play with all the fun deep stuff in one swoop, and I didn’t even mean to. Cool. Here goes.
To break it up for those who want to just skim, here is a brief index of this post (yes, I’m bumped up a couple points on the geek scale for indexing a post):
1. Catharsis: Definitions & History
2. Psychoanalysis: History and Major players
3. Is Therapy a Science?
4. The Nature of Thought and Self
5. Technology
6. Conclusions
1.Catharsis: Definitions & History
Let’s start with the definition of “Catharsis” as presented at www.dictionary.com:
We can, for the sake of this discussion, disregard definition #1. We aren’t talking about a medical procedure to flush your physical system. Definitions 2 and 3 are pertinent, and refer to the historical uses of the word. I’ll get into that history first. Definition 4 refers to the therapeutic techniques, and that is the definition that leads to the most interesting part of the conversation, and I’ll be focusing on this definition for most of the other sections.
First, I’d like to share the history of the word as used in definitions 2&3. The word Catharsis comes from the Greek word katharein, meaning “to cleanse”. Its earliest uses referred to an actual physical process, such as bathing or defined religious ceremonies. The processes were about man cleansing (his spirit as well as his health) to please the gods or spirits, who were thought to be responsible for both physical and spiritual well being (or lack thereof). Such procedures are found in the Bible as well as ancient Greek poetry and tradition.
The history of the word gets cooler when Plato and Aristotle got a hold of it. Rather than chanting and/or bathing, Aristotle and Plato suggested art as a superior cathartic tool. Aristotle suggested that music, poetry, and plays serve as a means to purge unwanted emotions, and then replace them with a sense of well being/joy. Plato suggested that actors displaying tragic/negative emotions on stage results in the audience experiencing the same. Aristotle expanded on this connection between audience and actor (another favorite subject) to suggest that the effects of experiencing these negative emotions purges the audience and artist alike, leaving both in a happier state. This suggestion is summed up in the following quote:
It would seem that Aristotle was one of the first to suggest that the evil within us is something that needs to be addressed/recognized so that we may purge it in a manner and place which is virtuous, even if the thoughts themselves are not virtuous. He suggested art (such as writing!) as a means of catharsis which is effective and desirable (something I enjoyed learning). This isn’t empirical evidence, but it is one of the earliest records of this theory. There is fierce debate about whether Aristotle was being literal when he spoke of catharsis in this sense:
I won’t get into that debate here, it revolves around translation issues and analysis of multiple works which at times seem to use contradictory meanings of the word. For a more complete overview of this subject check out this page which is pretty in depth, and was one of the main sources for the above information.
The next exciting chapter for this word comes when Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud developed their theories of mind - which led to the creation of psychoanalysis and the different schools of therapy that spread from their work. That brings us to the next section . . .
2. Psychoanalysis: History and Major Players
Catharsis has been referred to as “The concept that launched a thousand therapies”. Sigmund Freud is the founder of psychoanalysis. Early in his career he collaborated with Joseph Breur, who was the first to use the cathartic method (via the mechanism of hypnosis) to cure hysteria. This was the first time someone had suggested that physical problems may be a manifestation of mental issues. Freud ran with the idea, but ultimately abandoned hypnosis (and parted ways with Breur) in favor of a technique called free association. He championed the idea that there is a subconscious that effects our conscious mind in ways we don’t even perceive, and not always for good. He suggested that the subconscious must have catharsis if we are to cure our mental anguish.
Freud was later joined by Jung (until they eventually parted due to Freud’s obsession with sex). Jung suggested that there was an individual subconscious AND a shared cultural unconscious. Fun stuff, but definitely starting to lean towards the metaphysical. To the point, Jung suggests that we cannot achieve harmony without giving our shadow side the occasional catharsis treatment.
Now, these gifted thinkers founded modern therapy with their theories, but the question must be asked: What proof is there that any of this is more than just theory? Could all of this be modern day snake oil? Which brings us to the next issue . . .
3. Is Therapy a Science?
So where is the empirical evidence that cathartic treatments work? Where is the evidence that there is a science here? How do we know this works? How do we know that therapy is at all legit? Could the whole thing be a scam to take $125 an hour from poor schmucks? Tough question. Highly debatable. You see, it’s not just catharsis that we must question, but psychoanalysis as a whole. Why should I think that any of it works? This is a great debate if ever there was one, and trying to get to the answers brings us to some very deep philosophical questions about the mind, the self, and the nature of knowledge.
After much reading, I must admit that it seems there is little to no empirical evidence in support of the effectiveness of the cathartic method OR psychoanalysis. It seems to me that IzzyR’s points hold true for the entire field. Psychology seems less a science and more a pseudo-science. The Skeptics Dictionary rips the theories factual base apart pretty convincingly:
So with no evidence (aside from hearsay) in support of these theories how is it that the therapy industry became a multi-billion dollar affair? Some psychoanalytic clinicians will argue that psychoanalysis is not a science and that it is therefore meaningless to evaluate it by the standards of other scientific endeavors. Now this is where I run smack dab into Lib’s favorite area. It would seem that therapists must also maintain the idea that empirical knowledge is not the only way to the Truth to keep their job! It’s starting to sound superstitious and self-serving, yet if asked, many people would say that Psychology is a refined science. If we are going to be intellectually honest, the field cannot be given such a status.
This is the best page I found that organized the results of what empirical studies have shown. It shows some interesting trends that would seem to illustrate that therapy does help certain people with certain disorders a large percentage of the time. But even that page begins with the disclaimer “There are no definitive studies which show psychoanalysis to be unequivocally effective relative to an active placebo or an alternative method of treatment. There are no methods available that might definitively indicate the existence of a psychoanalytic process.”
4. The Nature of Thought and Self
Now, to get a little more into Lib’s area of inquiry. First I want to say that he should try to refrain from phrasing questions with such heavy use of the word believe. If you believe ____, then do you believe ___? I think, at least for myself, it is a case of suspecting something is true rather than holding as an absolute Truth. I think Carl Jung had some positive insights. I think the idea of a shadow side of ourselves just may have some truth to it. But I wouldn’t say that I believe it (I could be convinced that these things are not true).
That said, I will say that it is very interesting that both religion and psychology attempt to deal with the question “What is the self?” and “What should I do to maintain the optimum mental (spiritual for the religious) health?” Both schools of thoughts have members who advocate different methods and theories, but they both must ultimately admit that they have little to no empirical evidence in support. Both the preacher and the therapist must argue in favor of the existence of useful knowledge which cannot be gleaned empirically. So what does this say about the self? Does it imply that there is a “soul”? Does it imply that there is a “subconscious”? Perhaps. Perhaps not. As I see it, either they are right or they are wrong, but most likely they are a little of both (to varying degrees depending on the individual). The fact is neither the preacher nor the psychologist can give us definitive answers, but I submit that this does not mean that definitive answers to these questions are unachievable. Rather, it shows us that if there is a cap-t-Truth, we haven’t learned it yet. That’s right. Yet. We just may be able to eventually, however, which brings me to the next bit . . .
5. Technology: The Answers just may be around the corner!
So, we have learned that there is no definitive case for the true nature of self. Will this always be the case? Perhaps not. It is possible (not definite - I don’t believe, I suspect) that reductionists will bring us the answer. The field of neuroscience is in many way in its infancy, yet it has the potential to answer these questions for us. It just may be the case that by reverse engineering and studying the physical nature of the brain we will come up with a concrete definition and understanding of perception, self, subconscious, and ultimately free will.
The above is from this essay, which goes into great depth about how science can attack the question of consciousness. I suggest reading it, because it will do a much better job than I could in explaining where the greatest progress (scientifically) in this field is likely to arise. It is possible, and I think (but can’t prove) that we will ultimately come to a scientific understanding of human awareness. Only time will tell, but if it happens, the preachers and the therapists will have a whole lot of rethinking to do.
Conclusions
So, where do we end up after this gargantuan post? It would seem to me that Catharsis, Psychoanalysis, and the true nature of consciousness / man are all lacking in empirical evidence. So what can we conclude? I think the only proper conclusion is that we don’t know. Catharsis may be beneficial or it may be hogwash. But that bullet isn’t just for that one part of therapeutic theory, it’s for the whole damn field. Likewise, we may or may not have a soul or metaphysical nature. Does the fact that we cannot come to a conclusion either way through the use of empirical evidence mean that it is not possible to know the answers empirically? I must give a heartfelt no as my answer. It may be possible to find the answers scientifically, but at this time, they just aren’t there. I am neither convinced of the effectiveness of therapy or religion/spirituality, nor of the proposition that these are questions whose answers can never be known. As far as hearsay goes, I can tell you that writing as a cathartic method works for me, and others have stated the same. It may not work for others and in this sense it is very much like religion. It turns out that maybe we don’t need the capital-T-truth as long as we find our own personal version of the truth. But I’ll still be ready to hear it when (if) we do find it.
DaLovin’ Dj