ACTION ALERT: bPlease Help
Take action & spread the word: National Wildlife Federation
ACTION ALERT: bPlease Help
Take action & spread the word: National Wildlife Federation
Is this for real?? pic.twitter.com/5vRLIn8zXy
This tremendous world I have inside of me. How to free myself, and this world, without tearing myself to pieces. And rather tear myself to a thousand pieces than be buried with this world within me.”Franz Kafka (via kafkaesque-world)
I don’t like that superegoistic word, “mindfulness.”
Clinical psychology and counselling have long been rivals to orthodox psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Armed with an evidence-base rooted in experimental psychology methods, and able to point to the efficacy of certain behavioural therapies, these other psy-disciplines appeared as compacted and dense complexes of tradition and scientificity deployed in the name of committment to a pragmatics that was not wedded to arcane diagnositic nosological arguments. When CBT arrived on the scene the cheer went up: at last a scientific therapeutic approach with measurable outcomes! at last a technique that we can tweek and alter for every occasion! With the arrival of CBT came a relatively brief intervention that was also relatively cheap in terms of training and implementation, and that could be made to fit every form of psychological suffering. Today we have reached the point where it has become more-or-less accepted that CBT can be used with people diagnosed as schizophrenic, a position that was initially resisted (in part because of historical biases about the chronicity and irreversibility of psychosis that were unfounded). There is a lot to say about CBT in terms of its history, its temporality, its functional obsession with technique, its religiosity, its basic repackaging of the earlier orthodox psychoanalytic demand that subjects be made to adapt to the world in which they found themselves. All this will be dealt with elsewhere. Here, I want to point to one of the unique features of CBT: its infinite plasticity.
In this, and other ways, the relation between psychiatry and psychology- presented as competitive and/orantagonistic- is actually based on a prior mimetic relation, operating on their mutual obsession with scientificity. There is an endless proliferation of cognitive behaviour approaches that are modelled according to this semiological modifying specification. This also carried over into the current third wave cognitive therapies, especially in those based on mindfulness such as Mindfulness-CBT and the Californian sounding “Acceptance and Committment Therapy”. These “updates” to the psy-wear appear to respond to existing criticisms of CBT, in particular the charge that CBT approaches the existential murk, the weft of subjectivation, the embodied physiology of affective phenomenology, and the sexuated nature of subjectivation by a crudely rationalist reductionism. If CBT ignored our physio-affectivity then Mindfulness & ACT seek to recognise them by way of “dwelling with” phenomenality. Patients are encouraged to “sit with” suicidal thoughts, to examine them as objective phenomena separate from themselves, and to learn to tolerate physiological states of hyperarousal (there is even a form of ACT for pain management; meditation being cheaper, but also safer, than reliance on opiates). If CBT codified subjectivity as entirely rationalist- and if it reappropriated the Freudian unconscious via a crude simplification and disavowal whereby the former’s complexity and nuance became the simplified stupidity of “cognitive schemas”- then Mindfulness and ACT return to the unconscious via meditative techniques. Yet this update is not an update but a kind of regression and intensification. Far from addressing those criticisms we’ve touched on, the Third Wave returns CBT to its philosophical roots in Stoicism, a philosophy that has been criticised again and again as quietistic, overly cognitive, cruelly heartless, and, ultimately, a strange admixture of materialist and idealist elements.
Anxiety reveals the nothing.
We “hover” in anxiety. More precisely, anxiety leaves us hanging because it induces the slipping away of beings as a whole. This implies that we ourselves - we who are in being - in the midst of beings slip away from ourselves. At bottom therefore it is not as though “you” or “I” feel ill at ease; rather it is this way for some “one.” In the altogether unsettling experience of this hovering where there is nothing to hold onto, pure Dasein is all that is still there.”Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik (What is Metaphysics?) (via poeticsofdeath)
Cloth mushrooms by Mr. Finch.
Arrested Development, Kafka, nepotism and familial entanglement in suburban Orange County, CA.
Scientific management, also called Taylorism, was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management.
Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas.
Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.
Scientific management’s application was contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent, detail-oriented management from mere misguided micromanagement also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers.
“The art world shouldn’t use ‘black artist’ as a code for ‘other.’ We make work from our experiences like everyone else. White, black, Asian, whatever, we’re just artists at the end of the day. We need more diversity in schools, museums and galleries. It’s happening, just not fast enough. I assure you it’ll be a different conversation about ‘black artists’ in another 20 years.”
Parents look out for their kids. It’s the way of the world. But in a time of sharply heightened inequality in America, those connections – call it nepotism – can have eye-popping results. Europe long assumed inherited advantage. Took it for granted. The U.S. has prided itself as the land of merit. Get ahead on your merits. But advantage is concentrating. And, says, a new report, linking to politics. This hour On Point: the power elite and nepotism in America. Plus, we’ll look at the new shape of the SAT exam, and what it will mean for young college applicants.
We are all an entangled existence.
Lacan noticed me when he devoted a session of his seminar to my book on Sacher-Masoch  I was told—although I never knew anything more than this—that he had devoted more than an hour to my book. And then he came to a conference at Lyon, where I was then teaching. He gave an absolutely unbelievable lecture…. It was there that he uttered his famous formula, “Psychoanalysis can do everything except make an idiot seem intelligible.” After the conference, he came to our place for dinner. And since he went to bed very late, he stayed a long time. I remember: it was after midnight and he absolutely had to have a special whisky. It was truly a nightmare, that night.
My only great encounter with him was after the appearance of Anti-Oedipus  I’m sure he took it badly. He must have held it against us, Félix and me. But finally, a few months later, he summoned me—there’s no other word for it. He wanted to see me. And so I went. He made me wait in his antechamber. It was filled with people, I didn’t know if they were patients, admirers, journalists…. He made me wait a long time—a little too long, all the same—and then he finally received me. He rolled out a list of all his disciples, and said that they were all worthless [nuls] (the only person he said nothing bad about was Jacques-Alain Miller). It made me smile, because I recalled Binswanger telling the story of a similar scene: Freud saying bad things [End Page 635] about Jones, Abraham, etc. And Binswanger was shrewd enough to assume that Freud would say the same thing about him when he wasn’t there. So Lacan was speaking, and everyone was condemned, except Miller. And then he said to me, “What I need is someone like you” [C’est quelqu’un comme vous qu’il me faut.]”Gilles Deleuze, interview, 1995 (via crematedadolescent)