Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Wow. A short post.

Check out some of Amy Childs' podcasts.

Also, if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of new links in the sidebar. One of these is to Amy Childs, who calls herself a "happiness consultant."

After listening to one of her podcasts, I realize that my recent blog posts have been manifestations of grief. I am in the "anger stage." That's good. It gives me energy that I didn't have before.

More on this to come. . .

27 comments:

Dick Fischbeck said...

Caution. This is from her first blog post.


<>

Totally!

By calling it “science,” and by some random stranger deciding what science “counts,” besides disrespecting children, we are totally disrespecting SCIENCE, and our amazing wondrous world and universe.

Julie H. Rose said...

??

Dick Fischbeck said...

No my business but...

<>

Julie H. Rose said...

I have no idea what you're referring to in either comment.

Dick Fischbeck said...

sorry.

i looked at her blog and thought she was dissing science.

Dick Fischbeck said...

it seems like my comments are cut short. format error, i guess. or i'm doing something wrong.

Julie H. Rose said...

I didn't read anything about that. I don't know much about this woman. Her interviews with ex-psychotherapist Daniel Mackler are simply fascinating.

Dick Fischbeck said...

i'm listening to one of those now.

they are talking about experiencing life with and without 'having' children.

Dick Fischbeck said...

he is talking about addiction. pro and con.

Dick Fischbeck said...

Dan says:

My writings focus on the causes, consequences, and radical significance of childhood trauma. I see childhood trauma as ranging from the extreme, which is common, to the mild, which is so much MORE common that few even notice it at all, much less call them by its proper name. I view the norm in our culture as being highly traumatized, and I view the average, and even above-average, childhood as being extremely traumatic – and the average parent as lacking both awareness of this and deep empathy for the child.

Julie H. Rose said...

Yeah. I read that. Here's the deal. Read almost everything on Mackler's website (mentioned that in a previous post). Seems pretty extreme, but a part of me agrees with everything. Still, something bugs me. Then I find these podcasts. There's something like a dozen of 'em. Amy Childs had the same initial reaction to him (with the extra added bonus of being a mother).

My posting this is not some kind of ringing endorsement for anyone. I just find it interesting, lol! VERY interesting!

Fabianna said...

Dan Mackler makes so much sense it's depressing. Romantic love only arises when we are filling some unmet childhood need? Because we are not 100% "well"? I like romance. Dinner dates and butterflies all that. He's messed everything up.

Fabianna said...

But I am going to argue against that as hard as I can. First of all, if everyone were 100% psychologically well no one would fall in love ever. Hardly any children would be born. Nature is against that.

Fabianna said...

OK. I´ve figured out what Daniel Mackler is. He is a party pooper. What he says is true. But he is just a party pooper. And he is the messenger that we want to shoot. But I can´t stop listening to him!

Dick Fischbeck said...

I'm sorry. This guy is full of it. He is making gigantic generalizations. He's a preacher basically. Or is he working from science? I'll do my homework now. See what's what.

Dick Fischbeck said...

He is going to save the world, he says. Front page of his blog.
Who does he think he is?

"I see our world growing more pathological, confused, polluted, overpopulated, and disturbed by the day – and I feel that to stand by and say nothing while we destroy our planet is irresponsible and even criminal. Yet I write with great hope – both for individual healing and for the collective healing of our world. I seek to offer a new perspective – on relationships, on enlightenment, on celibacy, on the pathology of the family system, and on the future of our species."

Dick Fischbeck said...

I mean look at the bs this guy writes. Yikes. I'm surprised he's gotten this far. yuck


Lie #7: Resolving All of Our Traumas Is Impossible.

Healing ancient traumas is extremely difficult—so much so that most people who attempt it give up quickly. They label it as absolutely “impossible”—to let themselves off the hook—and then they disappear into life’s myriad diversions, like addictions and romance and having children. Note: Right up until we sent men to the moon many also labeled this as impossible. Wrong they were.

Dick Fischbeck said...

Awful. Romance and having kids is right up there with addiction?!

Run while you still have a chance.

Dick Fischbeck said...

Grandiose. No?

17) But what if it takes people decades to heal from their childhood traumas? If everyone followed your guidelines wouldn’t that prevent the world from having children, and wouldn’t the species go extinct?

First, I think that if everyone logically followed my prescription and devoted themselves to healing their childhood traumas, a massive groundswell of healing momentum would ensue, and it would NOT take people decades to heal from their childhood traumas. At present it probably will take decades, though, because there’s almost no societal or interpersonal support for healing fully from childhood traumas. Nowadays if you try to heal fully—or even partially—from childhood traumas you do so almost entirely on your own: without allies, and with the hatred and resistance and dismissal of society. And that is extremely difficult—and certainly much harder than doing it in the midst of allies.

Dick Fischbeck said...

Today's last thought. If I put amen in my url, isn't that a tip-off that I am a fundie?

http://whateveramen.com/

Julie H. Rose said...

First off, I never said I agree 100% with Mackler. I find the interviews to be very interesting, and there's an enormous amount of food for thought. He takes Alice Miller's ideas and pushes them to the nth degree. Is that good? I'm not sure, but sometimes overstatement makes one think. It's certainly stimulating.

One should never swallow anyone else's ideas whole. Guru-izing anyone is a bad idea, even if that person is right on everything. Is anyone "right" on everything? I don't think so!

Dick, you ought to know that sometimes people with extreme views, ones that others dismiss as nut cases, have some really good ideas, and some crap ones, too. And I'm surprised you think there's something wrong with wanting to save the world. Didn't Fuller want to, on some level?

The podcasts are done by someone who doesn't agree with him totally, and that's another reason I supplied the link. There's a nerve this guy touches in everyone, and I think it's quite telling.

And I do think it's worth examining the motivations we have for wanting children, or wanting to be in relationships, instead of simply falling into these "natural behaviors" without serious conscious self reflection. What's wrong with that? Makes a lot of sense to me. The way he puts it, I agree sounds wild.

'Nuff said.

Dick Fischbeck said...

Oops. One more.

Am I messianic? Chosen by God to save the world? I don’t think so—because I don’t believe in a God who goes around choosing anything. If there is such a thing as God it’s only the best of our true self within—the true self connected with the universal river of truth. That said, I do believe the premises of my point of view could radically change the world in a profoundly positive way. And I do feel called to this work—from within, as the result of my life experiences—and I do hold myself to be a non-religious prophet of sorts…

Julie H. Rose said...

Amy Childs is not a fundamentalist in the least! The podcast is "whatever whatever, amen." I presume it's a word play on the big hit country song with the words "forever forever amen." She's actually recovering from being brought up in a fundamentalist community.

I am interested in why these ideas tick you off so much, Dick!

Dick Fischbeck said...

Sorry. I went overboard.

Julie H. Rose said...

And one last thing from me: I agree with this:
"If there is such a thing as God it’s only the best of our true self within—the true self connected with the universal river of truth."

Anyway, I'm not going to defend this guy. I like how radical he is, and I certainly don't agree with everything. I don't think there's ever been anyone very radical who hasn't had a messianic streak in them.

As the old saying goes, "Don't throw the baby away with the bath water."

Dick Fischbeck said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFmNMp3Mdto

Julie H. Rose said...

So, most of what that guy said is true, but in the midst of it he said something quite offensive. Should I discount the rest of it because of that?

Did you ever read this article in the NYT about Fuller? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/arts/music/15ster.html

As I wrote, all forward thinkers, revolutionaries, and radicals have a strain of messianic thinking! Also, as they say, "just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong" (or something to that effect). Folks who are paranoid, messianic, grandiose, depressed, eccentric, just plain nuts. . .whatever. . .have ideas worth listening to, and I'd even go so far as to say that extreme people may feel lousy because they see truths that are hard. A new study shows that depressed people have a more accurate assessment of reality. One example was that they had better accuracy at predicting the outcome of a game. But I'm getting off track here.

I've written recently about dismissive thinking. I've been guilty of it my entire life. I was raised to be dismissive, and I think a good many of us are. Debate is the norm, while simple listening is uncommon. People thrive on picking apart and attacking others' ideas on line, where it's somewhat anonymous and "safe."