Painting Suffering

Sometimes I notice the signs; The lack of eye contact, the nervous laughter, the fidgeting fingers. 'I'm okay.' 'I'm fine'. From what I understand, it is usually best to be open about suffering. That means, to be open about your own suffering and other people's suffering. Kind people usually do more of the latter, rejecting their own selves for an 'ethically selfless' approach; that is, to help others, even when it disadvantages them. This is potentially unhealthy, as this may cause more suffering to be produced and cause others to become dependant on the suffering of others for their own happiness. These dependant people are like leeches to their friends, but become addicted to an endless cycle which can fertile depression. The kind people are like cattle that end up having their blood drainied dry, and then still try to give away some more. We all need blood to survive, but without having any for ourselves we fall. Without much we go very, very dizzy.

It should be understood that it is illogical to presume that a 'leech' was a worst person to a 'cattle'. Both have equal potential to partake in a doomed cycle. Because there are so many reasons for suffering, both the leech and the cattle will have reasons for their behaviour and it does not make them a 'better' or 'worse' person. Perhaps part of being free of the burdens that both behaviours bring is asking oneself if they are a leech or a cattle, and then considering what makes them happy. Seeking awareness of what is going on inwards [yourself] and outwards [the outside world] and seeking happiness seems a good path to take to me.

How people may cope with suffering
Here's a few habits I've noticed which are signs that somebody may be suffering.
 
- Explaining the reasons for their personality again and again
- Anger
- Random fits of emotion
- Withdrawal
- Paranoia/fear
- Indulging - Thrillseeking, risk taking, over eating, drinking
- Inducing - self harm, causing one to become ill, rejecting one's self
- Procrastination - i.e - avoiding sensitive topics

  There are many, many more signs that have not been included in the list. Observation and trusting in honesty is the key.

There was once a time I was ashamed of my illness which involved constantly going to the bathroom. One year the bathroom happened to be beside a housemate's bedroom, and I feel that perhaps, having someone constantly nip in and cry now and then is quite unsettling. [It's pretty reasonable really.] Perhaps, if I explained my illness, if I could imagine that it would be fine, accepted, understood, the house would have suffered a little less. I should have been honest about my suffering.


Don't forget to communicate.

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Mary Solberg

Published in the late 70s, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy edited by George D. Goldman and Donald S. Milman has been an entertaining if out of date read. The book is certainly pro-Freud, and mentions many theories, with a particular chapter on resistance and transference.

I quote "Sooner or later the patient cones to the additional realization that everyone else is in the same boat as she. Parents, spouses, lovers, friends -- all living out transferences and repetition compulsions with her and with each other. She induces others to play allotted roles in the drama of her repetition compulsions. Simultaneously they are inducing  her to play an allotted role in their dramas, and none of the players is aware that old scripts are being repeatedly acted out with minor variations."

"Let us suppose that temporary despair resolves itself and the patient is ready for the next phase of therapy. There is another discouraging discovery. Repetition compulsions do not vanish with awareness of their existence. The past hangs on stubbornly. It must be caught in the action, so to speak, again and again, mulled over and renounced afresh in the light of new memories and deep understandings." (Pages 58 - 59)

Also known as working through coined by Freud in 1914.

Just under the description is a poem written by Mary Solberg, that I cannot find published anywhere else. I don't tend to like much poetry, but I feel this deserves to be shared.

My mother's gone into hiding
behind you.
Your motives are agonizing replays
of mine, in search of mother
behind me.
I can see the shadow of her martyred smile,
long suffering, knowing, pained,
and hear the echo of her voice.
You should know better
(and so, dear God, should I, so should I).
We take such trouble to copyright
our own translations of the same ancient texts,
you'd think we'd written them ourselves.
But no, we only spend ourselves
trying to come up with that one new word
that will change the meaning just enough
to make a difference.

- Mary Solberg

Music and Work

I recently wrote a review about a restaurant whose music unintentionally sped in rhythm when there was more customers. I think this is a good idea, as a faster rhythm could help give andreline and passion to the workers, while a slower rhythm could help relax to the worker and improve concentration. Imagine that the slower, ultra-cheese Chinese song playing in the background makes the staff member concentrate just a little more on your Mango Pudding, and you can romanticise my idea a little more. It would also help kitchen staff know when they're busy and give them the motivation they need to keep on top of things and maybe help moral if the music isn't actually all that bad. It could become stress relief.
But how does music actually affect workers?

Music and Work

I did a very small amount of research, and came across Marek Korczynski's 'Rhythmns of Labor: Music at Work in the British Isles' and 'Stayin' Alive on the Factory Floor: An ethnography of music used in the routinized workplace.' I wonder if he thinks of the names himself?

Marek Korcyznski argues that rhythm of labour reflects rhythm of music, and coordinates labour. According to his research and quotes from previous research, "music's role at work has changed under industrialisation." (DeNora 2000) Korczynski emphasises that popular music 'primarily operates as a tool for social control, creating "One-dimensional," passive, uncritical listeners."(Adorno 1941,76) and effectively, makes workers work harder with less resistance. The musical 'song' allows a voice that would usually be banned from normal discourse at work, and hence, essentially replaces this and thus, resistance. In the past, workers may have sung about their woes and this would be acceptable. Take a look at folk songs for example. Nowadays, the popular song has different themes, and there tends not to be a singalong during work because this is seen as negative by the employer. Korczynski suggests that singing gives workers power, and of course, from an employers view, they don't want that.

So the cheesy music you hear controls staff and efficiency levels. Workers discount the boredom of repetitive work, removing the threat of workers uniting and rebelling. Korczynski suggests that music helps "factory-goodwill" in Britian and helps the "Stayin' Alive culture." He also suggested when business was slow or there was no work to do, there was little engagement made with music.

While repetition may have its benefits in the eye of the employer, I believe this on the whole would lower the moral of the workers - and while it may encourage suppression, it would also discourage ambition and creativity. 
Music that reflects the pace of the situation in the restaurant could help reduce stress, help focus and coordination.
But for the good of everyone, it should be varied. In this economy, I think rebellion is a little less likely, and repetition may only reduce ambition, moral and effort.

-------

Notes:
Marek Korczynski is a Sociologist specialising in studying the workplace. He has written various works including Rhythms of Labor: Music at Work in the British Isles and Stayin' Alive on the Factory Floor: An ethnography of music used in the routinized workplace. You can find every sociologist/psychologist mentioned above in his work.

Life, life, life & The Decision Book

Late yesterday I said goodbye to my boyfriend once again as he returned to trains, grey brick and city smoke on his way back home. From the time I walked back, from the beginning of the today, I have done fairly little, but ponder on small, naggly things that wiggle around in front of my eyes. Little things, little worms of stress that are either going to be solved on Wednesday, or later in the year. Things. Life things.

To my side, I have "The Decision Book: Fifty models for strategic thinking." It was left in my room since yesterday, and just from a short trip in my bag, it has suffered a few marks on the cover, to the extent that I think I'll secretly buy a replacement.
The book uses a series of models with easy to interpret diagrams and systems.
Systems. Diagrams. I do like me some of those!
This is in order to help ask appropriate questions which in turn - aim to help you find your answer.

This shall be my weapon to increase my philosophy count. *Manic laughter here*
I should explain - I'm having a little competition with a friend of mine. We're trying to write as many profiles for countries and philosophers as we can. The biggest post count at the end of the year wins. You want to ask why we chose those topics? This may help.

So, turning to a random page, I find 'The Flow Model'. This is an indeed very simple model that generously mentions two philosophers. Firstly, two thousand years ago Aristole came to the conclusion that what a person wants above all is to be happy. In 1961, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote "While happiness itself is sought for its own sake, every other goal - health, beauty, money or power -- is valued only because we expect that it will make us happy." He used the term 'flow' as the name of the state of feeling happy, and after interviewing over a thousand people, he found that all responses had certain things in common. When we're in the flow we tend to be intensely focused on an activity, neither under-challenged or over-challenged, with a clear objective that receives immediate feedback.

Following?

This means that his vision of happiness contradicts the idea that relaxation directly follows happiness. Imagine two axis, the y being 'challenges' the other x axis being 'abilities'. There is a line of flow from the 0y, 0x, that rises to a straight positive gradient. If you were to think about the last three challenges you faced, decide the level of challenge it was, compared to the level of ability you had. If they match - you hit into the line of flow. If they don't - you're either above the line of flow - the challenge is too high, therefore you're over-challenged. Or you're too low on the graph and your ability is much higher than the challenge.

I find this an interesting concept.
Just from a quick google search I find he has a video on TED. I still don't have Internet at home, nor have I brought headphones with me today, so I can't judge the quality, yet TED videos are normally good.
Mihaly is also a positive psychologist. Positive psychology isn't just about treating mental illness, but studying positive human development. It is thought that focusing solely on disorder could result in limited understanding of a person's condition.
And finally, while he has lived most of his life in America and is essentially, American, he was born in Hungary.
Most likely this will amuse a certain psychologist I know.

How to "read" people - The basic basics: Do's and Don'ts

A very basic 'basics' on how to "read" people. This is written very simply, most likely for a much younger audience than perhaps, my actual readers. (Most likely, because I don't really know what I am talking about.) I guess this could be more of a simple guide to conversation rather than reading, but I enjoyed writing in the sarcasm here, so I'll just apologise now and publish.

(Perhaps I shouldn't write posts at half one in the morning...)

When reading people, don't force the Sherlock.

What I mean by this:

Don't over complicate things unnecessarily. You may notice strange habits, and want to fit a story into it, but this can be a mistake, and you may be over dramatising the situation. It can be fun using imagination - looking at the passerby on the street and wanting to guess their entire live story - but remember, you're guessing! In reality, when facts are so limited, statistically, you're never going to get it right. Which leads nicely onto the next point...

Statistics can be useful.

What I mean by this:

People are called people because a person can be quite alike with another person. People do similar things. Similar habits. Statistically, if you find one similar habit means a certain thing, or if you find when you say something, people react a similar way - you can work with that statistic. It's not foolproof, or save, but it can help.
People are individuals after all.

Leave the magnifying glass behind or Don't force the Sherlock 2

What I mean by this:

Also, when you spot certain things, think about the quality of information you have received. When your friend changes their butter from 'Utterly Butterly' to 'Clover' - by the time you've invented a nifty story about how they're feeling - they've left! And you've got zilch. Which, leads me onto another point, why the heck don't you just ask them anyway?

Talking and being direct is the best way to gain knowledge.

What I mean by this:

If you think about it, it's kind of creepy if you're just watching your friends and don't actually try to communicate with them. If you want to know something, ask. Don't presume, don't second guess, don't will them to give away a clue. Just ask. If you're friend is honest, they will tell you. If they are hiding something, then perhaps, it may possibly be for the best?
10 % of communication is done verbally. You may have heard advice from others to watch out for all that give away body language.
Actually, you're already doing that subconsciously. Sometimes, it's the words, (sometimes the slip ups!) that give you the important information. Which leads onto...

LISTEN. LISTEN. LISTEN. DANG WELL MAKE SURE TO LISTEN.

What I mean by this:

Sometimes, people need someone to talk to and they choose you. Listen. What they tell you is specifically important, and if you ever want to read or understand people - it is a given that you must listen to what they say. Listening is your best ally, and can help put you in a good advantage. It's a bit sneaky, but sometimes, listening or overhearing/watching can also be very helpful in understanding people.
Imagine a child that listens and remembers those conversations between the adults at dinner. The child catches that Aunt Pat didn't like Nanny Pauline's parsnips. In fact, Aunt Pat always complains about Pauline's food, - but not to Pauline herself, and has, on occasion, said she quite likes parsnips. So, most likely, Aunt Pat probably just doesn't really like Nanny Pauline - but not only that, there is still a feud, still an active effort to dislike Nanny Pauline. The child watches how others react to Aunt Pat. Lets say, they all sigh and move the conversation quickly - perhaps, they've had enough of Aunt Pat, and they see the feud as pointless and empty. That's a lot of information that child has gained just by watching, and listening.

Knowing when to talk and when to listen is an important key skill to have.  It is essential to practice this.

Once, when I was studying Buddhism, I happened to find myself sitting in the middle of a seminar lead by a monk. We were given the task to pair up with the rest of the students, and have one speaker, one listener. It's an interesting exercise, just to listen to someone, yet not utter a single word, not even to reassure that you are listening. Sometimes, the speakers found it difficult to talk for the allocated time, but others found it easier and enjoyed speaking. Despite the different types of speakers, each listener gained significant information from their partner, despite never meeting or speaking to them before in their lives.

To listen before talking, would probably help you know what to talk about. Try to watch when they want to say something important, sometimes, they will look for you to change the subject, or interrupt with your own views, etc. But if you focus on listening, your speaker will most likely add more detail, and thus, further your understanding, helping your "reading".