The Perils of Positive Thinking
unlimitedmagazine.com
unlimitedmagazine.com
Still, I thought the article pretty good. A key insight was a quote by Dr. Neel Burton:
"In traditional cultures, people lived in very close knit communities. They knew each other, and they didn’t really focus on themselves so much. The focus on life was on the survival community and not on their own individuality. Modern society is very different from that. There’s a huge emphasis on me; my goals, my life, my death. That puts a lot of pressure on people, and it’s not the kind of pressure that we’re evolved to cope with. That’s the source of many of our problems."
Even still, there are many pieces of evidence that seem to suggest social rather than individualist roots. We (meaning normal, functional human beings) all have the ability from a young age to sympathize with others. We have a strong desire to be part of a group. We feel guilt when we do something socially wrong. Intimate relationships release endorphins that give us pleasure. Language itself is only necessary in a strongly social species.
Honestly, I can't fathom human society as it is today beginning from small, isolated groups of people who are strong individualists. Only a select few of us can survive happily by ourselves, and I suspect that's been true for millennia. Our ability to cooperate and evolve socially, as opposed to biologically, is what has allowed us to become the most dominant species on Earth.
For example the earliest traders slid between bandits and merchants largely based on how strong you where. Or consider traditional views on corporal punishment. Violently beating ones family members was considered normal and proper let alone what society at large would do to people.
How on earth did this get on the front page.
HN probably needs to separate the upvote and the bookmark features.
There should be a new fad : Agile 'life'. Work with a partner. Always run tests by validating that what you are doing is aligned with the official "Christian" doctrine.
Some religions, like LDS, make these issues official in the sense you are talking about. Eg, a bishop must judge your purity and sign a form before you can do certain religious rites at the temple. I have not seen this in my Protestant experience, and I would be sad to hear about it.
I attend a somewhat large church. I hesitate to call it a megachurch, because it is not focused on production values and the prosperity gospel. But there are four services every week.
There is a problem for every large church in how to shrink the church you regularly interact with to an appropriate size. My church tends to stratify classes and outside groups by stage of life (think the seven ages of man) and geographical barea. There are still opportunities to mix, but the main point is to give church more continuity.
You can interpret this directive or similar to mean that only the oh-so-holy are the public face of the church. The forgiveness of Peter at the end of John's gospel might be another case. I don't think it's a good interpretation, but it's not so far from the truth.
It could really depend on the group and the church. At least for me, the two things most likely to launch me into ministry (used broadly) are discipleship and small groups.
And it could depend on the church's stance toward the culture and the world. There are many possible positions, as in Niebuhr's "Christ and Culture". If you believe the pop culture is full of filth and you are called to be outside of it, you will get a very different sense of the church's mission toward non-Christian people, or even toward Christians who are closer to the pop culture.
(edit: took an extra h out of Niebuhr)
"The answer, Burton believes, lies in the fact that the average self-improvement treatise encourages the belief that personal happiness is the product of sculpted abs, nicer clothes, or more personal wealth. Those are dangerous distractions, he argues, from the true source of human happiness, our relationships with others."
http://thirtytwothousanddays.com/blog/2010/05/the-things-tha...
I wrote the following:
1. Exercise, connect with friends, have sex, sleep, and be grateful. A lot. Seriously, do all of these things as much as you can! (although perhaps not all at the same time :) )
2. Find work that you love and are good at, or are able to become good at. (This will almost certainly be aligned in some way with your inner purpose.)
3. Live in and enjoy the moment, and make nothing a means to an end. (A regular practice of meditation can you help do this.)
4. Take responsibility for your life, and set achievable goals.
5. Don’t worry too much about getting rich - more income and wealth don’t greatly increase your happiness level, once you have reached a basic level of comfort appropriate to the community around you.
None of it was really "OH MY GOD, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!" kind of stuff... but the reminder is useful sometimes when doing strategic life planning.
The original paper was found here [pdf] http://www.trendfollowing.com/whitepaper/happiness.pdf
Yes, we should embrace our imperfections. But not blindly. Doing so makes us fat and lazy, while indeed trying to "bench press them out of existence" makes us gaunt and workaholic.
I think the old cross-stitch on the wall in my parents' house got it right: we need "the courage to change the things we can, the serenity to accept the things we can't, and the wisdom to know the difference."
I have very simple visualization for such moment. Imagine an 'U' turned upside down, or a classic bell curve. Before 30 you're going up and looking up, and see something like a blue sky or other positive illusion. After crossing the ridge, you're starting to go down, but you're looking back and up, trying to push out from consciousness what you just saw ahead. All those activities are mostly about supporting an illusion of remaining at the highest point.
For some people (it depends of your culture) it could be a cross, and that is how they come to realize why religion exist. They just didn't saw it from the opposite side.