The Human Enterprise of Choice...and the Golden Rule

Toddy and I had a great talk today (as we often do) about what choice is. This is a topic I like. I like to explore the interactions of human instinct and higher reasoning. If we walk down the street and have to defecate...we can resist the urge and do it when it is socially acceptable. When a person walks by who is attractive to us we do not try to engage coitus with this person immediately even though our loins may burn :) and we would do anything to... The fullness of this ability seems to be exclusive to humans.

I know many of us are not Christian, but I appreciate C.S. Lewis' writings--not the Sci-Fi stuff...the commentary.

I thought the following was interesting:

Imagine three men who go to war. One has the ordinary
natural fear of danger that any man has and he subdues it by moral effort
and becomes a brave man. Let us suppose that the other two have, as a result
of things in their sub-consciousness, exaggerated, irrational fears, which
no amount of moral effort can do anything about. Now suppose that a
psychoanalyst comes along and cures these two: that is, he puts them both
back in the position of the first man. Well it is just then that the
psychoanalytical problem is over and the moral problem begins. Because, now
that they are cured, these two men might take quite different lines. The
first might say, "Thank goodness I've got rid of all those doo-dahs. Now at
last I can do what I always wanted to do-my duty to the cause of freedom."
But the other might say, "Well, I'm very glad that I now feel moderately
cool under fire, but, of course, that doesn't alter the fact that I'm still
jolly well determined to look after Number One and let the other chap do the
dangerous job whenever I can. Indeed one of the good things about feeling
less frightened is that I can now look after myself much more efficiently
and can be much cleverer at hiding the fact from the others." Now this
difference is a purely moral one and psychoanalysis cannot do anything about
it. However much you improve the man's raw material, you have still got
something else: the real, free choice of the man, on the material presented
to him, either to put his own advantage first or to put it last And this
free choice is the only thing that morality is concerned with.

I think this does an adequate job of separating instinct or abnormal psychology from our ability to choose. That space to move...the opportunity we have to dictate our futures is what I was talking to Todd about. Two individuals who are cured of their analogous mental diseases can still lead very different lives with their newfound mental faculties. It is that fire of individualism that is so important in our species.

Christianity professes (among others) two powerful principles: "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1-5) and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:35-40). You don't have to be remotely Christian to appreciate these principles.

Unless we are wearing the black gown of a judge...we really can't point fingers. We have got our own set of problems that could also be thrown under the microscope of scrutiny. Charity (or the secular version: The Golden Rule) is a powerful idea for all of us.

The divisions in this country are so pronounced. Divisions among people of varying ideologies or lifestyles are equally pronounced. The way I approach these potentially divisive issues are:

(I believe it is important for us to think about these ideas for our clinical interactions with the public)

1) This person has the same opportunities to choose that I do. Their ability to make a so-called "bad choice" (as perceived by me) is JUST AS IMPORTANT as my own ability to make a perceived "right choice."

2) Being accepting and supportive of another individual does not require me to morph into their paradigm and take on their traits. I can maintain my own persona and opinions while interacting with someone very different than me. (i.e. A teenager who is engaging in alcoholism is still loved by the parents despite the undesireable, dangerous behavior.)

3) I should not antagonize others' beliefs. Cordially discussing or debating something is one thing...but someone's hearfelt devotion to a belief system of any kind is not my territory. (Of course their are exceptions: a psychiatrist treating someone who insists on pulling out all their hair, for example.)

4) Despite rigid opinions or ingrained characteristics that I may have, I can always be permeable to new ideas and new ways of thinking. Taking a step back and evaluating our position objectively is always healthy.

5) Personal pride of proving that I am right should never eclipse the potential relationship with the individual. Belief systems or heartfelt opinions are rarely changed in casual debate. A person's own transformation is just that--their own. Conversely, a potential positive interaction and/or friendship is a much more likely occurence and should be the focus of our interactions instead of an unquenchable urge to make people think just like we do.

6) Stigmas, stereotypes, and sarcasm (how's that for literary alliteration?!) put us on a slippery slope.

7) If I feel threatened by someone who is different than me despite a lack of provocation...or if I feel like I have to defend myself though no act of aggression has been made, that reveals a gross inadequacy on my part to interact with others. I should, then, turn the spotlight on myself to address my own issues that would lead me to act this way.

Idealistic? Absolutely.

But I suppose therein lies the poetry of it all. These are the things that were taught to us sitting on the "magic rug" after story time in grade school as our teacher taught us about how to treat others. Life is devilishly cyclical...simplistic lessons in the past still have unparalled potency in our current endeavors.

To come full circle, I guess that's one of the reasons I enjoy my friendship and frequent discussions with Todd, and many others in our class, so much is that we are so different in many ways but the differences are so peripheral and frankly--meaningless. Undoubtedly, the similarities COULD be drowned out by the heated debates or differing opinions...but they never are. Mutual respect and appreciation are bottomless wells that can never expire. Those are two elements that we should all try to fill up our life "gas tanks" with. We will run infinitely longer on those ideas than the alternative fuels of stubbornness, self-indulgence, and personal pride.