@ dfhsdhd
Your extensive response deserves more time than I can afford; I used to get embroiled in these kinds of discussions online and found it took up far too much time and was not worth it. So please don’t infer my lack of response to mean anything other than a recognition that, to discuss this matter with you would be futile b/c you have a certain set of beliefs that you either developed after reading people such as Tolle and the other authors listed, or you found that these authors share your already established belief system.
I have nothing against Tolle and, in fact, a number of my patients read him. I’m all for anything that can help people live a more self-actualized, healthy, productive, adaptive life that can also have positive benefits for other people. I am therefore happy that these patients have found inspiration in his writings. The same can be said for anyone who truly gets “The Big Book” and lives their life in accordance with it–rather than merely quoting from it without any appreciation for what it all really means…kind of like people who are proud that they can cite philosophers but have not really done anything in their own lives worthy of mention. So, I am not disagreeing with your perspective because people such as Tolle aren’t exactly what one would call a credible mental health professional; he’s more of a philosopher IMO and, as long as he connects his words to real actions–which he does much of the time–I have respect for some of what he states. Other stuff seems far too esoteric to be practical, hence it is fascinating but not exactly beneficial in a real-life sense.
Now, one thing that concerns me is when people find solace not in neologisms but in revisions of words that have already been defined and accepted. To take such a word and define it differently, one must be able to show that his/her new definition is superior to the existing one; merely modifying it to suit one’s own needs is not a credible endeavour. To wit:
There are two kinds of harm. One is pain, the other is anguish. Pain comes from tissue damage. Anguish comes from thinking. The example of penetrating a two year-old seems to me to be Straw Man Fallacy, because this would be the behavior of a sadist, not a pedophile. Pedophiles are interested in caressing, mutual masturbation, oral sex, or intercrural sex; not penetration of the anus or vagina – certainly not of a toddler. Masturbation or intercural sex do not cause pain; what is left of ‘harm’ then is anguish; the anguish of pedophilic sex is produced from the social structure as described above in “1”.
This involves “your” (likely derived from one of the cited authors–thank you for the list, btw) definition of “harm” and “pedophile.” How can “you” arbitrarily define a pedophile as you have? Whose definition is that? NAMBLA’s? I would argue “yes.” Only a pedophile–defined nearly universally (aside from pedophiles) as a sexual preference for children–would describe it as you have. That kind of a definition is, my friend, a rationalization–defined as a lame justification for one’s “unacceptable” thoughts, feelings, urges, motives, behaviours–for something that can cause significant harm to children. To claim that sexual intercourse with children is the act of a sadist and not a pedophile is pure double speak or manipulation of reality to suit one’s own unhealthy needs; in this case, it is unhealthy because it is causing serious harm to an innocent child.
One does not need to be a clinical psychologist to recognize an excessively rigid belief system that will not change because to do so would be to acknowledge that the person has some very serious issues that, in modern civilized society, are considered unhealthy, immoral, and mentally/sexually disordered. Nothing I nor anyone else says will change your thinking because to do so would be like changing your entire self-concept–which is too frightening of a proposition for you. Therefore, I will not engage further purely out of the realization that I would be wasting hours of my life trying to discuss something with someone who is literally incapable of seeing things any other way, lest he lose touch with his self-concept.
Along these lines, most of what you wrote is based on the opinions of certain people who appeal to you. Yes, psychology is also based on opinions; even “research” is usually simply a means of creating studies to try to support one’s opinions. So it is a matter of which opinion one chooses to hold, with the hope that the decision is based on at least some good research and/or observation of human functioning. To claim that pedophilic tendencies are at the root of civilization is a dubious leap of inference. It’s the same as Freud’s over-emphasis of sexual urges rather than “attachment” or social/nurturant needs/desires. But that brings us back to your highly subjective definition of pedophilia as a “good” thing, rather than recognizing it for the sickness it is when the urges are acted on. Yes, the “sickness” is an opinion but it also has a lot of good research, science, and clinical observation behind it.
Because of time, I will simply comment on a few simpler issue and then bid you adieu:
First, I engage in proper psychotherapy, employing a number of powerful techniques based on various orientations in which I was trained. This is very different from “counselling work.” It’s not a matter of mere semantics but education. Second, you or Ramana Maharshi are so wrong to claim we all begin accepting of pretty much all tastes. We are genetically programmed to prefer certain tastes and to avoid others because, as the theory goes, these preferences developed out of “natural selection”: certain tastes suggest the food is good for us while other tastes indicate potential harm. The same goes for smells. So if you/Ramana want to try to use such an analogy, at least be more accurate.
As for “interpretation,” “narratives” etc., yes I am well aware of these issues and lecture on them extensively. I also lecture on Freud and make reference to his concept of “polymorphous perverse.” But I also provide documents to show how much of Freud’s work in the area of sexuality was driven by his own neurotic needs and beliefs. A great source is Jeffrey Masson; although he may be one of the most arrogant men on the planet and took liberties with a number of his inferences–hence some of what he has written has been discredited–much of his work has not been adequately challenged or disproved. Don’t get me wrong: I am a quasi-Freudian (not neo-Freudian) as I have trained in several therapies based on his work, along with very different orientations/therapies as well. However, I also did my research to try to see where his claims may have been dubious and thus I am not a zealot and do not take much of what he said literally.
Again, an extensive dissertation on these issues is beyond my time, as my professional practice keeps me very busy. I have read what you wrote and, while some of it may be interesting and some of it may have merit, I am not going to waste time trying to discuss things with someone who has chosen to accept certain belief systems which are only that: belief systems–some of which may in fact be based on solid psychological, anthropological, historical, evolutionary work. But other aspects are more philosophical or theoretical opinions and perspectives that make sense to the authors and to their readers or disciples…which you could just as easily apply to my own stance I acknowledge.