ENEMIES: From War to Wisdom

In this episode, we discuss the meaning of curiosity as a primary emotion and how it is expanded or restricted, throughout our development from infancy through old age, by conscious and unconscious factors. Curiosity or “interest” motivates us to engage with our experiences in ways that we can learn from them. The human infant is born with a primary motivation to investigate its experiences with curiosity, even when they are painful. Naturally, our curiosity help us survive by allowing us to discern the markers of pleasure and pain.What blocks our curiosity, then, when we are relating to each other as adults? How and why do we lose interest when we disagree or believe we “have heard it all, already”? Why do we close our ears to what we disagree with or find emotionally threatening? In this podcast, we talk about how we can retain our natural curiosity and the “Don’t Know Mind” even when we are in a difficult conversation.

Why is it so hard to hear and feel another person’s meaning when you are in difficult conversations? Even though you may love the other person, when they speak about something that “makes you angry,” you may find it’s impossible to hear anything except your own thoughts. When we feel emotionally threatened, we protect ourselves and promote our own points. This is universal. Everyone closes their ears to anything except their own thoughts when they feel insulted or emotionally threatened. The second rule of Real Dialogue is called “Listening Mindfully.” It teaches us how to open our ears and our minds during emotional pain or animosity in order not to not to create an enemy even before we hear what is being said.

Why is it so hard to hear and feel another person’s meaning when you are in difficult conversations? Even though you may love the other person, when they speak about something that “makes you angry,” you may find it’s impossible to hear anything except your own thoughts. When we feel emotionally threatened, we protect ourselves and promote our own points. This is universal. Everyone closes their ears to anything except their own thoughts when they feel insulted or emotionally threatened. The second rule of Real Dialogue is called “Listening Mindfully.” It teaches us how to open our ears and our minds during emotional pain or animosity in order not to not to create an enemy even before we hear what is being said.

In this podcast, we talk about how and why a speaker should LOWER emotional threat if that person wants to be seen, heard, and felt accurately. We don’t have to “be nice” or even “be kind,” be we have to limit ourselves to our own experience in speaking (not using “we” or “you” or claim to know “the facts”). Being able to speak subjectively (only for yourself) means that you do not speak for someone else’s reality, perceptions, or feelings. Listening to this podcast you will learn how to lower emotional threat, how to remain authentic and confident, while cultivating an open space such as: “Here’s what it’s like for me, what’s it like for you?” This mindful space between our own experience and the experience of another person allows us to enter into conversation with people who are on a different side (of anything) without creating unnecessary hostility or making an enemy.

In this podcast, we talk about how and why a speaker should LOWER emotional threat if that person wants to be seen, heard, and felt accurately. We don’t have to “be nice” or even “be kind,” be we have to limit ourselves to our own experience in speaking (not using “we” or “you” or claim to know “the facts”). Being able to speak subjectively (only for yourself) means that you do not speak for someone else’s reality, perceptions, or feelings. Listening to this podcast you will learn how to lower emotional threat, how to remain authentic and confident, while cultivating an open space such as: “Here’s what it’s like for me, what’s it like for you?” This mindful space between our own experience and the experience of another person allows us to enter into conversation with people who are on a different side (of anything) without creating unnecessary hostility or making an enemy.

How do Homo Sapiens get and control power? What do we mean by power and how does it relate to influencing others or taking control? What is “true power” that can sustain us through our difficulties and “false power” that leads only to fears and misgivings? In this podcast, we will contemplate power and vulnerability, and how they function in our relationships, our aging, and our health.

How do Homo Sapiens get and control power? What do we mean by power and how does it relate to influencing others or taking control? What is “true power” that can sustain us through our difficulties and “false power” that leads only to fears and misgivings? In this podcast, we will contemplate power and vulnerability, and how they function in our relationships, our aging, and our health.

How do Homo Sapiens get and control power? What do we mean by power and how does it relate to influencing others or taking control? What is “true power” that can sustain us through our difficulties and “false power” that leads only to fears and misgivings? In this podcast, we will contemplate power and vulnerability, and how they function in our relationships, our aging, and our health.

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

What is death? Is it a flat-lining on the EEG in which the brain goes quiet? Is it cardiac arrest, the stopping of the heart? Is it the departing of consciousness from the body? Why does our definition of death change? If we cannot define death, how do we understand our fear of it? What’s the difference, for example, between what we feel about different kinds of death – e.g. “natural” death, murder, and accidental death? In this episode, we will explore the meanings of death in our own experiences, in the current science of Near Death Experience, and in the residues of the pandemic and our fears of contagious illness. Can we explore the meaning of death in the same way we explore the meaning of life?

There are many public debates about “free speech” in terms of limiting “hate speech” that includes insults, hostility, or slander against others, especially “vulnerable others.” In this podcast we discuss how speech (the ways we speak to ourselves and others) plays a central role in ceding or avoiding war and chaos. We will compare “free speech,” as defended in the US Constitution, with Right Speech as promoted in the Eightfold Noble Path of the Buddhist practice. Right Speech is divided into four components: abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh (divisive) speed, and abstaining from idle chatter. Speech and the written word are immensely powerful in creating wisdom or destruction. In this podcast, we will talk about how to develop and discern our speech so that we can engage in non-hatred at all times, opening the door to a humane treatment of others and ourselves.

There are many public debates about “free speech” in terms of limiting “hate speech” that includes insults, hostility, or slander against others, especially “vulnerable others.” In this podcast we discuss how speech (the ways we speak to ourselves and others) plays a central role in ceding or avoiding war and chaos. We will compare “free speech,” as defended in the US Constitution, with Right Speech as promoted in the Eightfold Noble Path of the Buddhist practice. Right Speech is divided into four components: abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh (divisive) speed, and abstaining from idle chatter. Speech and the written word are immensely powerful in creating wisdom or destruction. In this podcast, we will talk about how to develop and discern our speech so that we can engage in non-hatred at all times, opening the door to a humane treatment of others and ourselves.

There are many public debates about “free speech” in terms of limiting “hate speech” that includes insults, hostility, or slander against others, especially “vulnerable others.” In this podcast we discuss how speech (the ways we speak to ourselves and others) plays a central role in ceding or avoiding war and chaos. We will compare “free speech,” as defended in the US Constitution, with Right Speech as promoted in the Eightfold Noble Path of the Buddhist practice. Right Speech is divided into four components: abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh (divisive) speed, and abstaining from idle chatter. Speech and the written word are immensely powerful in creating wisdom or destruction. In this podcast, we will talk about how to develop and discern our speech so that we can engage in non-hatred at all times, opening the door to a humane treatment of others and ourselves.

There are many public debates about “free speech” in terms of limiting “hate speech” that includes insults, hostility, or slander against others, especially “vulnerable others.” In this podcast we discuss how speech (the ways we speak to ourselves and others) plays a central role in ceding or avoiding war and chaos. We will compare “free speech,” as defended in the US Constitution, with Right Speech as promoted in the Eightfold Noble Path of the Buddhist practice. Right Speech is divided into four components: abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh (divisive) speed, and abstaining from idle chatter. Speech and the written word are immensely powerful in creating wisdom or destruction. In this podcast, we will talk about how to develop and discern our speech so that we can engage in non-hatred at all times, opening the door to a humane treatment of others and ourselves.

Episode 40: What is Propaganda? How Can We Tell That We Are Being Persuaded by False or Fake Narratives? Part 2 with Polly Young-Eisendrath, Ph.D. and Eleanor Johnson with special guest Robert Caper In this second part of this podcast, we will explore the nature of propaganda and how easy it is to believe in rhetoric that is based on false assumptions. How can a listener/reader/consumer discern whether there are facts and evidence backing any particular report, statement, or argument? Is there some way to know if something that you read or hear is likely to be true or false? What is “confirmation bias” and what is “negativity bias,” and how do they contribute to propaganda? How does “suggestion” relate to propaganda or false statements and what can we do to protect ourselves against false suggestions? What about scientific standards for truth? What are they? And finally, do parents offer propaganda to their children when they say “eat your spinach because it has a lot of vitamins?” or “Don’t stare at the computer screen because it will harm your eyes?” or is this simply good guidance? We will talk about how parenting and parental authority can help or hinder children in developing the ability to sift through propaganda.

Episode 40: What is Propaganda? How Can We Tell That We Are Being Persuaded by False or Fake Narratives? Part 2 with Polly Young-Eisendrath, Ph.D. and Eleanor Johnson with special guest Robert Caper In this second part of this podcast, we will explore the nature of propaganda and how easy it is to believe in rhetoric that is based on false assumptions. How can a listener/reader/consumer discern whether there are facts and evidence backing any particular report, statement, or argument? Is there some way to know if something that you read or hear is likely to be true or false? What is “confirmation bias” and what is “negativity bias,” and how do they contribute to propaganda? How does “suggestion” relate to propaganda or false statements and what can we do to protect ourselves against false suggestions? What about scientific standards for truth? What are they? And finally, do parents offer propaganda to their children when they say “eat your spinach because it has a lot of vitamins?” or “Don’t stare at the computer screen because it will harm your eyes?” or is this simply good guidance? We will talk about how parenting and parental authority can help or hinder children in developing the ability to sift through propaganda.

In this podcast, we will explore the nature of propaganda and how easy it is to believe. How can a listener/reader/consumer discern whether there are facts and evidence backing any particular attitude, statement or marketing? Is there some way to know if something is likely to be true or false when you read about it or hear? What is “confirmation bias” and how does it function in relation to propaganda? What about the scientific standard of “falsification”? We will talk especially about medical, pharmaceutical, and health-related propaganda, as well as the ways the movies may enforce or resist our public tendencies to propaganda. And finally, do parents offer propaganda when they say things like “eat your spinach, it has lots of vitamins” or “don’t stare at the computer screen, it will ruin your vision” or is this simply good guidance? We will talk about how parental authority can help or hurt children in learning how to deal with propaganda.

In this podcast, we will explore the nature of propaganda and how easy it is to believe. How can a listener/reader/consumer discern whether there are facts and evidence backing any particular attitude, statement or marketing? Is there some way to know if something is likely to be true or false when you read about it or hear? What is “confirmation bias” and how does it function in relation to propaganda? What about the scientific standard of “falsification”? We will talk especially about medical, pharmaceutical, and health-related propaganda, as well as the ways the movies may enforce or resist our public tendencies to propaganda. And finally, do parents offer propaganda when they say things like “eat your spinach, it has lots of vitamins” or “don’t stare at the computer screen, it will ruin your vision” or is this simply good guidance? We will talk about how parental authority can help or hurt children in learning how to deal with propaganda.

NEW EPISODE of Enemies: From War to Wisdom is now live! Episode 38 (Part 2): What Is “Crowd Psychology”? How Does It Affect Individuals and Groups with Polly Young-Eisendrath, Ph.D. and Eleanor Johnson with special guest Robert Caper Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that crowd behavior (sometimes called “mob psychology”) leads to unlocking the unconscious mind in becoming identified with a “group mentality” in the slogans or motivations of a charismatic leader. More contemporary theories of crowd behavior, such as psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s idea of “deindividuation,” claim that anonymity and group unity can persuade people to lose their concern for others, and reduce their sensitivity to guilt, remorse, and self-evaluation. In this podcast, we will talk about the power of “suggestion” and how it functions in close relationships and public spaces. If you wonder how and why anti-social behavior and lack of forethought can overtake people in large protests or mass movements, this podcast is for you.

NEW EPISODE of Enemies: From War to Wisdom is now live! Episode 38 (Part 2): What Is “Crowd Psychology”? How Does It Affect Individuals and Groups with Polly Young-Eisendrath, Ph.D. and Eleanor Johnson with special guest Robert Caper Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that crowd behavior (sometimes called “mob psychology”) leads to unlocking the unconscious mind in becoming identified with a “group mentality” in the slogans or motivations of a charismatic leader. More contemporary theories of crowd behavior, such as psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s idea of “deindividuation,” claim that anonymity and group unity can persuade people to lose their concern for others, and reduce their sensitivity to guilt, remorse, and self-evaluation. In this podcast, we will talk about the power of “suggestion” and how it functions in close relationships and public spaces. If you wonder how and why anti-social behavior and lack of forethought can overtake people in large protests or mass movements, this podcast is for you.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that crowd behavior (sometimes called “mob psychology”) leads to unlocking the unconscious mind in becoming identified with a “group mentality” in the slogans or motivations of a charismatic leader. More contemporary theories of crowd behavior, such as psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s idea of “deindividuation,” claim that anonymity and group unity can persuade people to lose their concern for others, and reduce their sensitivity to guilt, remorse, and self-evaluation. In this podcast, we will talk about the power of “suggestion” and how it functions in close relationships and public spaces. If you wonder how and why anti-social behavior and lack of forethought can overtake people in large protests or mass movements, this podcast is for you.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that crowd behavior (sometimes called “mob psychology”) leads to unlocking the unconscious mind in becoming identified with a “group mentality” in the slogans or motivations of a charismatic leader. More contemporary theories of crowd behavior, such as psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s idea of “deindividuation,” claim that anonymity and group unity can persuade people to lose their concern for others, and reduce their sensitivity to guilt, remorse, and self-evaluation. In this podcast, we will talk about the power of “suggestion” and how it functions in close relationships and public spaces. If you wonder how and why anti-social behavior and lack of forethought can overtake people in large protests or mass movements, this podcast is for you.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that crowd behavior (sometimes called “mob psychology”) leads to unlocking the unconscious mind in becoming identified with a “group mentality” in the slogans or motivations of a charismatic leader. More contemporary theories of crowd behavior, such as psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s idea of “deindividuation,” claim that anonymity and group unity can persuade people to lose their concern for others, and reduce their sensitivity to guilt, remorse, and self-evaluation. In this podcast, we will talk about the power of “suggestion” and how it functions in close relationships and public spaces. If you wonder how and why anti-social behavior and lack of forethought can overtake people in large protests or mass movements, this podcast is for you.

In the arena of entangled and often painful human relationships, the mother-daughter relationship may be paramount. If you think about it for a moment, you realize that every woman on earth has been inside of another woman, and then come out and had to differentiate or at least grow apart from that original home. Women are far too often alienated from within themselves, divided against themselves, their bodies, and each other. Without blame, we may need to see that the mother-daughter bond has to be clarified by women in order to stop the alienation from ourselves and other women and to explore our own conflicts and power dynamics in order for us to move ahead as self-confident women. In this podcast, Polly and Eleanor are joined by Polly’s adult daughter Amber Rickert to speak together about this complex and too-often avoided conversations about how mothers and daughters affect each other over the generations.

In the arena of entangled and often painful human relationships, the mother-daughter relationship may be paramount. If you think about it for a moment, you realize that every woman on earth has been inside of another woman, and then come out and had to differentiate or at least grow apart from that original home. Women are far too often alienated from within themselves, divided against themselves, their bodies, and each other. Without blame, we may need to see that the mother-daughter bond has to be clarified by women in order to stop the alienation from ourselves and other women and to explore our own conflicts and power dynamics in order for us to move ahead as self-confident women. In this podcast, Polly and Eleanor are joined by Polly’s adult daughter Amber Rickert to speak together about this complex and too-often avoided conversations about how mothers and daughters affect each other over the generations.

In part two of this episode, we will talk about the theory offered by contemporary cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman to explain why our natural desires and fears do not lead us to insights about “reality.” We will review some of Hoffman’s model and approach which are still very much a work-in-progress. We are taking up Hoffman’s work on this podcast because we feel it offers an extraordinarily promising view of our human predicament in regard to our own self-protection and can help us sort out confusion about our “survival fitness” (experienced as our success in protecting ourselves and promoting ourselves). Along the way, we encounter the Buddhist view of reality (the Marks of Existence) that can be succinctly summarized as “It’s not perfect, it’s not permanent and it’s not personal.” We take a leap and compare it to what Hoffman is developing. Notably, we talk about how our current spacetime continuum cannot work in any of our contemporary scientific theories and must be changed. We also talk about how our personal experience of space-time is related to what psychologists call “emotional object constancy” – a necessary human development that begins around 18 months with the birth of the self-conscious emotions. We hope this conversation opens some new doors for thinking about why we currently embrace the notion that we have to “put on our own oxygen mask before we put on another’s.”

In part two of this episode, we will talk about the theory offered by contemporary cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman to explain why our natural desires and fears do not lead us to insights about “reality.” We will review some of Hoffman’s model and approach which are still very much a work-in-progress. We are taking up Hoffman’s work on this podcast because we feel it offers an extraordinarily promising view of our human predicament in regard to our own self-protection and can help us sort out confusion about our “survival fitness” (experienced as our success in protecting ourselves and promoting ourselves). Along the way, we encounter the Buddhist view of reality (the Marks of Existence) that can be succinctly summarized as “It’s not perfect, it’s not permanent and it’s not personal.” We take a leap and compare it to what Hoffman is developing. Notably, we talk about how our current spacetime continuum cannot work in any of our contemporary scientific theories and must be changed. We also talk about how our personal experience of space-time is related to what psychologists call “emotional object constancy” – a necessary human development that begins around 18 months with the birth of the self-conscious emotions. We hope this conversation opens some new doors for thinking about why we currently embrace the notion that we have to “put on our own oxygen mask before we put on another’s.”

In this episode, we will talk about the theory offered by contemporary cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman to explain why our natural desires and fears do not lead us to insights about “reality.” We will review some of Hoffman’s model and approach which are still very much a work-in-progress. We are taking up Hoffman’s work on this podcast because we feel it offers an extraordinarily promising view of our human predicament in regard to our own self-protection and can help us sort out confusions about our “survival fitness” (experienced as our success in protecting ourselves and promoting ourselves). Along the way, we encounter the Buddhist view of reality (the Marks of Existence) that can be succinctly summarized as “It’s not perfect, it’s not permanent and it’s not personal.” We take a leap and compare it to what Hoffman is developing. Notably, we talk about how our current spacetime continuum cannot work in any of our contemporary scientific theories and must be changed. We also talk about how our personal experience of space-time is related to what psychologists call “emotional object constancy” – a necessary human development that begins around 18 months with the birth of the self-conscious emotions. We hope this conversation opens some new doors for thinking about why we currently embrace the notion that we have to “put on our own oxygen mask before we put on another’s.” You can head over to www.payattentioninterviews.com to listen to the full interview with Donald Hoffman.

In this episode, we will talk about the theory offered by contemporary cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman to explain why our natural desires and fears do not lead us to insights about “reality.” We will review some of Hoffman’s model and approach which are still very much a work-in-progress. We are taking up Hoffman’s work on this podcast because we feel it offers an extraordinarily promising view of our human predicament in regard to our own self-protection and can help us sort out confusions about our “survival fitness” (experienced as our success in protecting ourselves and promoting ourselves). Along the way, we encounter the Buddhist view of reality (the Marks of Existence) that can be succinctly summarized as “It’s not perfect, it’s not permanent and it’s not personal.” We take a leap and compare it to what Hoffman is developing. Notably, we talk about how our current spacetime continuum cannot work in any of our contemporary scientific theories and must be changed. We also talk about how our personal experience of space-time is related to what psychologists call “emotional object constancy” – a necessary human development that begins around 18 months with the birth of the self-conscious emotions. We hope this conversation opens some new doors for thinking about why we currently embrace the notion that we have to “put on our own oxygen mask before we put on another’s.” You can head over to www.payattentioninterviews.com to listen to the full interview with Donald Hoffman.

In 1958, psychologist Fritz Heider originated “attribution theory” in psychology. This theory tried to answer the question: How do people make sense of what happens to them? How do they hold themselves and others responsible or not responsible without knowing the actual causes or evidence for behavior? A related theory developed by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954 is called “Locus of Control” and looks at how we reason about our own and other’s motivations. In this podcast, we will discuss the ways we all tend to credit or blame or shame ourselves and others when we judge actions or behaviors as intentional. Do we attribute harmful actions to character or personality traits as “He is such a narcissist and that’s why he never asks about my ideas!” or to circumstances as in “No wonder she told a lie, she could not possibly deal with her financial situation!” The way we explain our own and others’ intentions play a major role in our hostilities, judgments, and life satisfaction. As we move through this conversation, we also talk about the Zen story of the Empty Rowboat which looks at attribution, control, and blame in a fresh way.

In 1958, psychologist Fritz Heider originated “attribution theory” in psychology. This theory tried to answer the question: How do people make sense of what happens to them? How do they hold themselves and others responsible or not responsible without knowing the actual causes or evidence for behavior? A related theory developed by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954 is called “Locus of Control” and looks at how we reason about our own and other’s motivations. In this podcast, we will discuss the ways we all tend to credit or blame or shame ourselves and others when we judge actions or behaviors as intentional. Do we attribute harmful actions to character or personality traits as “He is such a narcissist and that’s why he never asks about my ideas!” or to circumstances as in “No wonder she told a lie, she could not possibly deal with her financial situation!” The way we explain our own and others’ intentions play a major role in our hostilities, judgments, and life satisfaction. As we move through this conversation, we also talk about the Zen story of the Empty Rowboat which looks at attribution, control, and blame in a fresh way.

In this podcast, we talk about the philosophy and meaning behind our logo of a white peace dove that is caught in a red interdiction circle – either wholly caught or partly escaping. Of course, the dove is a symbol of peace or harmony, or even a peace offering when it has an olive branch in its beak, as pictured in our logo. The red interdiction circle is an international symbol used on highways and products and written communications to mean “no,” “nay” or “prohibited.” Our symbol of the dove trapped in the interdiction circle is meant to indicate that homo sapiens must become conscious of their natural enemy-making tendencies in order to have any modicum of peace among ourselves. Peace will never come freely to the human world. We are naturally hostile beings, not naturally peaceful for all of the reasons we have pointed out in previous podcasts. We also talk about the actual source of the meme for our podcast: Leonard Cohen’s much-loved “Anthem” -- from which many people know the line “There’s a crack in everything and that’s how the light gets in,” but few know the line “The dove is never free.” Along the way, we speak about Real Dialogue and the path from war to wisdom.

In this podcast, we talk about the philosophy and meaning behind our logo of a white peace dove that is caught in a red interdiction circle – either wholly caught or partly escaping. Of course, the dove is a symbol of peace or harmony, or even a peace offering when it has an olive branch in its beak, as pictured in our logo. The red interdiction circle is an international symbol used on highways and products and written communications to mean “no,” “nay” or “prohibited.” Our symbol of the dove trapped in the interdiction circle is meant to indicate that homo sapiens must become conscious of their natural enemy-making tendencies in order to have any modicum of peace among ourselves. Peace will never come freely to the human world. We are naturally hostile beings, not naturally peaceful for all of the reasons we have pointed out in previous podcasts. We also talk about the actual source of the meme for our podcast: Leonard Cohen’s much-loved “Anthem” -- from which many people know the line “There’s a crack in everything and that’s how the light gets in,” but few know the line “The dove is never free.” Along the way, we speak about Real Dialogue and the path from war to wisdom.

Years ago, there was a saying that came out of family psychiatry, especially in working with families of young adults with severe psychological disorders. It went like this, “When it comes to parents, there’s the help that hurts and the hurt that helps” – meaning that it is very difficult to know how much we can really help when loved ones are in need or in trouble (especially when they are teens or adults), and how much we need to allow them to find their own way. In this episode, we will talk about helping those at home with you, as well as helping people in your community who need help. When there is an acute need, what is the help that hurts? Sometimes we find ourselves giving opinions, advice, and even making judgments when others need help. These strategies are not helpful. Other times, we may not want someone close to us to go through a painful experience, simply because we are too afraid of the outcome for ourselves. The ways we help and try to help need during this COVID 19 crisis can be fined tuned if we pay closer attention to the nature of compassion, sympathy, control, and empathy.

Years ago, there was a saying that came out of family psychiatry, especially in working with families of young adults with severe psychological disorders. It went like this, “When it comes to parents, there’s the help that hurts and the hurt that helps” – meaning that it is very difficult to know how much we can really help when loved ones are in need or in trouble (especially when they are teens or adults), and how much we need to allow them to find their own way. In this episode, we will talk about helping those at home with you, as well as helping people in your community who need help. When there is an acute need, what is the help that hurts? Sometimes we find ourselves giving opinions, advice, and even making judgments when others need help. These strategies are not helpful. Other times, we may not want someone close to us to go through a painful experience, simply because we are too afraid of the outcome for ourselves. The ways we help and try to help need during this COVID 19 crisis can be fined tuned if we pay closer attention to the nature of compassion, sympathy, control, and empathy.

On earlier podcasts, we have talked about what it means to be a human being, an individual person who has a complex experience of seeing, hearing and feeling. On this episode we will go into the details of the individual world of being human and why it’s so hard for us to agree about what is happening from moment to moment. Our perceptions of “reality” are between about 45% and 85% individual at any given moment. That means we are not in the “same world” and consequently we don’t share the same meanings about what is going on. We base our ideas and actions on the meanings we perceive and not on reality, as it is. For that reason, we need to study the nature of reality and to be modest about our perceptions. In this podcast, we will talk about both of these subjects and why the metaphor of a “snow globe” works very well to depict the nature of our individual subjectivity.

On earlier podcasts, we have talked about what it means to be a human being, an individual person who has a complex experience of seeing, hearing and feeling. On this episode we will go into the details of the individual world of being human and why it’s so hard for us to agree about what is happening from moment to moment. Our perceptions of “reality” are between about 45% and 85% individual at any given moment. That means we are not in the “same world” and consequently we don’t share the same meanings about what is going on. We base our ideas and actions on the meanings we perceive and not on reality, as it is. For that reason, we need to study the nature of reality and to be modest about our perceptions. In this podcast, we will talk about both of these subjects and why the metaphor of a “snow globe” works very well to depict the nature of our individual subjectivity.

At this crucial juncture when we are beginning to contemplate our return to “life outside,” when the lock-down is over, we especially need to be reflective, thoughtful, and open-minded. The famous poet and artist William Blake wrote “Without Contraries, No Progress” in his famous poem “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” In this episode, we will talk about the importance of all sides of the conversation being included in our coming to terms with what is next, regarding this virus, our economy, and other future pandemics. How do we work with our communities, ourselves, and our bodies in order to stay healthy and aware? How does our human relationship with nature evolve now that we have seen the imbalances of human greed and wealth openly revealed? Without getting into politics, we will touch on topics such as 5G, vaccines, our human and civil rights, and what kinds of issues we need to open our eyes and ears to in these coming weeks, months, and years.

At this crucial juncture when we are beginning to contemplate our return to “life outside,” when the lock-down is over, we especially need to be reflective, thoughtful, and open-minded. The famous poet and artist William Blake wrote “Without Contraries, No Progress” in his famous poem “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” In this episode, we will talk about the importance of all sides of the conversation being included in our coming to terms with what is next, regarding this virus, our economy, and other future pandemics. How do we work with our communities, ourselves, and our bodies in order to stay healthy and aware? How does our human relationship with nature evolve now that we have seen the imbalances of human greed and wealth openly revealed? Without getting into politics, we will touch on topics such as 5G, vaccines, our human and civil rights, and what kinds of issues we need to open our eyes and ears to in these coming weeks, months, and years.

More than three centuries ago in 1793, the great poet and artist William Blake said, “Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.” And then in 1916, the imminent psychoanalyst Carl Jung wrote as though he were speaking to us today, “The present shows with appalling clarity how little able people are to let the other man’s argument count, although this capacity is a fundamental and indispensable condition for any human community.” At this moment, it seems as if we are persuaded of our own moral superiority in ways that can lead to not only our intolerance of others’ views and opinions, but to the impoverishment of our own. Today’s politics, social media, and popular memes enthrone self-righteousness and moral superiority as we rush to tear down anyone’s perspective that is different from our own cherished views. As many of us may now discredit systems of thought and artistic expressions from earlier cultures and periods of time, in this podcast, we ask the question “How are we cheated by our own self-righteousness and what can we do about it?”

More than three centuries ago in 1793, the great poet and artist William Blake said, “Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.” And then in 1916, the imminent psychoanalyst Carl Jung wrote as though he were speaking to us today, “The present shows with appalling clarity how little able people are to let the other man’s argument count, although this capacity is a fundamental and indispensable condition for any human community.” At this moment, it seems as if we are persuaded of our own moral superiority in ways that can lead to not only our intolerance of others’ views and opinions, but to the impoverishment of our own. Today’s politics, social media, and popular memes enthrone self-righteousness and moral superiority as we rush to tear down anyone’s perspective that is different from our own cherished views. As many of us may now discredit systems of thought and artistic expressions from earlier cultures and periods of time, in this podcast, we ask the question “How are we cheated by our own self-righteousness and what can we do about it?”

Humiliation is the experience of being exposed in our weaknesses and losing our social status in a couple or group. Being humiliated naturally evokes rage as a protective mechanism because an individual feels undermined and loses face in front of others. As we have pointed out many times on the podcast, human beings are naturally self-promoting and self-protective in groups and families. The humiliation-rage cycle is an interactive cycle between two people or groups who use shaming and blaming or “calling out” faults as a means of handling conflicts and differences. In this episode, we will talk about how destructive this cycle quickly becomes and how it should be avoided at every step of the way during conflicts in which the two parties actually want to change the other’s perspective or make an impact. In the humiliation-rage cycle, individuals get caught in the “fog of war” – a pervasive uncertainty about what they are saying, defending, and intending and why they are doing so. Keeping emotional threat levels low is always the best way to begin a conflict and to avoid the humiliation-rage cycle.

Humiliation is the experience of being exposed in our weaknesses and losing our social status in a couple or group. Being humiliated naturally evokes rage as a protective mechanism because an individual feels undermined and loses face in front of others. As we have pointed out many times on the podcast, human beings are naturally self-promoting and self-protective in groups and families. The humiliation-rage cycle is an interactive cycle between two people or groups who use shaming and blaming or “calling out” faults as a means of handling conflicts and differences. In this episode, we will talk about how destructive this cycle quickly becomes and how it should be avoided at every step of the way during conflicts in which the two parties actually want to change the other’s perspective or make an impact. In the humiliation-rage cycle, individuals get caught in the “fog of war” – a pervasive uncertainty about what they are saying, defending, and intending and why they are doing so. Keeping emotional threat levels low is always the best way to begin a conflict and to avoid the humiliation-rage cycle.

Polly and Jill continue their conversation with psychoanalyst Robert Caper (expert on projective identification) about the emotional kidnapping and confusion that occur in unconscious communication in couples, other dyads, and groups when people get emotionally activated. This is the second part of a conversation about Projection and Projective Identification.

Polly and Jill continue their conversation with psychoanalyst Robert Caper (expert on projective identification) about the emotional kidnapping and confusion that occur in unconscious communication in couples, other dyads, and groups when people get emotionally activated. This is the second part of a conversation about Projection and Projective Identification.

(Part 1) Why are even simple topics often difficult to discuss, especially if people have different viewpoints? Underlying many confusions and animosities in human interactions in couples and groups is a form of unconscious emotional communication that implies and evokes strong reactions in ways that usually fall outside our awareness. We suddenly feel triggered, trapped, or kidnapped into an emotional reality that we had not intended. This kind of communication may be positive or idealized, as when we fall in love. More often, though, it is negative and agitating as when we feel we MUST protect ourselves by insisting on the faults of another, either someone we know or a stranger who carries an emotional meaning for us.

(Part 1) Why are even simple topics often difficult to discuss, especially if people have different viewpoints? Underlying many confusions and animosities in human interactions in couples and groups is a form of unconscious emotional communication that implies and evokes strong reactions in ways that usually fall outside our awareness. We suddenly feel triggered, trapped, or kidnapped into an emotional reality that we had not intended. This kind of communication may be positive or idealized, as when we fall in love. More often, though, it is negative and agitating as when we feel we MUST protect ourselves by insisting on the faults of another, either someone we know or a stranger who carries an emotional meaning for us.