Monthly Archives: April 2020

A middle way psychology

Leave a reply

What would this look like? To start, it would transcend psychology’s various dichotomies. These include individualism-collectivism.

Individualism is about “me” or “you”, while collectivism is about “we”/”us”. A prized value for individualism is independence; for collectivism, dependence and interdependence.

We might look to the example of assertiveness for inspiration. Assertiveness is the middle trait between passivity and aggression. Assertiveness is the ideal balance of passiveness and aggression: the assertive person is confident yet respectful.

To resolve individualism-collectivism, their middle must be clarified. What lies between these two is our desired cultural style: “indivectivism” or “collectividualism”. The question, then, is what is between you or I and we/us!

Advertisement

What is a psychological person?

Leave a reply

Maybe more aptly: who are they?

The psychological person is so necessarily by their being embedded in society among other, conscious agents.

As both conscious and societal, the psychological person has the following attributes:

  • They have a mind.
  • They engage in behaviors.
  • They have a distinct personality.
  • They respond to situations.
  • They experience.
  • They sense and perceive.
  • They think, feel, and motivate.
  • They pay attention.
  • They recall and foresee.
  • They learn.

What might this mean for the person who may not have a personality or general life situation? What if they don’t think, feel, or motivate? Surely, they must experience as a conscious being. Further, personhood has been granted according to societal status over the centuries. Societal, conscious personage is a keenly biosocial label. (If someone ceases to be alive medically, they are no longer technically a “person”.)

The psychological person is biosocial! Another way to say this is that people are biopsychosocial. Some may be more or less psychological than others in certain respects…

Scott Pilgrim and Kumar

Leave a reply

What do these characters and their stories–Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World and Harold & Kumar–have in common?

Scott Pilgrim fights for love and self-respect (and, ultimately–arguably…self-actualization!). Kumar, played by Kal Penn, fights for love, too. But what about self-respect?

Kumar doesn’t take himself or mundane aspects of his life that seriously. He’s a romantic genius who prefers a magical, spontaneous sort of life rather than one more ordinary or structured (best friend Harold is more of this flavor).

Scott and Kumar would both do anything for their respective, romantic loves. Scott gets caught up in what everyone around him wants until he happens upon Ramona Flowers at a party. Once he and she meet, he gives his life to them.

Kumar does the same once his love interest Vanessa proclaims her pregnancy (in the less-watched, but nonetheless fun and enjoyable A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas).

Ultimately, Scott and Kumar are both open enough to what life brings that they each meet the love of their lives. Through their adventures, the two realize that self-respect follows from love; and at least for Abraham Maslow, self-actualization would need to follow soon thereafter.

Harry Potter’s hero’s journey

Leave a reply

Harry died for the greater good. When he realized that part of Voldemort existed within him, he had to risk his own life to eradicate it.

The hero must vanquish evil his own evil before conquering capital-E Evil! He must come to understand that the worst virus of all lives within himself.

Once the hero sacrifices his life for all others–Others–he will return willingly (if not, at first, reluctantly) . He returns to save the world and defeat the enemy of the world~