Finding Happiness and Overcoming Depression

[Brigid]

I suppose I could quote both to show the difference:

The Philokalia:

On Prayer: One Hundred and Fifty-Three Texts

79. Surely, when you do realize where you are, you will gladly sorrow and, like Isaiah, will reproach yourself because, being unclean, and dwelling in the midst of an unclean people - that is, of enemies - you dare to stand before the Lord of hosts (cf. Isa. 6:5).

80. If you pray truly, you will gain great assurance; angels will come to you as they came to Daniel, and they will illuminate you with knowledge of the inner essences of created things (cf. Dan. 2:19).

81. Know that the holy angels encourage us to pray and stand beside us, rejoicing and praying for us (cf. Tobit 12:12). Therefore, if we are negligent and admit thoughts from the enemy, we greatly provoke the angels. For while they struggle hard on our behalf we do not even take the trouble to pray to God for ourselves, but we despise their services to us and, abandoning their Lord and God, we consort with unclean demons.

82. Pray gently and calmly, sing with understanding and rhythm; then you will soar like a young eagle high in the heavens.

83. Psalmody calms the passions and curbs the uncontrolled impulses in the body; and prayer enables the intellect to activate its own energy.

84. Prayer is the energy which accords with the dignity of the intellect; it is the intellect's true and highest activity.

85. Psalmody appertains to the wisdom of the world of multi­plicity; prayer is the prelude to the immaterial knowledge of the One.

86. Spiritual knowledge has great beauty: it is the helpmate of prayer, awakening the noetic power of the intellect to contem­plation of divine knowledge.

87. If you have not yet received the gift of prayer or psalmody, persevere patiently and you will receive it.

88. 'And He spake a parable to them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to lose heart.' So do not lose heart and despair because you have not yet received the gift of prayer. You will receive it later. In the same parable we read: 'Though I do not fear God, or man's opinion, yet because this widow troubles me, I will vindicate her.' Similarly, God will speedily vindicate those who cry to Him day and night (cf. Luke 18:1-8). Take heart, then, and persevere diligently in holy prayer.

Introduction to the Science of Mental Health:

Page 1, Chapter 1:

If a science is defined as an organized body of knowledge of things through their causes (1), then the goal of any science of psychology must, by its very nature, be to arrive at the causes of mental health and illness. But this presupposes knowledge of the intellect itself as well as those faculties which may have some influence on the intellect. Moreover, it is apparent that modern psychology has not fully grasped the nature of the intellect itself since it has not been able to provide an accurate or complete definition of mental illness. Before any science engaged in an investigation of its proper object, it is necessary to know those things which constitute each science in general in order to be certain that one's science is engaging its object properly. In other words, one must know those things which are required for each science to be certain that the particular science under question fulfills the requirements necessary to comprise any valid science. . .

One of the fundamental misunderstandings of modern psychology relates to the material object. Since the Thomistic/realist understanding of man is that man is a composite of body and soul, we have reached our first fundamental difference with the way modern psychology views man. Modern psychology views man as nothing more than a physical or material thing. (16) However, since the faculties of man reside in the body and soul composite or in the soul alone, and since the intellect is one of these faculties, any valid psychology must recognize that its object of study is not merely material. Rather, man's intellect has three parts, two of which are immaterial and perform their functions independently of the body. Psychology has for its primary material object the intellect of man, for the science of mental health essentially studies the human intellect. but since the human intellect depends on other faculties for its knowledge and since other faculties can have a direct and indirect effect on the intellect, psychology studies secondarily those things and faculties of man which affect the human intellect. Some of those faculties are likewise immaterial (e.g. the will) and this must be kept in mind regarding the material object of psychology. It is because modern psychology has departed from its proper understanding of man's ontological constitution that it has not had much success in curing modern man's psychology illnesses.

The formal object is the point of view taken toward the material object and since psychology has as its primary concern mental health, then its point of view or ratio will be from the perspective of health. Therefore, in a secondary fashion, psychology will look at those faculties and things which affect the health of the intellect. This is what essentially separates it from epistemology, for epistemology studies the human intellect from the point of view of how it knows rather than from the point of view of its health. Moreover, psychology also differs from the philosophy of man insofar as it considers only a part of man, i.e. the intellect and those things which affect the intellect, as well as things outside of man which affect the intellect. (17)

Interior Causes, page. 273:

Per accidens mental illness which affects the memory can be healed in a few ways. The first way is that when a memory that disturbs the individual is recalled, the cogitative power can be moved by the possible intellect and will to disassociate in the memory the thing causing the trouble. Sometimes it is necessary for the possible intellect to make an act of judgement about the memory and with an act of will, reformulate the image or add to the image that which is curative of the thing remembered. Consequently, the memory will be re-stored and as a result, it will be cured. It may happen that one will have to perform this process repeatedly to habituate the various powers about the recalled memory as well as to habituate the memory itself regarding that specific memory. Conversely, one can cause damage to the memorative power by falsifying the sense species and moving the memory to store it in that fashion. Often when an experience is painful, people will remember it based upon the emotional pain involved rather than as it actually occured because through an act of judgement or from the cogitative power, the person alters the phantasm so as to be in congruity with the pain rather than keeping the species whole or as it is. Hence, someone can begin causing problems for himself merely by the way he approaches certain experiences and this can have an effect on memory.

I think I'll need to read both the first volume of the Philokalia and Fr. Rippingers book. Is there one of his volumes that speaks to this any more than the others?

[Bailey2]

We all can see now that the 'supposed'(?) tension between science and the Church is not necessary or true at all (for example, look at the Jesuits huge telescope - nuclear? - in Rome). There is no need that secular practitioners or scientists should have any difficulty with Church teaching/practices. Even the 'scientific method' was developed by monks. Why can't we mesh the too? It makes pragmatic sense to me, at least.

Yes,  I was playing.  it's getting too serious..... i'll stop.......... copied above.  will read in hotel....... got to go.......
blessings

[Shin]

Well, he now sells only one book, which is his three books in one volume.

[Bailey2]

I was packing here and  tried to find this: The relevant chapter would be chapter 10, page 529, right in the middle of the book.

My copy is in three seperate volumes that start at Pg 1 so there is no p529.  could you give me the volume and the title of the chapter instead.  I'll have to get it when I get back Monday afternoon.

[Shin]

That would be chapter ten in volume 2.

[Shin]

I can't believe you actually got the book! 

[Brigid]

We all can see now that the 'supposed'(?) tension between science and the Church is not necessary or true at all (for example, look at the Jesuits huge telescope - nuclear? - in Rome). There is no need that secular practitioners or scientists should have any difficulty with Church teaching/practices. Even the 'scientific method' was developed by monks. Why can't we mesh the too? It makes pragmatic sense to me, at least.

Yes,  I was playing.  it's getting too serious..... i'll stop.......... copied above.  will read in hotel....... got to go.......
blessings

I'm sorry I didn't catch your playing. My fault. Don't stop posting on this. It's fun. It lets me use my "grey cells" and they don't get 'out to play' much.

[Bailey2]

I'm sorry I didn't catch your playing. My fault. Don't stop posting on this. It's fun. It lets me use my "grey cells" and they don't get 'out to play' much.
[/quote]

Oh good!  But, I can only post today and tomorrow as I will be giving up forums for Lent.  I'll explain in other section. 

[Bailey2]

One of the fundamental misunderstandings of modern psychology relates to the material object. Since the Thomistic/realist understanding of man is that man is a composite of body and soul, we have reached our first fundamental difference with the way modern psychology views man. Modern psychology views man as nothing more than a physical or material thing. (16) However, since the faculties of man reside in the body and soul composite or in the soul alone, and since the intellect is one of these faculties, any valid psychology must recognize that its object of study is not merely material. Rather, man's intellect has three parts, two of which are immaterial and perform their functions independently of the body.

How does he reconcile this with the Incarnation?  And I thought the soul was infused (ie. fused, one with, not alongside of)? 


Interior Causes, page. 273:

Per accidens mental illness which affects the memory can be healed in a few ways. The first way is that when a memory that disturbs the individual is recalled, the cogitative power can be moved by the possible intellect and will to disassociate in the memory the thing causing the trouble. Sometimes it is necessary for the possible intellect to make an act of judgement about the memory and with an act of will, reformulate the image or add to the image that which is curative of the thing remembered. Consequently, the memory will be re-stored and as a result, it will be cured. It may happen that one will have to perform this process repeatedly to habituate the various powers about the recalled memory as well as to habituate the memory itself regarding that specific memory. Conversely, one can cause damage to the memorative power by falsifying the sense species and moving the memory to store it in that fashion. Often when an experience is painful, people will remember it based upon the emotional pain involved rather than as it actually occured because through an act of judgement or from the cogitative power, the person alters the phantasm so as to be in congruity with the pain rather than keeping the species whole or as it is. Hence, someone can begin causing problems for himself merely by the way he approaches certain experiences and this can have an effect on memory.

[/quote]

This is a very good stance on memory and the foundation of distinguishing between good and bad therapy.

[Bailey2]

 Moreover, it is apparent that modern psychology has not fully grasped the nature of the intellect itself since it has not been able to provide an accurate or complete definition of mental illness.

Modern science did not grasp the nature of epilepsy, infections, or leprosy a few years back.  Present inaccuracies does not mean there won't be accuracy  in the future.  I just read an article in a psychotherapy magazine about how the definition of mental illness is now becoming more precise due to neuroscience.


Some of those faculties are likewise immaterial (e.g. the will) and this must be kept in mind regarding the material object of psychology.

The will is a function of the executive functions of the brain (soul and body fused, not seperate) and is easily seen on SPECT, both when working properly and also when impaired.  It is quite material.

I suppose coming from a philosophical viewpoint, the term faculties is different from that of psychology and science but if that is true then one cannot compare apples and oranges in ones understanding of mental illness, nor claim one superior to another.  

[Bailey2]

[/quote]
Oh I know enough not to recommend too hard books to people, they never read them or are simply confused by them.  I think this is a very arrogant statement. There's plenty too much to handle for ordinary folks.  I consider myself an ordinary folk, thankfully!

Which is one of the reasons colleges have become so dumbed down -- they assume everyone should go, everyone should not, a large portion of the population actually should only be pursuing blue collar work, which is causing a lot of trouble these days -- but that is besides the point.

If the world worked according to your shoulds, my husband would not have a PHD in Physics, nor have several patents for ideas that have saved hundreds of lives.  Instead, he would be a TV repair man like his father since he had learning disabilities and school was difficult for him.  Under your system, he would have been identified as the large portion of ungifted majority ineligible for higher education.

[/quote]

[Bailey2]

I can't believe you actually got the book! 

Of course!  I'm open minded.

[Brigid]

One of the fundamental misunderstandings of modern psychology relates to the material object. Since the Thomistic/realist understanding of man is that man is a composite of body and soul, we have reached our first fundamental difference with the way modern psychology views man. Modern psychology views man as nothing more than a physical or material thing. (16) However, since the faculties of man reside in the body and soul composite or in the soul alone, and since the intellect is one of these faculties, any valid psychology must recognize that its object of study is not merely material. Rather, man's intellect has three parts, two of which are immaterial and perform their functions independently of the body.

How does he reconcile this with the Incarnation?  And I thought the soul was infused (ie. fused, one with, not alongside of)? 

As I understand it, the soul is one with the body as the Trinity is one (with three persons) and humans were made in His Image. As far as the Incarnation, you might meditate on John 1:14. It seems to me to "fit the bill".


Interior Causes, page. 273:

Per accidens mental illness which affects the memory can be healed in a few ways. The first way is that when a memory that disturbs the individual is recalled, the cogitative power can be moved by the possible intellect and will to disassociate in the memory the thing causing the trouble. Sometimes it is necessary for the possible intellect to make an act of judgement about the memory and with an act of will, reformulate the image or add to the image that which is curative of the thing remembered. Consequently, the memory will be re-stored and as a result, it will be cured. It may happen that one will have to perform this process repeatedly to habituate the various powers about the recalled memory as well as to habituate the memory itself regarding that specific memory. Conversely, one can cause damage to the memorative power by falsifying the sense species and moving the memory to store it in that fashion. Often when an experience is painful, people will remember it based upon the emotional pain involved rather than as it actually occured because through an act of judgement or from the cogitative power, the person alters the phantasm so as to be in congruity with the pain rather than keeping the species whole or as it is. Hence, someone can begin causing problems for himself merely by the way he approaches certain experiences and this can have an effect on memory.

This is a very good stance on memory and the foundation of distinguishing between good and bad therapy.
[/quote]

I'd hope any Pdoc I have to have will have read this.

[Brigid]

Moreover, it is apparent that modern psychology has not fully grasped the nature of the intellect itself since it has not been able to provide an accurate or complete definition of mental illness.

Modern science did not grasp the nature of epilepsy, infections, or leprosy a few years back.  Present inaccuracies does not mean there won't be accuracy  in the future.  I just read an article in a psychotherapy magazine about how the definition of mental illness is now becoming more precise due to neuroscience.

Yay, neuroscience! I've always been interested in that.


Some of those faculties are likewise immaterial (e.g. the will) and this must be kept in mind regarding the material object of psychology.

The will is a function of the executive functions of the brain (soul and body fused, not seperate) and is easily seen on SPECT, both when working properly and also when impaired.  It is quite material.

I suppose coming from a philosophical viewpoint, the term faculties is different from that of psychology and science but if that is true then one cannot compare apples and oranges in ones understanding of mental illness, nor claim one superior to another.  

I have to agree with him on this. I don't feel that "executive functions of the brain" are superior (as in ensuring a lasting affect, such as in therapy). I know that this is the more popular thoughts and I'm not surprised that changes do show up on SPECT, however to me this is more due to one thing effecting other facets, not that the will causes the changes. Maybe the executive functions of the brain imitate the executive functions of businesses or politics (and we've seen where that leads ).

[Shin]

Oh I know enough not to recommend too hard books to people, they never read them or are simply confused by them.  I think this is a very arrogant statement. There's plenty too much to handle for ordinary folks.   I consider myself an ordinary folk, thankfully!

Which is one of the reasons colleges have become so dumbed down -- they assume everyone should go, everyone should not, a large portion of the population actually should only be pursuing blue collar work, which is causing a lot of trouble these days -- but that is besides the point.

If the world worked according to your shoulds, my husband would not have a PHD in Physics, nor have several patents for ideas that have saved hundreds of lives.  Instead, he would be a TV repair man like his father since he had learning disabilities and school was difficult for him.  Under your system, he would have been identified as the large portion of ungifted majority ineligible for higher education.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, I don't think it's arrogant at all, certainly that's not how I feel saying it. I think of myself as someone often happier doing blue collar work. I'm just saying the simple truth. Many people I've met do not want to read complicated books, have difficulty with them, and would only be troubled if I suggested them and excuse themselves if I gave them to them. That's not arrogance, it's just how life is. I don't make any judgements against them for this, why would I or anyone? Not everyone is as good a reader as everyone else. It would be wrong for me to insist they do something they do not like all the time. A dyslexic friend of mine never wants me to recommend books to him for example, but that is extreme, other friends too who are not do not want to read and it is too difficult especially if I give them a book with long convoluted paragraphs and words.

Just like if someone tried to give me a some higher math books to read.

Some of the Mensa people pick up languages and think circles around me, I know plenty of people who are very quick, and far more intelligent than other people in the swiftness of their thoughts and ease of memory. They may not be as sensible, make the right decisions, but they are far more suitable for university than other people. So what's the issue?

Some people prefer sports, some people prefer carpentry, other people like working white collar, the world is not one gigantic column of marching college graduates, sorry.   I think you saying 'it's arrogant' is bringing something to the discussion that reading in something not there at all. You can say it's inaccurate that many people aren't suited for college, but you shouldn't be saying it's arrogant. People's value isn't based on their intelligence, and trying to make everyone reach a capacity they are not happy in is actually, what is going to cause problems for people. I'd never be happy as a math teacher, and plenty other people wouldn't either. And there are plenty of people who are called to be plumbers, farmers, carpenters, and other blue collar workers -- that's their vocation, not college, given to them by God and what the gifts they were given are for.  

I'm not making any system at all, just stating how life is. Certainly saying many people are happier not going to college and white collar work shouldn't be the only work or 'the best' work doesn't mean your husband would have any different life whatsoever. It means simply that people who -do not want- to go, because -they are not meant to-, would have better lives than if they are forced to by a society that requires a degree that is not needed and only puts people to work they neither like nor can afford.

I don't value white collar work more than blue collar at all. In fact, it's an old saying that you should always teach your child a trade so that child never goes hungry and you fail as a parent if you don't. White collar work is much more ephemeral than a trade, and often much less real 'work' the kind of work that a person needs to do for his own sake.

[Bailey2]

I have to agree with him on this. I don't feel that "executive functions of the brain" are superior (as in ensuring a lasting affect, such as in therapy). I know that this is the more popular thoughts and I'm not surprised that changes do show up on SPECT, however to me this is more due to one thing effecting other facets, not that the will causes the changes. Maybe the executive functions of the brain imitate the executive functions of businesses or politics (and we've seen where that leads ).
[/quote]

Good morning!  

I mis-communicated.  I don't think the will causes anything, including brain scans lighting up.  I think the will and the brain cannot be separated. They are both one in the same, biological functions.  But, I think that God is in that and doesn't want or need for things to be separated material and immaterial.  Soul and body fused.