A road less travelled....

[equus]

ARGHHHHHHH!!!! This book by Dr. Scott Peck was the first I found cheeply for my new course (listed as suggested reading). IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!!!! Anyone else read it? (Very famous)

I so want to vent but I'd get too heated and give a rotten view of myself. I have dragged my butt through the first 50 odd pages (can't seem to read more than half a page at a time) and have bought a new Oliver Sacks book as reward for when I finish this one.

So shoot me for arrogance but if that plonka comes up with one more cheesey one liner or insanely stupid statment (which seems to be the entire contents of each page) - ok I'm just going to have to keep reading because I'm determined.....

I mentioned the book to a friend I saw yesterday, an old head teacher who's a star and giving me a hand with my presentations. I tried a semi polite summary and then had a brain fart and called Scotty a flippin' idiot - she gafawed laughing and added the word 'freak'.

Come back Mr. Sacks, with your sense of wonder, sense of all that we don't yet know and wipe the memory of Peckland with it's self smooching, half baked panacia to life!!

Oh and do I REALLY need half page long descriptions of why any client refusing his treatment was sicker than he had first thought? Not to mention the dreadful sickness of those who keep coming back and never get anywhere! It left me wanted to say 'Why Peck - you're a very sensitive flower aren't you?'

My review - the book is a brain blender!!

[splendra]

Eq

I have read the book and another book he wrote "Farther Down the Road Less Traveled" I also read the book "People of the Lie".

Since it is on your reckomended reading list I guess you might as well get thru it the best you can. I can see how you feel the way you do about his writing. I can also see how his writing appeals to certain people who are looking for answers to their plight in life.

It goes to show you that all the people cannot be pleased all the time and you may be one of the unpleased at some point in life.

[equus]

I know I've got to get through it and I will - I'm tempting myself!!

It has left me wondering whether I've made a wise decision for me to venture out of science and into airport lounge reading - but then I may find that course leaders are no more impressed than me and are looking to critique. For that I'll have to wait and see.

I find it has a seductive quality in flattering those who agree and defining as sick those who don't. Only that's not what I find seductive! It's crammed with sweeping statements heavily divorced from reality. While reading his assessment of anyone who lies what struck me is the number of people for who 'facing the consequences of truth' can mean violence and on occasion death. We live in a world that includes countries with collapsed states, run by dictators, even in 'peachy' democracies spouses can live in fear of violence and children who confess to breaking the cookie jar can wind up in hospital. To simply suggest that fear of a consequence is symptomatic of mental illness is bizarre, reckless and banal.

And that would be one of many issues I have with this guy!!

[splendra]

You want to consider when this book was written too and, the concepts expressed are to help you understand where others have been. I guess you were a young child when this book was written. You were most likely influenced by this book because undoubtably there was at least one person somewhere around you that had read this book when it was "hot".

My first psyc course years and years ago the book: "I'm Okay You're Okay" was on my suggested reading list...I didn't like it but, I was able to see how the concepts of this best selling book soaked into the culture around me and I still see it's influence today. In another psyc course another one of this authors books was on the suggested reading list: "What Do You Say After you Say Hello" I really liked this one and have offered it to many people to read but, very few have taken my offer, I don't know why. This book helped me to see so much.

[equus]

I reckoned it was perhaps time to learn a little about Dr. Peck....

The Guardian which is one of the UK's more reliable news papers held his orbituary.

Here's a quote from Paeck himself:

"Half the time when people want to touch my robe, it feels incredibly icky - yuck! The rest of the time, it feels very good, honest, right."

and a little of their bio of him...

The opening words were: "Life is difficult." This was a pronouncement to which Peck could personally attest. He spent much of his life immersed in cheap gin, chain-smoking cigarettes and inhaling cannabis, and being persistently unfaithful to his wife, who eventually divorced him. He also went through estrangement with two of his three children.

Reference and full article:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/obituari...585171,00.html

Perhaps now I'll read it with a little more interest - how did he get so well followed? What is it he's offering that people so want? - because it sure as hell isn't his capacity to live life honourably or his relationship wisdom.

[Five]

Gurus are fascinating. Check out Clay Feet by Anthoney Storr.

An investigation into the 'gurus' mind. Fascinating stuff.

[equus]

An investigation into the 'gurus' mind. Fascinating stuff.

*pulls out deer stalker hast and grabs magnifying glass*

At least I've gotten more interested in reading the confounded thing!!

[Five]

When I was following a guru, I thought he had such an utter insight into life.

It turned out to be lunatic gibberish though, in the main. In every piece of BS there is a grain of truth.

[equus]

In every piece of BS there is a grain of truth.

Absolutely - and in the book already there are things I do think are valid. What makes it hard work and annoying is wading through the codswallop!!

[brigid]

Originally Posted by equus

Perhaps now I'll read it with a little more interest - how did he get so well followed? What is it he's offering that people so want? - because it sure as hell isn't his capacity to live life honourably or his relationship wisdom.

Makes you wonder what makes people preach, is it their own issues?

I always liked the image of the wise man on the top of the mountain ... content with his own company and not needing to push beliefs ... there to be questioned if someone really needed to.

Interesting that this guru was really not a guru. Actions speak louder than words.

love and peace,
Brigid

[shockozulu]

Gosh I hated that book Equus. Good luck getting through it.

I loved People of the Lie though, but then Peck took that too far in his next book. Ah well, we are all human...even authors.

[aloneagainor]

Originally Posted by equus

how did he get so well followed? What is it he's offering that people so want? - because it sure as hell isn't his capacity to live life honourably or his relationship wisdom.

Originally Posted by brigid

Makes you wonder what makes people preach, is it their own issues?

I think it is those very things that people are most sensitive to, and have the most violent reactions to, about other people, that are those things that we're most troubled by within ourselves. Because we're so directly able to relate to those things, we know how they manifest themselves and can see how disruptive/ distorted that way of thinking/ being affects everything around us, including our own thinking. It's maddening to me how BOTHERED I am by deception, especially of the deliberate sort. And OH am I deceptive! Insight into self. A worthy pursuit.

[equus]

Because we're so directly able to relate to those things, we know how they manifest themselves and can see how disruptive/ distorted that way of thinking/ being affects everything around us, including our own thinking.

You know - I've never bought that theory. If I see some bloke kick ten kinds of ** out of a dog or kid, OH my feelings go sky high, I'm SO BOTHERED. Should I then worry that my concern only comes from some hidden subconscious desire to do likewise? Even worse, should I examine myself until I don't feel bothered at all?

Nah - I don't buy it. Each to their own but I'm not applying that to my reasoning - it just makes no sense to me.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by equus

ARGHHHHHHH!!!! This book by Dr. Scott Peck was the first I found cheeply for my new course (listed as suggested reading). IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!!!! Anyone else read it? (Very famous)

So shoot me for arrogance but if that plonka comes up with one more cheesey one liner or insanely stupid statment (which seems to be the entire contents of each page) - ok I'm just going to have to keep reading because I'm determined.....

Thanks for posting your review Eq. Can't wait to read your opinion when you finish! I have this book somewhere in my basement about half-assimilated. Somehow, when I don't finish books like that I blame myself if the author is obviously more intelligent or educated. It reminds me of when I picked up Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I couldn't finish it, and I was so distraught I didn't bother reading another book for 2 or 3 years (seriously). I didn't either, until I finished that book.

If/when I ever did find out who John Galt was, I don't remember, and the ending was an anti-climactic experience (for me, anyway). I suppose it's all what the reader gathers from the contents and resonates with.

Anyway, The Road Less Traveled is a book a lot of people have high regards for. Your comments are unexpected and refreshing, as always!

.....she gafawed laughing and added the word 'freak'.

Come back Mr. Sacks, with your sense of wonder, sense of all that we don't yet know and wipe the memory of Peckland with it's self smooching, half baked panacia to life!!

Fabulous.

((((Equus)))).

[equus]

I have huge respect for the effort that goes into gaining qualifications - but I can't help but note that those who have them still dispute so many things; because of that, like age, I reckoned alone it cannot make a person right.

Qualifications should give a person the ability to reason what they say and support 'fact' with evidence - so where that's noticable in it's absence I can't help but be sceptical.

I've just finished a page where he suggest that omitting ANY information from children is lying and teach them to grow up dishonest, he includes in that rows between parents, financial strife, drug taking, ANYTHING. It somehow doesn't surprise me he spent years estranged from his own kids - I suppose they voted with their feet. I don't believe kids want to hear about evry argument, debt, affair and intoxicated night! It's diferent when a child asks or when there's a need to know.

[brigid]

Originally Posted by equus

You know - I've never bought that theory. If I see some bloke kick ten kinds of ** out of a dog or kid, OH my feelings go sky high, I'm SO BOTHERED. Should I then worry that my concern only comes from some hidden subconscious desire to do likewise? Even worse, should I examine myself until I don't feel bothered at all?

Nah - I don't buy it. Each to their own but I'm not applying that to my reasoning - it just makes no sense to me.

I agree that there are certain things that bother me because they are contrary to my belief system and I don't do them, I also agree that there are things that bother me because subconsciously I recognise them in myself and they also are contrary to my belief system.

I don't think it is a black and white thing, I definitely look within these days when I find an annoying behaviour and try to be honest with myself ... I sometimes find it. But that is good, once found and recognised I can change it, or accept it within myself, I am not perfect after all, I am just me. Changing / accepting it increases my tolerance and patience for others.

love and peace,
Brigid

[Bobbybanned]

Originally Posted by Autumn

It reminds me of when I picked up Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand[.......]If/when I ever did find out who John Galt was, I don't remember, and the ending was an anti-climactic experience (for me, anyway).

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged a great deal; however, I must admit that I read it with a bias attitude. I was once upon a time a huge admirer of Ayn Rand. But as far as your comment goes, that ending was brutal. I think it consisted of two-million pages of getting to the point, which really did lead to an anti-climactic ending, as you described.
She had a brilliant idea and did a good job for the most part of the book, but the woman was full of herself and used her book as a means of spilling herself onto the reader.
But for her to come over to this country, learn to speak english, write it and then use the language as she had, well, I give her credit for that. She was much more articulate than most people (including myself) who are born with english as their primary language.

[Bobbybanned]

Originally Posted by equus

What makes it hard work and annoying is wading through the codswallop!!

Please Equus, tell me, what is a codswallop? Is it like, poop or something?
I love the sound of that word.

Bobby

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Bobby4444

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged a great deal; however, I must admit that I read it with a bias attitude. I was once upon a time a huge admirer of Ayn Rand. But as far as your comment goes, that ending was brutal. I think it consisted of two-million pages of getting to the point, which really did lead to an anti-climactic ending, as you described.

I enjoyed it very much also. If I remember correctly (I read it in my early 20s), it was the first third of the book that was rather dry. I really thought it was brilliant, especially having been written by a woman in that time period. What a business head. I loved the descriptives she gave the new steel for rails. I think that was the biggest build-up in suspense for me - waiting to discover how that new steel would perform.

When I got to the ending, I was disappointed in that I had made a pact with myself not to read another book until I finished Atlas Shrugged. I realized how silly a pact that was when the ending came. It was just so flat. I'll never do that again.

But for her to come over to this country, learn to speak english, write it and then use the language as she had, well, I give her credit for that. She was much more articulate than most people (including myself) who are born with english as their primary language.

I'm curious to learn more about her. Back when I realized an interest in her as a philosopher, I didn't have internet access or other reviews. I never did get around to reading The Fountainhead. I have the movie though - maybe I'll pop it in later.

And yeah - she was an amazing writer to be sure.

[Autumn]

Hey Eq - are there any passages in particular you might want to comment on?

I'm willing to rifle thrugh some boxes to dig out my copy. It's in softcover.

[equus]

Codswallop means drivel or rubbish.

Meeeep!!! Autumn - you want me to type the flippin' thing as well as read it??!!

I might have a play at some point - mind you, even a skim over the pages should give plenty enough flavour of what I mean.

I think my initial falling out with the book came from his prescription of doom for any child growing up with plonkers for family. I'd never suggest that damage isn't done but people ARE amazing and something makes me go 'URGH' about expecting failure.

Have a read... and see.

[equus]

This is what I sense on most of the pages:

In 1983 he began a bid for the presidency in order to be "a healer to the nation", but was forced by health fears to abandon his ambitions. Recently he had written in Glimpses of the Devil (2005) about his experiences of conducting exorcisms and had embarked on a new career as a songwriter. The voice of God asked him to be objective about the merits of a song he had written on the subject of faithfulness. "I went into a sort of guided meditation and I imagined there were a million people around the globe, Japan, Ethiopia, Brazil, America, what not, all with headphones on listening to this thing and that their consensus would somehow be objective… I played it for the 62nd time and I said: 'Holy s***! It's not good. It's great.' "

His next book, People of the Lie (1983), explored human evil. He was tiring, too, of his own patients, whom he thought "slow" and insufficiently attentive to him. He wound down his practice and set out on the lecture circuit, charging $15,000 a talk. He collaborated on Christian song sheets and, in 1987, published The Different Drum, which pointed out where communities were going wrong.

From The Telegraph - a top UK newspaper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../28/db2801.xml

I have to confess that I'm not overly concerned my instincts stem from wanting to be president, a desire to be an excorcist or a love of public speaking!

I do get what you mean though brigid - I think though that we're more aware when that is happening, I think we KNOW we are seeing something which we dislike in ourselves; how could it be both SUB conscious and related as conscious experience?

[brigid]

Originally Posted by equus

I do get what you mean though brigid - I think though that we're more aware when that is happening, I think we KNOW we are seeing something which we dislike in ourselves; how could it be both SUB conscious and related as conscious experience?

I just know for myself that there are behaviours that I have commented on in other people that are my own, I haven't realised it at the time. As one example, my brother was an alcoholic, he drank himself to an early grave, I got really upset with him at one point, telling him how he was really doing and living things that were not actually right for him. Really these things were true about myself at the time, they bothered me so much then but now when I see it in someone, it really doesn't bother me much at all, I know that I have been there, am getting better about doing the right thing for me and living to my potential. I just don't get too emotional about it all for other people because it is not my issue any more.

There are other things that I have been a total dick about too, like control issues, anger (you might remember a few posts - I found your input and feedback enormously helpful as well as challenging my beliefs at that time), manipulation ... I have done these things and recognised them in others and disliked them, commented on them etc.. not seen them in myself. I find that the more I let these things go the less they worry me in other people, I just recognise them now and it is ok. This is my experience with myself anyway.

I am sure that alcoholism and my upbringing as a child of alcoholic parents and some abuse in my childhood has had an influence on me and that for other people those same influences are not true. For other people who have truly experienced unconditional love, open and honest, I am sure that there are less of these things and that they just are upset by behaviours because they are outside their experience and knowledge.

But I also know that in my last relationship my partner saw things in other people that bothered him, but that they rarely bothered me because they were not really part of me, who I am and my upbringing. I just didn't recognise them as being bad or needed to downgrade the person as he did, I just saw things as being someone elses choice and not mine so why would it bother me, I don't have to live with it.

Of course there are also situations where a behaviour is harmful to another person, I try to help where I can in these cases and I don't feel the need to analyse myself, no actually I still do, that is a lie. Recently I helped a friend who was trying to work out how to improve her relationship with her physically and mentally abusive husband ... I admit that I still analysed myself to see if I felt distate of the whole situation because I was accepting an abusive type relationship ... the answer was yes, albeit I felt that my situation was less abusive, really the degree is not the issue nor even a point for consideration. It did not mean that I was caring for myself any better than my friend by accepting things.

So maybe for some of us Equus, we do have to look within when a behaviour or situation bothers us, maybe not for others.

I believe in our subconscious and conscious being quite different entities, I believe our subconscious innately knows what is good and right for us, our conscious does not always know this because conscious thought is governed by bodily reactions etc. I can't really get too technical on this, I have no widely read basis, just have some experiences and seen a few things, no indisputable proof. Recently had a distance Reikki healing done on me, it just is an instinctive belief I have, no solid factual basis. May also have something to do with the religous teachings of my youth and how I felt it was true that god was in everyone of us and everywhere, how we should listen to our conscience ... stuff like that, it appears in many teachings and religions.

peace and love,
Brigid

[brigid]

I may have missed your question Equus, I think the conscious is governed by physical, mental and emotional pulls. I consciously chose to ignore my "better judgement" when drinking, I justified behaviour, I consciously did not recognise some of my problems and issues. They were pushed away so that I could continue to do what I was doing in "good conscience". I still have some of these tendencies.

Have to go ... thinking about if I do consciously recognise stuff ...

[aloneagainor]

After writing that piece about what bothers us most in others I thought it far too narrow an explanation of what I was trying to get at, and now returning to this thread 15 hours later see it was. But also that it was quite thoroughly investigated and my point was eventually addressed. Essentially,

Originally Posted by Brigid

I don't think it is a black and white thing, I definitely look within these days when I find an annoying behaviour and try to be honest with myself ... I sometimes find it. But that is good, once found and recognised I can change it, or accept it within myself...Changing / accepting it increases my tolerance and patience for others.

And once understood within oneself, that annoyance no longer has power to affect us personally. Because we understand it, we're not obliviously/ subconsciously bound to it (reacting without understanding). We can objectively see it for what it is, what causes it, how it affects our own self and others. A lot of the frustration dissipates through such awareness.

Ayn Rand! I read ALL her work in its entirety in my mid-20's. Her writing had more profound effect on my thinking, of waking me up to the power of the individual, than any other author/ teacher/ instruction. I had to go back through my volumes of handwriting/ typewriter notes (pre-computer days!) for this. If I may quote. From The Fountainhead:

"The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator all relations with men are secondary.

The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares than man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism. Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self. No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind's moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virute.

The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality--the man who lives to serve others--is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit?

"In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consdent to mutual advantage when their personal interest agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with eachother. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship betweeen equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner."

This written before her pinnacle tome Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt? The individual within.