Some of you may have noticed that we have a new format. During the change over there were some glitches that occurred. Thanks to Jim, we found one of them and have been working on fixing it. The problem resulted in Jim and I having an interesting conversation that I have reproduced excerpts from (with his permission) below. Please join in! Jim wrote: In the updated version of the CMT Forum, the reply I sent to your "What Fun!" earlier post has been deleted. I titled my reply to your What Fun! post "Nothing can be fun!" I was wondering if you noticed the deletion and whether it was the result of an editorial decision to delete or a likely consequence of a glitch in the program change when adopting the newer format? P.P.S. Speaking of relevance to CMT, did you think the first essay on "nothing" addressed the CMT explanation of survivor guilt in cases of childhood neglect? I feel strongly about the issue that such guilt is hard to identify in some cases and especially so in cases where unidentified emotional neglect is present. Neglect, after all, is literally nothing; and "nothing" really has been well researched--no kidding--as a topic of animal and human perceptual research. In fact, a review of such research was published a few years ago in American Scientist with the title "The Psychology of Nothing." It is really important to notice the causal influence of nothing. Jessica replied: I liked your posts and did see the relevance to CM. I agree with you about the significance of emotional neglect. I have feelings about the term "neutral" and therapists' supposed "neutrality" for the same reason. I believe that there is no such thing as nothing. It is Jim responded: That sounds like a great idea to mention my comment to you about the significance of neglect as a case of nothing and tie it into the subject of "neutrality," which is also a case of nothing. I see what you mean--completely common ground exists between neglect and "neutrality" and and the subject of "nothing." I would say nothing (neglect or "neutrality") really is in fact something in the mind of anyone who needs something rather than nothing. Unfortunately, when folks need something rather than nothing, they may not recognize what is not happening to them because, as abundant experimental research now shows, it is hard to perceive, and thus hard to know, when nothing happens--but something important may nonetheless still be happening that goes unrecognized. ......................................... What do the rest of you think? Jessica
impossible for someone to have no reactions or for there to be no impact on someone as the result of any action.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.