Disgust

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Simon and Garfunkel

Not a popular discussion point, disgust. 

 And much of what I say in this space is probably not very popular although many readers have not figured that out yet. I don’t mean to insult you but I assume that it is not easily grasped that I am always saying, in this blog, that what is happening in the human psyche is that we are motivated by our emotive network first and then we do and think or think and do. 

So it is with things that “disgust” us. The implications of this are far-reaching. We are not motivated primarily by “truth.” Truth is a hard-won luxury. We are motivated by our interests and our interests can be our disgusts that are later justified and made into truths, our truths. Research is showing that what we do is “believe” and then search out those facts that confirm our beliefs and disregard the rest

To set the stage as such: It was now a few years ago that a former mentor of mine Leon Kass stated at a congressional hearing on cloning:

“Repugnance, here as elsewhere, revolts against the excesses of human willfulness, warning us not to transgress what is unspeakably profound. Indeed, in this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done, in which our given human nature no longer commands respect, in which our bodies are regarded as mere instruments of our autonomous rational wills, repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.”              

At the time he took a great deal of heat for this and so he should have. I sometime later countered him in a lengthy work. 

Now if you bear with me for a moment his collogue at the University of Chicago Martha Nussbaum also argues much to the contrary about such strong emotions. In her case, she argues that the use of disgust in the criminal justice system has no place in that system. Law should not be made based on our disgust for something, or some act.

I once tried to engage her in an email dialogue about the biological foundations of emotions but failed due to her busy schedule among, I suppose, many other things. In any event, I see no evidence in her work of a deep understanding of the biology of emotion. That said she is on the right track philosophically, and Kass, unfortunately, at least then, was on the wrong one.

So, disgust, it seems from the Darwinian perspective, is a vestige of our reptilian ancestry, and thank heaven for it, for without it we would not survive. It has more than anything to do with eating and saving us from rotten and toxic food. Slowly it has entered into the emotional system and into the parallel world of emotional cognates. Love is full of metaphors of consuming and devouring the other but woe the day when love ends and we vomit the other out because of disgust!

But back to the general, Kass is wrong: my disgust is not your disgust. Yet we have tried throughout history to make this so. Tribal culture made it easier. Authority makes it easier. And of course, my authority is always more authoritarian than yours. My dad can beat up your dad. We are taught to get an “education” and then to stop thinking when it comes to matters of “disgust.” “Son you don’t even need to go there, don’t even think about it. Trust me. What those people do(eat ice cream, mountain oysters, suck each other’s toes, live in Chicago, swim nude)is just disgusting.” If I am told that the other is “disgusting” I tend to adopt that attitude. The people over the hill are different, they look different; they have different birthing, marriage, and sexual practices. “Isn’t that disgusting?” Those savages scalp people. Isn’t that disgusting? The trouble is who taught them to scalp?

The thought then is that the “rule”, the “law”, and the “sin” is always secondary to someone or some group’s disgust when that law discriminates or excludes someone or something.

Are there “universals?” Are there universal disgusts? I would argue that no there are not but there are acts that given the goal of the emotive system and that is to “maximize joy” that human society will form itself to discourage many acts. 

Those acts are so antithetical to maximizing joy in the common good they will naturally elicit various negative feelings among them but not necessarily restricted to disgust but will also elicit anger, fear, rage, distress, and shame among others. So, yes society does, as we recognize, have its short list of universally prohibited acts such as murder but the attendant emotion we each feel might and is, I say, quite different.

Brian Lynch

Withdraw II

Brian Lynch

“Home is the place where, when you have to go there,

They have to take you in.” Robert Frost, “The Death of the Hired Man”

This is where the idea that we absorb and read each other’s emotions constantly is such a powerful and useful idea. Things come undone at various times when one member cannot tolerate the affective or emotional overload or when one member loses control of their affective or emotional management.

Things may go along for years until one member of the pair starts to grow in new ways that they find interesting and the other finds threatening. This is a danger when individuals come into therapy.

A partner will start to find new strengths and interests and all kinds of unintended consequences will start to happen at home. Recently a wife encouraged her husband to “step up” and get treatment for his addiction. He did so and this forced such a change in the marital dynamic that she had to start to face her contributions over the years to their problems which became intolerable. She fled, and filed for divorce.

So it has happened in relationships in my life. My growth has led me to places where I cannot but go and so it was one night at dinner,I could not tolerate the inability of my “friend” of then some ten years to acknowledge the worth of my work due to his demonstrated fear of applying any of it to his life. He had, yes, humiliated me just one too many times and I left. So I say there are good reasons to “withdraw.” If people keep hurting you get the hell out of their way. And the definition of insanity is: “doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

But there are a billion ways and reasons to withdraw. 

There is no more beautiful tale of withdrawal than “The Death of the Hired Man “ by Robert Frost:

‘Warren leaned out and took a step or two,

Picked up a little stick, and brought it back

And broke it in his hand and tossed it by.

“Silas has better claim on us you think

Then on his brother? Thirteen little miles

     130

As the road winds would bring him to his door.

Silas has walked that far no doubt to-day.

Why didn’t he go there? His brother’s rich,

A somebody—director in the bank.”

“He never told us that.”

“We know it though.”

I venture to say, however, that since I claim that so many of us know so little of our emotional lives that we “withdraw” due to a massive confusion, a hurt that we do not know how to medicate and there is no doctor or cure to look to. We just think “This is what people do.” And these are the many devastating, heartbreaking, and needless breakups that I mention at first. If only we knew a little about what we are feeling at these times.

But, the mind also will tend to do other things even when shut away under the covers, in the house, or on the beach and that is it will blame itself for the mess, or if not it will put all the blame on the other. If all else fails, it will try the Scarlet O’Hare trick and “think about it tomorrow.” 

But, here I am referring to times of withdrawal that are tragic and that are done because we tragically have not learned about this moment of confusion and shame. Not because we are being abused, but because we are emotional invalids and are swept away by the tides of what is how the human psyche works until we understand it and counteract it. I am speaking about being our own worst enemy, leaving because we are embarrassed or ashamed or feel shame.

This study of being ashamed, embarrassed, and shamed has been more than fascinating. I more and more tell people, in no way to be patronizing, but to try and be helpful, that when I first came across these Ideas it took me at least six months to grasp what these authors' particular meanings of shame and embarrassment et al were. And this was with studying almost daily for those six months, so I honestly do not know what to expect from anyone if we just talk a couple times a month. That said, many do seem to “get it.” Now that said (and please no one take this personally) it is more than fascinating how powerful “shame” is in that one can understand it in much of its complexity and seem to be utterly powerless to control shame's control over their own life. But heck I have known that feeling. It takes time. It is called changing scripts. That is what we do when we are confused and feel shame.

"Getting There and Staying There"

Recently several high-profile incidents have given me occasion to reflect on some aspects of what I would say we in modern life continually want to rediscover and that is the wisdom of those philosophies that teach “living in the moment’’ or taking it “a day at a time.” 

These incidents involve famous to near famous people that as such, I say, tempt one to think not of the moment but of a greater arch of life, of that “good life,” a life where great desires are achieved and if only we could be “there.” Yet daily we are taught, as in these cases, how we disavow that lie. We disavow that there is not there, there. That is we simply ignore the true reality that we are all “fellow travelers to the grave.”

So who and what am I talking about? One is the separation of Al and Tipper Gore after forty years of marriage. The second is the death of Ted Koppel’s son, age forty of apparent acute alcohol poisoning after a day of drinking in Manhattan, and finally, the recent saga of author and News Hour essayist Roger Rosenblatt and his wife after the sudden death of their physician daughter.

All of these people would be generally recognized as people that have gone about living their lives and have at least been well-intentioned. Of course, such a statement was more simply said before the advent of the Internet or the plethora of media outlets where we find the most vial opinions hurled about, about just about anyone by anyone for any reason. That said I take the cases mentioned to be people trying to achieve good in the world.

What is my point? Mostly I have already made it; but the details. First, an apology to those mentioned and condolences and some self-monitoring  as I understand that I am now one of “those media outlets.” I do realize that whatever I say is purely conjecture or at best an educated guess and the likelihood is that any analysis will miss the mark. The cases are examples to talk about generalities.

Those generalities are how our desires just might outrun our realities and how modern life and access to how “those” people live and how we imagine they live just might often cause us trouble as if we didn’t have enough already.

So, here we have two couples living out their lives in very different ways for the moment. The Gores having survived the Senate, a family history of the Senate and eight years in the White House and almost ten years out of the White House call it quits. Not only this but a death of a child. And the experts tell us there are two things in their history that are against them being High School sweethearts and the loss of a child. But this said, in the end, are the Gore’s the victim as we all are now longing for that very same “good life,” a life where great desires are achieved and if only we could be ‘there’.”

I come back to an ever-present theme of mine and that is “interest,” an ever-delicate balance. We need “mutual interest.” You would think a marriage of forty years; such a rich one would have such a tapestry of interest that there would be no question of many “mutual rich interests.” The fact is they are separating and if we want we can contemplate why.

In comparison, Roger Rosenblatt and his wife are now living in an “In-law” apartment, a one-bedroom, one-bath affair in their son-in-law's house. They moved from a five-bedroom home in New York to Suburban D.C. When they arrived after the death of their daughter and one of the grandchildren asked “How long are you staying” The answer was “Forever.” He says in interviews, and to paraphrase, “What were we to do sit at home and stare at each other.” I suggest that indeed then they might have separated. Here they have new and vital new mutual interests. In no way do I pit one couple against the other or say one is better than the other. (see the essay “Making Toast”)

Exactly how and why Andrew Koppel died is not so important to me. It seems clear that alcohol had a lot to do with it and a lot of it. I reflect on Ted’s words at his loss, “Our son, Andrew, was a brilliant, caring man, whose loss we will mourn for the rest of our lives." I wonder why “brilliant” was first? Was he speaking to his son? Was he still trying to reassure an insecure son that he did not need to compete with his father? To tell him there was no there, “there?” Maybe it all brings us back to living in the moment?

 Brian Lynch

2010

"Disappearing Act"

A number of years ago there was an excellent profile done in a news magazine about a man that would simply disappear from people’s lives. He had suddenly left a family in Maryland. He was not a low-profile figure. He was well known at least in a midlevel professional circle. If I remember right it was in administration in community college circles. He had moved to Arizona and was not active. He had run into someone who invited him to the local campus and one thing lead to another and he landed a job. He ended up with a small circle of friends and remarried. A few years passed. Let us say five. My a

The point of psychology is to go from the particular to the general, to extract and find unifying motivating principles.

So what happens next? All is well with the world. This seems to be the problem and one of the problems with many people, when things are going too well, watch out.

One day his wife comes home and he does not. He never does. There is no sign of him. Nothing is missing. No signs of foul play. Finally, the airport is checked and his car is there with the keys in it. The reporting was excellent as there was follow-up. Connie Chung made an effort to locate the man. He did not do an on-camera interview but did talk to her and what was remarkable was he told us exactly why he did what he did. He said it was the excitement of it. And this was not the first time he had done it.

So we are motivated and “pushed” to do things by powerful forces. Some call this the unconscious. But when looked at in turns of powerful emotions/feelings or what some of us call “affect” it can take on a very clear and “pure” kind of meaning. It can be also frightening because what does it then mean to simply be driven and overwhelmed by “excitement” which is “interest” taken to the extreme? In this case, taken so far that it will destroy everything around you?

But so it is. And so we think it is for many emotive forces. The flip side of interest is shame. The shame we feel comes when our interest is not achieved. Shame motivates us to curl up and hide or to kill. But we also do not realize it can reignite excitement in the way this man experiences it. We should understand that he first “withdrew” from his community did he not? Then he had to replace it with something and that something was “excitement.” The excitement of the new chase? But eventually, we get burnt out.

So it is with so many scenarios in life. This can be played out in relationships over and over the person that constantly conquers the pursued only then to leave them for the next conquest; the businessman or broker who seduces with good intentions only to feel deflated once the “mark” is made and then moves on. They themselves always wonder what went wrong never realizing the interplay between the healthy interest the ensuing shame and the toxic excitement.

 The question is what is always getting in the way? Why can’t the “good scene” continue? Why can’t the relationship continue, the deal be completed the job be sustained? Why do “I” end it before others do?

And that is the subconscious trick and the answer? “I” end it because I “know”, “I know” that it is going to end so why not end it myself and at least get it over with at least I can go and have some excitement trying to do it again. We don’t have a clue. Wish we did. Do we now?

A GENERIC LETTER

Brian Lynch

[Peter],

Since seeing you I have wanted to write something based on what you said about your long-term friend. You talked about him hurting you by not telling you of the death of another friend. You talked about how you have come to be unable to tolerate his behavior in the world such as not paying rent and staying until evicted. You feel hurt by his actions and by the waste of such talent.

These thoughts, much like those concerning many of my relationships, made me sad. At the same time, it amazes me how much clarity I feel I have about such actions as you described.

As I have already sent you a lot of material, I hope that you have spent some time with it, as you say you have. That said, I seem to keep seeing the nub of human interaction in simpler and simpler terms.

I guess, rock bottom, I am saying we should always keep it simple and understand psychic pain as no different than physical pain, and indeed psychic pain is in the tissues of the brain. The cause, too, is in the brain, in the form of memory.

Interest is an emotion and physical. We can’t help but be interested in the world from the time we pop out into the world.

Interest is always, however, being interrupted. That interruption is minor and we change our focus and hardly notice, or it can be very large, in which case we might feel very very bad.

It seems that our daily task might be to simply say that if the ratio of positive interest to negative memory, crap, or whatever comes at us from the world. If it is weighted to the negative we will often have learned, from childhood, to “script” our response to that negative in four characteristic ways. A psychiatrist, Donald Nathanson, contributed to our knowledge of ourselves by neatly packaging those negative scripts in the “Compass Of Shame.”

I am interested --><--- Something gets in my way then ------->>>>>

 I feel: hurt, confused, “bad,” “shamed”

I then :

1. Withdraw and/or

2. Blame myself and/or

3. Avoid: sex, drugs and rock and roll, TV, etc and/or

4. Attack Others.

So withdrawal can be breaking off a friendship, getting a divorce, or not asking someone on a date that you are interested in.

Blame or Attack Self: “It’s my fault,” “I am an idiot,” “I deserve to go to hell.”

Avoid: Surfing the net, drinking, or anything that can take us away from the

pain.

Attack other: yelling at someone, being “passive-aggressive,” and

shooting someone.

Now the deal is: what is causing the pain is often hidden and often it is not. Most of the people that I talk to, if I have time, know exactly why they do what they do, but it is also “too difficult to talk about, or it hurts too

much.” Whether it is hidden or not may have little meaning. The point is that it is causing pain that I want to treat in whatever way I can. People say exactly what they mean if you just let them talk and listen closely. I do it because… I was hurt… I do it because I hurt… I do not know what to do… I feel guilty about it… I do it because I feel guilty…. I did it again.

What we do may be using heroin or watching TV. We all have scripts that take us away from pain.

Someone I work with, identified that shame, hurt, and confusion as the sources of her pain and understands at one level that she simply DOES NOT KNOW any other way to deal with it, i.e. we have to learn how to deal with it, parents have to teach us how to deal with it other than the hurtful way she is dealing with it knowing it is harmful, or we have to work very hard and think very hard about ourselves and how we got in the mess we are in. Most importantly, though, we cannot and should not blame ourselves, or for that matter, we should not blame anyone.

Who knows what your friend was hurt by early on? I guarantee that he has been hurt and feels much pain. Although highly intelligent, he has withdrawn from life, many do. It just gets worse as time goes by and others are seen, “in the world,” as he might see you in your now “high” position, he feels more shame, the more he withdraws.

It is such a simple concept that we all know is true but we are always trying to come up with more “sophisticated” or “adult” explanations. You in turn are hurt by his withdrawal. So Withdrawal can be just as hurtful as an attack. Why should they feel different? As what has engendered both is the same thing: psychic pain in the withdrawing or attacking other.

There is nothing you can do but be infinitely patient, and take care of yourself, thereby being a model and waiting. Our inclination, however, often is to attack back. Why? Because we feel shame.

Well that’s the way I see it anyway, and it is a start, I hope.

 Go Brian Lynch