The Peripatetic Philosopher offers his readers:

The Absence of Mind in the Modern Self

The Invasion of Media

Description

We have lost our moral center. As a consequence, we have lost our way. We are not happy campers. Media and advertising have exploited our mass confusion creating the bizarre world that we all now call "home."

Amazon.com KINDLE LIBRARY: $3.99 to buy

The Peripatetic Philosopher shares:

A Reader Reacts to “The Absence of Mind in the Modern Self – The Invasion of Media!

JAMES R. FISHER, Jr., Ph.D.

© October 22, 2017

Reference:

I have had a two month absence from writing anything due to illness.  As often happens with me in creating my missives, something stirs me, or you might say provokes me, which finds me sitting down at my computer and composing a new missive such as this one.  

Sometimes there is little reaction to such efforts; other times people write and tell me that they have enjoyed the missive, but disagree with it leaving me in the lurch as to how they disagree causing me to wonder why they write.  Still other times, like what follows  (see attached) someone quotes me generously and then builds their own conceptual foundation on that stimulation to take possession of my ideas and to make them their own. 

It is in the case of the latter the reason that I write. 

More specifically, I am not a crusader for a specific cause.  Nor am I out to build a monument to my point of view.  I have never been interested in writing for profit much to the chagrin of my wife who puts up with me and my obsession.  Nor am I interested in the celebrity that many readers imagine the primary motivation of all writers.  

Simply stated, I believe in civilization and the linchpin of that civilization is communication.  If we are speaking to each other, it is unlikely that we are raising arms or plotting indignities against each other.

Some forty seven years ago, I wrote an essay, "Let Me Introduce You to Yourself."  As it so happens, four years ago, I conducted a seminar at the local library in which the theme was "Everyone Is an Author."  Both exercises were the same theme in different guises.  

The turnout for the seminar was encouraging.  I hope some of those in attendance have since written and either published an article or a book.

Our culture alienates us and makes us strangers to ourselves.  My message in that essay was that it is often necessary to go against the grain of the established tradition to discover our authentic self.  

The premise of the seminar was that everyone has a story to tell, and in the telling of that story the writer experiences a feeling of being reborn into a new dimension of the self. 

It is why I experience pleasure in sharing this reader's reaction to this particular missive.

Author Ken Shelton is a most accomplished author, publisher and consultant as well as a devoted servant to his Church.  He displays a sincerity that I feel is in short supply today, and does so with unambiguous clarity, gusto and panache.  His essay is attached.  

JRF

*     *     *     *     *

A Tale of Two Selves

Absence vs. Presence of Authenticity

By Ken Shelton

Note: This piece was inspired today by the thoughtful essay, The Absence of Mind in the Modern Self, by James R. Fisher, Jr.

We each have a dual nature—both the carnal natural man and the spiritual soul, causing a war within that is fueled daily by persuasive advertising and advocacy media. Such is the theme of a thoughtful essay, The Absence of Mind in the Modern Self by James R. Fisher, Jr.

He notes that advertising awakens artificial desires that initially arise outside ourselves, but then bombard our consciousness and stimulate deep desires within us. “Something unexpected then occurs in our mind,” he argues, “something physical, spiritual, moral, emotional or intellectual—something that touches the cockles of our heart, mind, and soul.”

“What causes these desires to surface may be obscure, difficult to trace,” he continues, “because they are often carried subliminally and planted in our conscience as if by an imaginary drone that is looming overhead and spraying its message into our consciousness. We act or react, not knowing why but thinking we do, because we want to believe we are in control and in charge and responding to legitimate desires. But what we desire remains a mystery to us. We think we desire what we seek but fail to understand what has influenced our choices. We sense an irrepressible desire to acquire what has so carefully been packaged in the commercial.”

He insightfully notes that what started out in the domain of advertising has shifted into mainstream journalism and all media. “Journalism has become a 24/7 commercial with the repeated histrionics of breaking news, fighting for the limited attention span of a bored public by promoting a confection of selective facts that support its manifest destiny while tailoring its copy to that audience’s collective biases. Facts are carefully culled from data that support the biases favored by the journalists and their networks, newspapers and journals.”

Fisher sees that “everyone is fair game, and nothing is sacred as leaks pour into their coffers from confidential sources. Everyone seems to have an ax to grind at the expense of someone else. It is brutal, childish, ubiquitous and cruel. Any story, no matter how sacred or mundane, can be made a national nightmare in the devious hands of reporters, politicians or broadcasters. Politicians, elected to do the people’s business, somehow find time to make mountains out of molehills when such activities support their nefarious agenda. Those so inclined think nothing of pouring accelerant on a raging internecine fire, then mockingly seem surprised when the insanity of mass hysteria follows.” 

The modern mind is not only absent in the modern self, he notes, but is caught up in “the paradoxical dilemma of displaying misplaced hubris in the moment. Civil society is collapsing around us, and yet we seem incapable to generate even a hiccup of despair. Our electronic pacifiers take us out of ourselves, occupying most of our waking hours. Consequently, we remain a mystery to ourselves, struggling to distinguish between our real desires and our true nature, our real self and our ideal self.”

“Our self-demands (ideal self) and role demands (real self) compete self-consciously for our attention and allegiance. Advertisers know this; media personnel know this; politicians know this. This is a recipe to exploit the vulnerability of their audience whether it involves the selling of soap, the slanting of news stories, or spewing political rhetoric that generates outrage.”

Fisher notes, “Super-salesman Elmer Wheeler originally realized that selling involves the sizzle and not the steak. Wheeler admits you can’t eat an image, but the image once it takes residence in the mind, apathy and resistance disappear, which leads to the desired action. Wheeler may not have understood that we are on automatic pilot or that robotics have become the new distinction, but 50 years later his formula is still being exploited.” 

In despair, Fisher cries: “Alas! God has lost His dominion over us as has Nature. We have lost interest in the teleological process or concern for final causes. It is all about now: have it now, be it now, experience it now. We are drifters, metaphorical tumbleweeds, directed and guided by outside sources with false premises, false prospectus, false descriptions, and false objectives as if we have no mind at all. We have lost our moral compass and our way. We have arrived at the gates of Nowhere Land as Nowhere Man with an inability to decipher true desires from false desires; as our desires no longer are self-generated from our imagination, experience and character. We are renters of someone else’s ideas, captives of the bandwagons of true believers who tell us what is real, important, and necessary, and what we should do about it.”

He concludes: “Our ‘two selves,’ one dominant the other recessive, are in conflict in our subconscious, dissipating rather than synergizing our limited energy. This is a war within—a war that seldom rises to overt action other than purchasing what we don’t need but want or joining a group to feel a sense of identity, then becoming a proselytizer, only to wonder how we got into this mess. We avoid making choices, and so choices are made for us. Not far from our consciousness lurk horrors and perversions that we are apt to experience vicariously and unapologetically on the never-ending commercial that media have become.” 

My Rebuttal

I feel for you, brother Fisher, as I too have felt deeply the despair that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow writes about: “And in despair I bowed my head. There is no peace on earth, I said; for hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Only the bells of Christianity have the power to restore my faith: “Then pealed the bells more loudly and deeply: God is not dead, nor doth he sleep! The Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on earth, good-will to men!”

I too have wrestled with the war within my own soul and felt the weight of my sins. And only the atonement of Christ has the power to free me from despair and remind me of glory.

As C.S. Lewis writes in The Weight of Glory: “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. 

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.

I too have felt the fear that stems from my unworthiness and inadequacy.

As Marianne Williamson writes in A Return to Love: “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. 

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

“Love is what we are born with. Fear is what we learn. The spiritual journey is the unlearning of fear and prejudices and the acceptance of love back in our hearts. Love is the essential reality and our purpose on earth. To be consciously aware of it, to experience love in ourselves and others, is the meaning of life. Meaning does not lie in things. Meaning lies in us.”

Finally, I have hope in winning the war within because of what the prophet Nephi writes in the Book of Mormon: “My soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit of my children. Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard. 

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins;

Nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep. He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh. He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me. Behold, he hath heard my cry by day, and he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night-time. And by day have I waxed bold in mighty prayer before him; yea, my voice have I sent up on high; and angels came down and ministered unto me. And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.

O then, if I have seen so great things, if the Lord in his condescension unto the children of men hath visited men in so much mercy, why should my heart weep and my soul linger in the valley of sorrow, and my flesh waste away, and my strength slacken, because of mine afflictions? And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy?

Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin. Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul. Do not anger again because of mine enemies. Do not slacken my strength because of mine afflictions. Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation.”

The Peripatetic Philosopher apologizes for his absence:

The Absence of Mind in the Modern Self –

The Invasion of Media

JAMES R. FISHER, JR., Ph.D.

© October 21, 2017

Note:

This is my first missive in nearly two months as I have been ill.  It has not however stopped my reading, which includes the final volume of the LETTERS OF ISAIAH BERLIN: Affirming Letters (1975-1997), or letters until his death November 5, 1997. 

Henry Hardy and Mark Pottle have edited these letters very lovingly and comprehensively.  I have read nearly all of Isaiah Berlin’s published works, including his biography by Michael Ignatieff (1998), which was published posthumously.

Berlin was perhaps the greatest letter writer of the twentieth century, as he wrote expansively and unselfconsciously.  Consequently, more is revealed of the man (in my view) in these letters than any of his published works.

He has influenced me in my writing in the past thirty years.  This opening anecdote is taken from these letters, moving me to write the following missive.

THE POWER OF A WASHING POWDER COMMERCIAL

Paulina Julia Sygulska’s the first child (born 1984) of Polish author Dr. Beata Polanowska-Sygulska, had seen a TV advertisement for washing powder and conceived from that exposure an irrepressible desire to acquire it.  Advertising had been virtually unknown under Communism, and this was Paulina’s first exposure to it as a six year old in 1990 after the collapse of the USSR in 1989.   

Advertising awakens artificial desires that are not real desires as they arise outside the self and bombard one’s consciousness.  Desires are stimulated by something within whether from the depths of one’s character or through one’s experiences.

Something occurs in one’s mind, something unexpected, something physical, spiritual, moral, emotional or intellectual, something as common as being reminded of someone or something that has previously occurred in one’s life, something that touches the cockles of one’s heart, mind, and soul. 

Of course, chances are one is not aware of these causes, which may be many and totally obscure, difficult if not impossible to trace if we are of a mind to do so.  That is because they are often carried subliminally and planted in one’s conscience like an imaginary drone looming overhead and spraying its message into one’s consciousness.  
We act or react; we don’t know why but think we do, because we want to believe we are in control; that we are in charge!  This arises from what we believe to be our legitimate desire.  But is it?

What we desire remains essentially a mystery to us as we think we desire what we seek failing to understand the influence of our choices on commercials.  Like little Paulina, we sense an irrepressible desire to acquire what the commercial has so carefully packaged.  This has become the only game in town in all dimensions of what can be designated as “media.”

To wit, journalism has become a 24/7 commercial with the repeated histrionics of “breaking news,” fighting for the very limited attention span of a bored public.  It does so by promoting a confection of selective “facts” that support its manifest destiny while tailoring its copy to that audience's collective biases.  

The evidence is overwhelming.  People who watch FOX cable or FOX network news are unlikely to watch CNN or PBS, or the CBS, ABC and NBC networks, or visa visa.    

The “facts” presented are carefully culled from millions of data that support the biases favored by the journalists and their networks, newspapers and/or the journals for which they work, which are now mainly on-line. 

Everyone is fair game and nothing is sacred as “leaks” pour into their coffers from secret and confidential sources.  Everyone seems to have an ax to grind at the expense of someone else.  It is brutal, childish and ubiquitous and therefore cruel.  

Consequently, any story no matter how sacred or mundane can be made a national nightmare in the devious hands of reporters, politicians or broadcasters.  We see evidence of this in the current case of the four brave United States soldiers who died recently in Nassier.  

Politicians who are elected to do the people’s business, but somehow find time to make mountains out of molehills when such activities support their nefarious agenda.  This is as true of those on the right as those on the left of the political spectrum.  

Seventy years ago, President Harry S. Truman gave Congress the designation of the “Do Nothing Congress.”  Little has changed since.   

With 24/7 cable news as well as nightly network news, this is grist for the mill.  Those so inclined think nothing of pouring accelerant on a raging internecine fire, then mockingly seem surprised when the insanity of mass hysteria follows. 

THE ABSENCE OF MIND IN THE MODERN SELF

What one desires, one desires.  It may not be a good thing.  It may even be a bad thing, or even a horrible thing.  That was the case of Stephen Paddock (1953-2017) who killed at least 58 people who were attending an outdoor Country Western Concert on October 1, 2017.  

Paddock barricaded himself in a room on the 32^nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas shooting down on these innocent concert goers from more than a thousand feet away with multiple automatic weapons.  Why?   

His motivation still remains a mystery.  How could this happen to a boy who was born in the very same hospital as I was, although much later, which was Mercy Hospital in Clinton, Iowa? 

Clinton is a sleepy town of some 27,000 residence and the place where I grew up from birth to a young man.  It is a quiet town, an unassuming town of good law abiding citizens, and yet this monster was born amongst Clintonians.  Go figure!

It points out, once again, that the modern mind is not only absent in the modern self, but has been caught up in the paradoxical dilemma of displaying misplaced hubris in the moment.  

Everyone is too busy being busy to realize civil society is collapsing around them, while being unable to generate as much as a hiccup of despair. 

We have these wonderful electronic pacifiers that take us out of ourselves occupying most of our waking hours.  Consequently, we remain a mystery to ourselves and totally unhinged when someone like Stephen Paddock explodes in our midst.  Why?  I confess I don’t have the answer.

It is obvious we should not make a rigid distinction between our “real desires” and our “true nature,” any more than we should make a distinction between our “real self” and our “true self.”  The enemy of our enemy is on display in these two selves.

Our self-demands (“ideal self”) and role demands (“real self”) compete self-consciously for our attention and allegiance.  Advertisers know this; media personnel know this; politicians know this.  

This is a recipe to exploit the collective vulnerability of the audience whether it involves the selling of a soap powder, the slant of a news story or the political rhetoric that generates outrage.

Selling involves "the sizzle and not the steak," claims super salesman, Elmer Wheeler (1903-1968).  He admits you can't eat an image, but the image once it takes residence in the mind, apathy and resistance disappear, which leads to the desired action.  This is Wheeler's genius.   

He may not have understood that we are on automatic pilot or that robotics have become the new distinction, but fifty years later his formula is still being busily exploited. 

Alas!  God has lost His dominion over us as has Nature.  We have lost interest in the teleological process or concern for final causes.  It is all about now: have it now, be it now, experience it now.  

We are drifters, metaphorical tumble weeds, directed and guided by outside sources with false premises, false prospectus, false descriptions, and false objectives as if we have no mind at all.  We have lost our moral compass and our way.

We have arrived at the gates of Nowhere Land as Nowhere Man with an inability to decipher true desires from false desires; as our desires no longer are self-generated from our imagination, experience and character.  

We are renters of someone else's ideas, captives of the bandwagons of true believers who tell us what is real, important, and necessary, and what we should do about it.

Our “two selves,” one dominant the other recessive are in conflict in our subconscious dissipating rather than synergizing our limited energy.

This is a war within; a war that seldom rises to overt action other than purchasing what we don’t need but want or joining a group to feel a sense of identity, then becoming a proselytizer, only to wonder how we got into this mess.  We avoid making choices so choices are made for us.  

Not far from our consciousness lurks horrors and perversions that we are apt to experience vicariously and unapologetically on the never ending commercial that television has become, or through our apps on our iPhone which are television’s stepchildren.  Get used to it as this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The Peripatetic Philosopher shares the wisdom of another author:

What do we know about DRUGS?

JAMES RAYMOND FISHER, JR., Ph.D.

© September 17, 2017

Note:

It is rare for me to site another writer’s work in this blog although it is common for me to mention the work of others.  This is the exception and it is being reprinted here with the author’ approval.

When I was young, everyone from teenagers on seemed to smoke.  People smoked in the movies, in the grocery stores, in the college classrooms, in the athletic stadiums, in the shopping centers, on trains, buses and airplanes, in doctors’ offices, in deed, my family physician had a cigarette burning in an ashtray in every room of his clinic.  Both my parents smoked cigarettes, and when relatives visited our tiny home, which was every week, they smoked as well while drinking coffee and eating fudge cake. 

On my high school campus at lunchtime, a football player was caught by the football coach smoking and he was kicked off the football team although a varsity starter.  None of my teammates in football, basketball, track or baseball in high school smoked to my knowledge leastwise not in my presence. 

When I was in service and a hospital corpsman on the flagship of the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, everyone smoked including the doctor except myself.   

The other drug of choice was booze.  My da had been something of a boozer when I was young but neither he nor my mother drank while I was growing up, which I found strange in retrospect.  Several of my uncles were notorious boozers but the rest of the relatives were not, which I found equally strange. 

On my ship when I was in the US Navy, it was routine for sailors to get smashed when we had liberty in some European port.  Having seen what booze had done to my relatives, I never developed an interest in boozing in high school, college or the military, preferring while in Europe to go on tours and gain an appreciation of my European heritage, especially my Roman Catholic heritage. 

My reason for not smoking or drinking had nothing to do with religious conviction but more to do with my egoistic paranoia for needing to be always in control of my mental faculties.  It was not difficult to avoid these narcotics because I didn’t like the smell of cigarettes or booze on a person as I’ve always had an exaggerated olfactory sensitivity.

Not once while growing up or even into my mature years did I encounter cannabis or marijuana.  It was not until I retired the first time in my mid-thirties and returned to university to seek a Ph.D. that I discovered it was the drug of choice of many students much younger than I was.  This was during the time when the American Red Cross was launching a concerted effort against the mortal danger of cigarette smoking.  Students were apparently giving up one weed for another weed, marijuana. 

All the other narcotics that author Ken Shelton alludes to in this piece were not only beyond the pale of my experience, I had no interest in learning about them. 

He speaks of addictions and if I have had an addiction it has been coffee.  Since I was a child, I have been drinking coffee.  Up until April 2017, I drank ten cups of coffee a day, or a complete ten-cup coffee maker.  In April I quit drinking coffee “cold turkey” as I have increasingly experienced canker sores in my mouth which is quite unnerving. 

Reading about causes of this irritant, I have also given up other acid producing foods as oranges, onions, lemons, apples (which I love) and associated juices.  I’ve never been interested in and therefore never addicted to soft carbonated drinks whether they are caffeine and sugar free or not, and so it has not been hard to avoid these acid producers. 

What I haven’t given up, which is an over the counter drug, Excedrin, as I’m never too far removed from a headache as they have plagued me all my life.

As you read Ken Shelton’s missive, before you become defensive, take inventory of where you are now and how you got to be there with reference to the substances to which he references.  Are you addicted to them, and if so, why?    

Over the last seventy years, or since WWII, we have been quietly and systematically dominated by corporate society in which progress is its most important product. 

To keep this spiral of ever increasing progress still in corporate control, be it in the medical, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, political or economic realm, addictions have been unwittingly promulgated by the media through advertisements, film, talk shows, news media programs and contemporary dramas.  Then, paradoxically, these specific industries combat such excesses by generating new addictions in retaliation.  No one seems to mind the absurdity of this as there is seemingly little interest in changed behavior.

Virtually all addictions have a medicinal justification and social psychological profile.  Even tobacco was once imported as a medicine.         

Moderation in all things including drugs over the counter is the byline of this piece.  Where do you stand?

Apothecary of Apathy

Like Romeo we may take a drug and die.

By Ken Shelton
© September 17, 2017

We, like Romeo, may die from taking the drugs of apothecary as results range from apathy to addiction and death.

Ken Shelton, author, publisher and keynote speaker

I see in today’s massive drug industry (big pharma) a parallel to the old practice of apothecary—and the result, then and now, is the same: induced apathy.

Apathy suggests an absence of purpose, passion, emotion, self-worth, meaning or joie de vivre (French phrase joy of living used to express a cheerful enjoyment of life, an exultation of spirit, and a joy of anything or everything). Apathy results in indifference, insensitivity or insensibility —a lack of pathos, feeling, emotion, concern, excitement or interest in emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical, or physical life and the world.

An apothecary is a medical professional who formulates and dispenses drugs. The modern pharmacy and pharmacist (pharmacology industry) have assumed this role from the ancient apothecary’s use of herbal and chemical ingredients. In addition to dispensing medicines, the apothecary offered medical advice and services now performed by specialists, and in 1600s England apothecary shops also controlled the trade of tobacco (imported as a medicine). As a profession, apothecary dates back to 2,600 BC to Babylon.

I recall the line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, “O true apothecary!” Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die.” With these words, Romeo dies (doomed love). The lovers, belonging to families of Verona long at war with each other, have secretly married and wish to run away. Juliet has taken a potion that allows her to feign death, planning to wake up and run off with her Romeo. Unfortunately, Romeo believes Juliet is really dead, and so buys poison from an apothecary. Standing over her body in the crypt, Romeo drinks the quick-acting poison, kisses Juliet’s lips, and falls to the floor, dead.

Like Romeo we may take a drug and die, or live half dead in apathy. For example, we may partake of “medicinal marijuana” (cannabis) now proscribed by doctors for their patients even though its use as a medicine is not well tested. Yes, cannabis can reduce nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy, improve appetite in people with HIV/AIDS, and reduce chronic pain and muscle spasms. However, short-term use boosts the risk of both minor and major adverse side effects, including dizziness, fatigue, vomiting, and hallucinations. Long-term effects include memory and cognition problems, schizophrenia and risk of abuse and addiction.

Medications having psychoactive (mind-altering) properties are often abused—taken for reasons or in ways or amounts not intended by a doctor, or taken by someone other than the person for whom they are prescribed. In fact, prescription and over-the-counter drugs are, after marijuana and alcohol/tobacco, the most commonly abused substances. Prescription drugs most commonly abused are: opioid pain relievers, such as Vicodin® or Oxycontin®; stimulants for treating ADHD, such as Adderall®, Concerta®, or Ritalin®; and central nervous system (CNS) depressants for relieving anxiety, such as Valium® or Xanax®. The most commonly abused OTC drugs are cough and cold remedies containing dextromethorphan.

People often think that prescription and OTC drugs are safer than illicit drugs, but they can be as addictive and dangerous and put users at risk for other adverse health effects, including overdose—especially when taken along with other drugs or alcohol. Before prescribing drugs, doctors should consider the patient’s health conditions, current and prior drug use, and other medicines to assess the risks and benefits.

When prescription and OTC drugs are taken in different quantities or when symptoms aren’t present, they may affect the brain in ways similar to illicit drugs. For example, stimulants such as Ritalin® act on the same neurotransmitter systems as cocaine. Opioid pain relievers such as OxyContin® attach to the same cell receptors targeted by illegal opioids like heroin.

Prescription depressants produce sedating or calming effects similar to the club drugs GHB and Rohypnol®. And when taken in high doses, dextromethorphan acts on the same cell receptors as PCP or ketamine, producing similar out-of-body experiences.

When abused, these drugs directly or indirectly cause a pleasurable increase in dopamine in the brain’s reward pathway. Repeatedly seeking to experience that feeling leads to addiction.

Opioids can produce drowsiness, cause constipation, and depress breathing, making opioids dangerous, especially when snorted or injected or combined with other drugs or alcohol.

Depressed respiration affects the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, causing hypoxia, which has psychological and neurological effects, including coma and permanent brain damage. More people die from overdoses of prescription opioids than from all other drugs combined, including heroin and cocaine.

Stimulants have strong effects on the cardiovascular system. Taking high doses of a stimulant dangerously raises body temperature and can cause irregular heartbeat, even heart failure or seizures, hostility or paranoia. CNS depressants slow brain activity and can cause sleepiness and loss of coordination. Continued use can lead to physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms if discontinuing use. All of these drugs have the potential for addiction, especially when abused. Also, abuse of prescription and OTC drugs can alter one’s judgment and decision making, leading to dangerous behaviors such as unsafe sex and drugged driving.

Nearly all medications, both over-the-counter and prescription, have some undesirable and sometimes dangerous aftereffects, from muscle aches to death. All kinds of prescription drugs and medications, from those that are considered “all natural” to those that are chemically produced in a laboratory, carry some undesirable or dangerous side effects, including deadly cancer, fatal heart attacks, allergic reactions, anaphylactic responses, stroke, and suicidal thoughts or actions. Many drugs can be physically and emotionally debilitating, including causing total or partial paralysis, severe pain, headaches, stomachaches, joint and muscle pain and decreased control over bodily functions. Problems related to the heart, including heart attacks, congestive heart failure, lifelong heart damage and cardiomyopathy, have been linked to many prescription drugs.

The most common side effects of any prescription drug are gastrointestinal issues, including nausea, constipation and diarrhea, because most drugs go through the digestive system to be absorbed. Other common aftereffects include drowsiness, pain and skin reactions, dizziness and falls, nausea and vomiting, dehydration, and internal bleeding.

So, why do so many people opt for drugs, with all the attendant risks, when natural remedies abound? My friend, John Hewlett, has formulated an amazing supplement, Cardio Miracle, a nitric oxide mixture that drives oxygen to every cell, with no downside.

My prescription for Romeo and all others who suffer from apathy is to forego the apothecary and most Big Pharma drugs and try a natural miracle that boosts heart and health.

The Peripatetic Philosopher shares a significant intervention:

 How Well Do You Know How Others See You?

JAMES R. FISHER, JR., Ph.D.

(c) September 6, 2017

In the last missive on “Think Tanks,” some people were mentioned as being engaged in discussions which was the equivalent of an “Internet Think Tank” with The Peripatetic Philosopher.  Cameo descriptions highlighted their particular sui generis.

UNREVELING THE CORPORATE JUNGLE

Some years ago, I was invited as consultant to discover why the executive staff of this $50 million operation continued to lose business while operating costs persisted to soar.

A day was spent with the CEO including lunch at his club listening to a retinue of frustrations with his command staff and their direct reports. 

“I want you to talk to these people and tell me what you think is the problem.” 

This consultant had heard this line so many times it felt as if stapled to his brain.  For that reason, I said wearily, “My sense is that will get you nowhere.”

The CEO gave the consultant a look of disappointment, which was not unexpected.  “With due respect, sir, I suspect your people will oblige by playing cover your ass games with me.” 

He laughed uproariously, taking off his glasses shining them vigorously with his handkerchief then giving me another look.  “You don’t mince words, do you?”

This was met with silence.

“You might have something there,” he said finally.  Then with his glasses back on, he looked at me pensively, “What do you propose?”

This is where it gets tricky.  It has been my experience that no one has a more complex ego, fine sensitivity and engaged intelligence than most CEOs combined with a high energy level.  That said it is also likely that they have a flawed understanding what is actually going on in the trenches, as they prefer to see themselves above the fray and beyond the need for total personal involvement.  Commitment usually suffices as fulfilling their role.   

“Would it be possible to schedule a two-day offsite with you and your executive staff all participating in an intervention?”

“You mean, me, too?”

Silence.  Clearly, this was not expected.

“Why, that would mean me and ten other people.”

Again, silence.  He got up from his chair at the club and said he’d be back in a minute.  He returned twenty minutes later.  “We can do it the second week next month, how does that suit you?”

Before saying, yes, to the offsite, I said, “Prior to that, I would like to conduct extensive interviews with you and all your direct reports, interviews requiring at least an hour with each person.  Is that possible?”   Before he could answer, I said, “And I would like the full use of your secretary during these sessions to take notes.”

“Fine, now are you going to tell me what this is all about?”

“I’m not sure,” I confessed.  “I’ll structure it as we proceed deciding then how to best go forward as the process is never the same.  It has to be right for you and your people and this situation.”

He nodded massaging his jaw.  “There’s a lot of ifs to the way you operate, is that fair to say?”  This was met with a smile.  “Yet, you’re telling me you’re not sure what will be achieved with this major commitment in time and money?  Am I hearing you right?”

“Sir, from what I’ve heard from you over the past several hours is that you are heading for a train wreck, and everything you’ve done, including enlisting the support of other consultants has changed nothing, is that correct?”

“Yes, more or less.  But you’re not promising anything any better.”

“No, I’m not.  My interest, and I think the reason you’ve hired me is that you know I have a reputation for dealing with root causes, not symptoms, for identifying chronic problems interfering with the work at hand.  I’m not sure what these are; nor am I certain what I propose will work, but I am confident those issues will surface.”

Back at the office, he introduced me to his secretary who seemed excited about doing something a little different.  She had no idea how different it would be or how the corporate wilderness would start to unravel.

THE PROCESS

Once the secretary joined me, and we were given a room to conduct our interviews, she opened with a request.  “Human Resources would like to sit in on these interviews, is that possible?”

To myself, I said, I’m sure HR would love that!  What if HR is the seat of the problem?  God!  I didn’t need that!  Instead, I said, “Since the Director of Human Resources is one of the CEO’s direct reports that would be prejudicial, don’t you think?  Next engineering, production and marketing, administration and public relations among others would want to sit in on these proceedings.  Just tell HR that will not be necessary, okay?”  To this explanation and request, she quietly agreed.

Then I outlined the process including her role of taking notes – we weren’t allowed to use a tape recorder and this was before the current electronic era – and then helping me collate the product of these interviews.    

Further, I told her the interviews would be open ended and not structures although the focus would always be on the salient attributes of the individual being discussed as  well as his association with his colleagues in that capacity.  

In the process, attributes, inclinations, biases, pet peeves and rational (and irrational) peccadilloes are likely to surface in terms of:

1.     How comfortable the interviewee feels with this member of the team;

2.     How well other members of the team see this member;

3.     How does the interviewee assess his competence;

4.     His ability to share critical information in a timely fashion;

5.     How territorial is this individual;

6.     What the interviewee sees as the basic problem of the current operation;

7.     What do team members do well (strengths);

8.     Where do they need (weaknesses);

9.     Is this team member a knower or a learner; a doer or a delegator;

10.  How reliable (unreliable) and dependable (undependable) is this team member vis-à-vis the interviewee’s function;

11.  Why does the interviewee feels this way about the team member;

12.  What the interviewee think causes this behavior?

“To a person,” the secretary chirped, “including my boss (the CEO) seemed to leave the interviews in high spirits as if a major load had been lifted from them, don’t you agree?”

“Why do you imagine that was so since nothing changed?”

She looked at me with a quizzical expression.  “I’m not sure I know.  Remember, they were talking largely about someone else.”  There was no point in telling her that when people talk about others they invariably are largely talking about themselves.  It is a propensity that is so obvious to the listener but seemingly never apparent to the talker.  “What I do know is that what is felt surfaces in this format.  We have to see whether it is relevant or not to the problem at hand as we create individual profiles from these data.”

“Individual profiles?”

“Yes, now comes the hard work of assessing, classifying and collating these 121 (11x11) separate individual assessments.  The amazing thing – as I’ve seen before – is that 80 percent of these assessments will show remarkable agreement, proving mainly irrelevant but nonetheless superficially reliable.  It is the 20 percent where perceptive data resides.”

“You’ve got me totally confused.  I don’t follow.”

“Ever notice that when people have been under pressure – say these interviews – and then relax thinking the interview is over the pressure is off, and they make a Freudian slip or a slip of the tongue saying something perhaps unconsciously under wraps?   That truth rises out of the subconscious; that is where the 20 percent resides.”  

She gave this explanation, an, "Oh yeah!"

“Your CEO said we could take as much time as necessary to distill these data.  I hope to get this done in a day, but it may take longer.  In any case, I have your services until we have eleven profiles including one of your boss, are you okay with this?”

“Yes, I suppose you want a rough draft typed up of all their comments first?”

I nodded.

“That will take some time.”

“I know.  I’ll be reading your work as you do each assessment.  You’ll see it will go pretty fast. 

“In the process, we will be looking for consistent patterns for each individual.  We will initially include all the angst, hatred, biases, pet peeves, envies, jealousies and even hostilities towards other members along with those with faint praise.”

“Such as?”

“Instead of calling a colleague a liar, the person may be said to stretch the truth to his own satisfaction; instead of saying the person is an ass, he might be described as someone who punishes you with his knowledge in nonuser friendly terms; instead of saying the person isn’t reliable, he may be described as loyal first and only to himself, implying loyalty to the company is not a priority; instead of saying a person is difficult to work with, the person is said to have his own private agenda; instead of saying the person is dull and just this side of stupid, the person is described as being out to lunch at crunch time; instead of say….”

“I think I get your point.  Are you saying people never say what they think about another person?”

“No, I'm saying they rarely do.  That is partially because they are not actually that interested in another person's views, only in terms of that person's views as they relate to them.”

“That is horrible.”

“No, that is how we are programmed.  It is the reason people talk in code.  They see you taking notes and their natural self-protection kicks in.”

“But you're saying decoding is possible?”

“Oh, yes!  It is not only possible; it is necessary.  To understand the code we must first crack it, and that is possible by carefully perusing these data.  People working together over time come to unconsciously reify the same code.  None of these people has been less than five years in his present position, ample time to be reprogrammed to a common code.”

“Then what?” she said in exasperation.

“Then I’ll look at those attributions that you have typed up for each member of the team, reduce them to twenty or thirty; then collate them again, reducing them further, then give you three group versions of the profiles that will differ slightly and discuss them with you. 

“You know these people on a day-to-day basis.  If you feel any of the profiles are misrepresentative or misleading as to the core identity of that individual, I would like your input.  I will take notes and use them in my final consideration.”

“Then what?” she said again.

“Then I’ll come back to you with eleven profiles each with eleven or so specific bullets that will be highlighted on flip chart paper with the name of the person profiled on the back of the chart. 

“We will then paste these profiles on the walls of the conference room, and invite the participants to come in and view these profiles and pick the one that closest fits what they perceive to be their profile taking as much time as necessary.

“The charts will be numbered 1 to 11.  They will turn that number into you as their chart without having to take it down from the wall.

“You will then give me these names and numbers and I will compare them with the names behind the charts.”

“Any idea how this will turn out?”

“No, not really, but I have a hunch but only a hunch.”

“Will you tell me?”

“I’ll do one better.  I’ll let you participate in the mystery by having you identify what chart belongs to what member of the team.  I will tell you beforehand how many you got right.  And I’ll tell you this before I tell the seated group of the results.”

REVELATIONS & RAPPROCHEMENT

The secretary smiled and shook her head when I revealed the process.  Later, when all eleven profiles were on the conference wall, she walked around and marked on a slip of paper her choices.  She got them all right. 

The reaction of the group when they saw these eleven profiles on the wall was however shuddering silence.  They, too, walked around and chose by number the one that they thought best suited them as they saw themselves.  Not a single person chose his own profile including the CEO.

They wanted to immediately rip their respective profiles from the wall without any discussion as they were truly incensed and embarrassed if not more than a little angry.  The profiles were written in rather innocuous language while clearly suggesting certain attributes that got beyond content and context of character to their subtext nature as perceived by others.

Since this was anticipated, if more than a bit risky, I asked them one question: “Why do you suppose you did not choose your own profile?”

With the exception of the CEO, they looked at me with folded arms across their chests.  The CEO smiled expansively, “Because you don’t apparently expect to get paid for this.”  This broke the tension, as they all laughed, knowing the CEO failed to pick his own profile.  Then the CEO added, seriously, “Let’s take a pause, and listen to the man to what all this means.”

After a period of kibitzing with each other to let off steam, someone said, “Dr. Fisher, you’ve got to admit this is quite unusual.”

“Quite to the contrary,” I insisted, “these results are not unusual at all.  They suggest just how difficult it is for us to see and understand ourselves as others see and know us, especially the people we work with every day. 

“We don’t realize there are many artificial barriers that we unconsciously erect between us.  It is hard work to listen when we are trained primarily as talkers.  We assume to know what another person thinks and means when we interpret this only in the way we think and feel about a given situation.  Consequently, we talk over rather than to each other, assuming they know what we know think what we think and identify problems as we have identified them.”

My premise was challenged by some, defended by others, which led to a lively discussion in which I retired to the sidelines and listened to the eleven members of this Command Staff verify their profiles. 

It would have proven dramatic if the session had been televised but my sense counterproductive as even visual evidence can be as readily denied as verbal.

Since none of the profiles were especially flattering to anyone, and given the consensus, after much discussion, that they had some validity, the state of the discussion was essentially cordial and in good humor largely because of the lead of the CEO.  In the final afternoon session, the CEO took over asking the ten what first steps might be taken for getting everyone on the same page. 

The secretary stayed but my work was done.  I received a note from the CEO months later that “his team” had changed with only four of the original ten remaining on his command staff, but that things were working smoothly.  No mention was made of the intervention or of the profiles.