A blog, my blog, I own a blog!
And I had forgotten it; so many weeks without an entry -the hot long summer and the works for the new feature of the site- But I would say something about my summer rereadings.
The first book I would like to refer to is "the Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde, an old novel from the days of my youth that I took in order to refresh my English and, can you believe it? I found some fresh concepts about Acceptance and Commitment, perhaps from the Wilde´s quite hedonistic point of view, but full engaged with taking the life as it comes: with its pleasures and its fears, its worries, hopes and sufferances and as Wilde says by the Dorian Gray´s voice, we well do our best by taking everything as it comes, without avoidance.
Then, there is a psychological author I reread from time to time: Viktor Frankl, the author of the "Logotherapy". Here I found a quite complete set of values. Frankl said that there are three ways of giving a meaning to the life: the way of accomplishments, the vital goal, the task you could undertake as your "mission" in life; the way of feelings, mainly the feelings of love and care you convey towards yours and, eventually, the final personal attitude towards it unavoidable: the attitude of meaningful acceptance as I understand it.
The third readings were about the Korzybski´s "Science and Sanity". I use to reflect many times about the difference between WORLD and WORDS, between what we say it is and what it is probably to be. I think it is a good point on reflection in order to distinguish our own conceptions about the "reality" and the "Reality" itself. Here I can found not only useful tools to better understanding many traps of the language but also interesting points to think about what it "is" and what we say it is
There is another issue I interested in: the Seligman´s Positive Psychology. After many attentive readings I am afraid it is nothing but a positive (and passive) classification based on "personal strongs": something like positive characteristics of personality not too different from introversion-extroversion or something like that.
My personal criticism towards this positive stuff is based on the supposed need to organise your whole life based on your personal strengths in order to be happy; for instance, if your highest personal strength is "love of learning" it seems that you won´t be able to be happy (you will be very unhappy) if you decide to do anything else than study and learn new things as, for instance, getting involved in politics or work for an NGO.
In fact, I find the concept of "personal strengths" not so interesting as "values". "Strength" points -in my personal view- towards something concrete, bordering and unavoidable (as the color of the eyes); "values" implies personal choice (even if they do not match with the "personal strengths"), opening, possibilities...
I think I have to go deeper in these reflections.
And there is another field I would like to explore: the Hartman´s "Axiological Psychology"... Will it be a worth exploring field or will it another psychological "brand"