SSDR wrote:The human psychology is adaptable. The human psychology is fixated to the environment. That is an evolutionary characteristic.
The universe is a destined existence where everything is fixated. Psychologically "Overcoming" what cannot be changed is a psychological characteristic of a transition of a previous phase to the next phase. Having the previous phase's psychology while existing into the next phase will result in a psychological desire of "Overcoming."
Humans want what is around them. Humans do not choose what they want. Humans' physical nature chooses what they want. Humans want to eat because they need to eat to survive. Humans want to have air so they do not suffocate. Humans want water so they do not get dehydrated.
Except that humans aren't reducible to biological instincts as such base drives undergo sociocultural changes, the same general desire takes on a specific social form and means.https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm
Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all.
Lev Vygotsky is an example on the differentiation between the biological base which is general to mankind universally, but also the sociocultural development which changes and develops qualitatively new qualities in man on that biological base. He for example emphasizes self-mastery through signs, the development of the intellect in combination with language.http://www.unilibre.edu.co/bogota/pdfs/2016/mc16.pdf
When comparing the principles regulating unconditioned and conditioned reflexes, Pavlov uses the example of a telephone call. One possibility is for the call to connect two points directly via a special line. This corresponds to an unconditioned reflex. The other possibility is for the phone call to be relayed through a special, central station with the help of temporary and limitlessly variable connections. This corresponds to a conditioned reflex. The cerebral cortex, as the organ that closes the conditioned reflex circuit, plays the role of such a central station.
The fundamental message of our analysis of the processes that underlie the creation of signs (signalization) may be expressed by a more generalized form of the same metaphor. Let us take the case of tying a knot as a reminder or drawing lots as a means of decision making. There is no doubt that in both cases a temporary conditioned connection is formed, that is, a connection of Pavlov’s second type. But if we wish to grasp the essentials of what is happening here, we are forced to take into consideration not only the function of the telephone mechanism but also of the operator who plugged in and thus connected the line. In our example, the connection was established by the person who tied the knot. This feature distinguishes the higher forms of behavior from the lower.
Man actively creates the reflexes which then becomes a compulsion for his activity, we aren't merely our immediately biologically given instincts but conditioned reflexes, many of which we actively construct based on our training/development with our caregivers through childhood.
Though the overcoming I'm concerned with isn't say the distance between one's needs and self ie I feel hunger so I then go eat. Rather it's of an emotional character but integral to one's personality overall.
As the example in the OP of MacDuff, it isn't something that can be worked through in one's activity as no change in the world objectively changes the problem although one's actions might play a role in the emotional aspect, just as thinking about something over and over may have little bearing on solving it as it's not a cognitive problem, it has no rational solution as problem-solving another task.
And to the previous posters, I don't know to what extent I find answers satisfactory. The point of accepting things is, of course, an important guide, learning to accept what is can be the source of great frustration, but when the problem is denial itself, saying acceptance is the answer doesn't necessarily provide a guide to overcoming the need for the denial.
This would not be the answer I give the mother who digs up her dead infant to hold and pretend isn't dead. She, of course, needs to accept the reality but even once accepting this as fact, it may not still be essentially overcome or resolved.
And I don't think the thing I'm talking about is something that can be dismissed as simply not a problem. The issues many people come to a psychologist/counselor or whatever which aren't a simple matter that need a bit of encouragement or practical advice any decent friend might provide are things which are difficult to ignore. Difficult because they clearly interfere in the person's well being, many may go on living but in terms of living a quality life unburdened by such an experience which tends to have some pathological effect in their personality, it requires some intervention and collaboration between the person in someone else in many cases.
The person who has no problem from a terrible experience has no need for therapy.
One can, of course, function well enough in going to work, raising a family and still be fucked up from the suicide of a family member. They may not ever work through and get over it exactly, to be at peace with it and die with such an issue. But if they were to pursue some means, what would the process entail? Or what is even entailed in the person that it doesn't arise as a pathological matter.