New Paradigm Will Be a Game Changer

Psychology and psychotherapy are subjects which still appear to divide people. If you surveyed a cross-section of the population about their thoughts on these  you would get diverse opinions about their effectiveness, some of which would probably be quite dismissive.

One of the reasons for this could be that there is vagueness and conflicting views about how it all works. Most people have heard of Sigmund Freud of course, and many have a rough idea of his theories. But how many people can say for sure that they work or can be used to reliably treat mental illness?

Since Freud there have been a huge number of new practices and methods to treat mental illness, but none have apparently won through as being irrefutably effective or 'True', and the 'science' and practice of psychology could still be in its relative infancy.

From New Age therapies which often recycle and repackage ancient teachings for the contemporary world, to semi-scientific methods such as NLP or CBT, to psychiarty or complex approaches such as Transactional Analysis, there are a  bewildering array of treatments, almost all of which claim to be the best or sometimes the ONLY path to a true sense of peace and well-being!

But surely not ALL of them can be the most effective? So, how can we tell which ones work and which don't? Should we go mainstream or left-field to enhance our mental and emotional wellness? Meditation or psychoanalysis? Life coaching or Prozac?

According to author and coach Jamie Smart, a new principle is emerging that will unify and clarify our approach to treating mental problems, and if the implications are played out in the way he suggests, far more than just these challenging issues.

In his books 'Clarity' and 'Results', Smart goes into this basic principle in some detail, reiterating it in a variety of ways that have the potential to transform many areas of our lives.

Personally I discovered Jamie Smart's books a year ago and have been working with his principle(s) over this period and I can report an overall lessening in feelings of stress and a clearer idea of how to position myself in relation to challenges that come up daily.

One of the problems is that the principle is counter-intuitive. In other words it goes against the way things feel and appear and requires long and sustained re-programming and unlearning to acquire. We are so accustomed to believing that our feelings about the world come from outside, whereas in Jamie Smart's teaching NONE of our feelings come from outside of us.

Unlearning, or 'subtractive' learning is at the heart of the CLARITY principles that Jamie Smart teaches, which is one of the most refreshing aspects of his work: it's more about taking away the stuff that's obscuring the reality of our situations and our relationship with the world to expose the clarity and connection that are our natural condition.

The CLARITY principles do appear to be a game-changing paradigm that could transform not only the way we deal with stress and mental health, but ultimately how we relate to the world around us including our interior life.


You can find Jamie Smart's book on Amazon HERE:

New feminists and Taoism

Recently we have seen several high-profile individuals such as Emma Watson ‘come out’ and declare themselves as ‘feminists’. Presumably this is a gesture designed to improve the public image of feminism, and somehow make it more acceptable. However, it is by no means clear what they actually mean when they say they are ‘feminists’.One can’t help but wonder if these individuals themselves really know what they mean when they say they are feminists. Emma Watson has mentioned something about standing up for women’s rights in Africa, or elsewhere and of course this is commendable. But this not really a feminist issue, rather it is about basic human rights. Believing that men and women have equal rights is no longer a feminist issue. It is taken as read that it concerns everyone and that any other type of view is unacceptable. So what really IS a feminist? Who can be a feminist? Nobody seems to have an answer to this question but here are a few ideas:

1     A feminist is someone that believes that our world needs to move in a ‘feminine’ direction by becoming more caring, and more nurturing of the values that we associate with people that call themselves ‘women’.
2.       A feminist is someone that believes that women should have more rights and more power in society.
3.       A feminist is someone that rejects traditional stereotypes associated with male and female genders.

These definitions of feminism are quite different in various ways.  The first one is about feminine values and the type of society we want to create.  If we look at Geerd Hofstede’s index of cross-cultural distinctions we see that some societies value Femininity more than others. Examples of this typically are Scandinavian societies that appear to be more ‘caring’ in the way they are structured. On the other hand, according to Hofstede Japan scores very low on the index for feminine values. Anyone that has actual experience of Japan however would probably dispute such a result and we soon find ourselves in difficulties here: What really ARE feminine values and how do they manifest in a society? Speaking personally as someone that has lived in Japan for example, I would say that overall and with all things considered, Japan is a more’ caring’ society than the UK, which apparently contradicts Hofstede’s findings.

The other two definitions above are more similar to each other and imply a more political stance for a feminist. The second really amounts to an interest group for 50% of the population and is not really about values. It’s more about women saying “Here we are and we mean business”, which is, after all not a very feminine thing to be saying. It leads us to saying things such as: Do feminists actually want to be women or not? This implies an existential crisis behind feminist outbursts, a kind of search for an identity or re-definition of women’s role in society. Again, nobody seems to have clarity on what this means and how it can actually support the interests of women or society.

The third definition above again suggests a re-ordering of roles and relationships with regard to gender. But what this really means or what it would look like is not clear. It is also not clear whether or not it would contribute to the quality of life that people, including women experience now.

One possible solution to this confusing situation is to turn to Eastern philosophy for insight. In the Taoist principles of Yin and Yang we get a different frame on the whole issue, that moves us away from intellectualism and political posturing towards a more profound connection with what makes us who we are in this world. The genius of Eastern thought lies in its’ simplicity. Taoism takes us into the energies that govern our existence, giving us insight that resonates with quantum science at a very deep level. The principles of Yin and Yang deal with optimum balance and well-being. There is a simple clarity in the principles that go beyond the confusion that politically-oriented ‘intellectual’ western-style discourse gets us into. We are after all, essentially fields of energy moving through a universe of energies that are interacting in various ways. Taoism says that nothing is wrong. We already possess everything we need to be in balance, whole and complete on this earth. The problems begin when we confuse ourselves and get out of balance. This happens when we disconnect from our centre and identify with a false identity. Unfortunately, western civilisation is based on and continually encourages us to engage with this whole confusion rather than re-connect with the whole. Osho has pointed this out in a detailed way in his speeches as a critic of the West.

When individuals are out of balance and sick, then naturally the society will also be so. Clarity is needed to bring people towards a healthful existence so that they can truly move ahead and contribute their gifts to society. The problem is that there are too many voices giving out confusing and unhelpful messages. When people start to identify with political principles and base their life around intellectual ideas they soon get lost or mired in conflicts that in general do not bring us closer to healthy solutions.  The term ‘feminist’ has a cache of conflict and division that does not really serve the cause of unity and wholeness. Seeing and feeling beyond gender politics to a more underlying and fundamental pattern of harmony or disharmony, firstly within ourselves and then as a society, is more likely to bring people closer together in reconciliation.