If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.
Hi,
Samantha Green Tolson,
Thank you for your questions!
Samantha Green Tolson wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 12:10 am
I agree with most of the points in your book; in fact, we see many things the same way. So, I was wondering about your views on mental health conditions.
Do you think that Autism, ADHD, Bipolar, clinical depression, and other such neurodivergent conditions are a matter of choice?
Generally, no, I don't think those conditions are a matter of choice.
Similarly, I don't think things like heterosexuality/homosexuality are a choice.
Here's another analogous example: Due to evolutionary factors, many humans feel hungry even when they have already eaten 4,000+ calories in a given day. Many humans live in such a state that if they ate every time they felt hungry and kept eating until they weren't hungry, they would die in less than a year from overeating. I know because I am one of these people.
Presumably, due to random genetic diversity, some other humans, including one of my very good friends, have the exact opposite problem: If they only ate when they felt hungry, they would quickly starve to death. Many of them set goals to gain weight and struggle with it in the same way I can be said to struggle with feeling incessant hunger no matter how much I eat, or those who die from morbid obesity can be said to struggle with the same hunger and bodily urges I do*, despite making a different choice in the face of such hunger.
Between those two categories, there is also a type of person who is just genetically prone to feeling hungry such that if they ate whenever they felt hungry and only when they felt hungry, they would eat just about the exact perfect amount to stay in a roughly so-called "healthy" BMI range (and/or just stay near their goal weight, whatever that is, if they have one).
I don't think people choose to be one of those three categories any more than they choose to have blue eyes or be tall or short. If I were given the choice, I'd probably choose category three, but I find myself in category one. This is like saying that if I were given the choice to become 1 foot taller, I would take that opportunity.
The thing about such 'conditions', though, is that they merely abstract descriptions of how often we are to feel a certain bodily feeling, at least in given future situations, in statistical comparison to other humans.
Psychobabble** like "anxiety disorder", "phobia", "attention disorder", "high metabolism", "food addiction", "imposter syndrome",
"Illness Appropriation Disorder", etc. can help tell us how prone/predisposed to a certain feeling someone is, relative to other humans, particularly in terms of their genetics, hormones, upbringing, or ingrained habits.
As
my book teaches, everyone's feelings are fickle, and we generally don't control what bodily feelings we happen to be feeling at any given moment. They come like clouds and storms in the sky and float away to be replaced by yet other different ones.
So there's a lot of psychobabble that ultimately still boils down to this simple idea from the book:
"Generally speaking, you cannot control your body’s feelings or even your mind’s thoughts. But your body and thoughts do not control your choices; you do." (Page 103)
So there are three different things at play here:
1. So-called 'Conditions' and other psychobabble (e.g. xyz-phobic, anxious, food addicted, pedophilia, alcoholism predisposition, etc.) that refer abstractly to how often or predisposed a certain human is to feeling certain feelings (e.g. fear, sadness, grief, apathy, hunger, the urge to have sex with children, etc.).
2. The feelings (a.k.a. urges) themselves (e.g. fear, sadness, hunger, the urge to have sex with children, etc.).
3. Actual choice (i.e. the choice to eat food or not, the choice to be brave or not, the choice to have sex or otherwise act on one's sexual urges or not, etc.).
It's often confusing and conflating to ask whether a certain situation or state of affairs is 1, 2, or 3 from above because all three are at play in any given situation. However, one who is practicing the teachings of
my book will focus on the difference between the three and then focus most of all on #3 itself.
I might notice that I am experiencing a certain feeling (#2), and I might notice that the human in the mirror (i.e. Eckhart) has a statistical tendency to feel that feeling more than most humans on average (#1), but my focus will be on neither of those two things and instead my focus will be firmly on figuring out what the choices available to me in my present are (#3) and then focusing on deciding which of those options I will choose to select in my present with free-spiritedness (a.k.a. self-discipline).
Beware of any word, label, or viral thought pattern that falsely or confusingly conflates #1, #2, and/or #3 with each other. I suggest you do your absolute best to break your concepts and words down so that the distinction between #1, #2, and #3 is always very clear in each and every sentence you speak to both others aloud and to yourself in your own head.
Perhaps the epitome of a dangerous word that falsely and confusingly conflates those three things is the word "try". This is why both
my book and I very strongly recommend that one give up the word "try" entirely. In fact, my book even goes so far as to say, "Trying is lying".
Samantha Green Tolson wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 12:10 am
Or do you think they are conditions that cannot be controlled; ergo stop fighting them, and accept them as they are?
Surely, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question.
In an actual medical field, it's relatively easy to tell; you just check the literal diagnosable symptoms in the manual. If they are chosen behaviors (e.g. drinking, eating, having sex, smoking cigarettes, gambling), then it's a choice. If they are feelings/urges, such as hunger, sexual attraction, or the urge to drink alcohol, then it is generally not a choice but a feeling or a propensity to experience a certain feeling.
Homosexuality and female hysteria were both historically diagnosable "conditions" or even "disorders", one of which was treated by a vibrator. Our allegedly scientific manuals and psychological taxonomies today aren't much better. At least they didn't use a hysterectomy to treat hysteria, I say.
Nonetheless, each condition/situation is different.
Some are like real-life literal prisons that a person cannot get out of. It's possible, for instance, that any given literal pedophile could not stop themselves from being sexually attracted to children, no matter what they do from this point forward in the rest of their human life. Other conditions are like a room with an unlocked door. A human who takes some simple practical steps can get themselves out of that condition/situation/room.
Since
my book treats your so-called past and future selves as others, then, in that sense, it's generally always true that you—
the real you—don't ever choose the condition/situation/room that you find yourself in. A younger version of the human you see in the mirror puts you there. In other words, your past self (i.e. an 'other') put you there. Thus, in the lingo of my book, your situation/room is determined by another, and your choices determine what another person's room/situation/condition will be. It's a karmic cycle in which each person's choices affect another more than themselves. Nonetheless, practically speaking, it's very often extremely easy for a human to choose to get up and start walking towards the door, turn the handle, open the door, and walk out of whatever room they happen to find themselves in. 99% of the time, when a human says, "I must XYZ" or "I can't ABC", they are lying. This idea is explored more in my two topics: (1)
The Six Dangerous Misery-Inducing Words: "Must", "Have to", "Need to", "Should", "Ought", "Try" and (2)
My Three Principles for Happiness and Success ["Success is a choice."]
Still, as my book says,
"An imaginary roadblock can be as effective as a real one." (Page 120)
If someone thinks they are in prison when they are in a room with an unlocked door, then they likely won't bother getting up and walking towards the door.
The illusion of futility is debilitating to many.
All humans are on the addiction spectrum, and many find comfort in pretending they are out of control when they aren't (i.e. pretending they cannot do something when they can do it, or pretending they must do something when they could simply choose to not do it).
Samantha Green Tolson wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 12:10 am
If you think that they are a matter of choosing, what advice or program do you recommend to assist with choosing to overcome them?
I recommend they read
my book at least twice, do their absolute best to implement all 11 of the suggestions at the end, and also make sure they either (1) already agree fully with every single sentence in the book or (2) post each and every sentence with which they disagree in order one at a time in
this topic, making sure to wait to post the next one until the first one has been settled.
Samantha Green Tolson wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 12:10 am
If they are something that cannot be controlled, what advice or program do you recommend to assist someone in working to achieve their goals despite the condition?
It's the same advice I give all humans.
There's a reason
my book has the subtitle, "The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All".
If you generalize
'the condition' sufficiently, it's just
'the human condition'.
For some humans, it's choosing to not eat despite feeling extreme hunger.
For some humans, it's choosing to be brave in the face of fear—perhaps even a fear so extreme it can be rightly called a phobia or an anxiety.
For some humans, it's choosing to not obey a certain sexual urge.
For every human, it's something.
It's in that sense that all humans are on the addiction spectrum.
All these different conditions and situations boil down to a common situation/condition, which is addiction itself, which is part of the human condition and, in a sense,
is itself the common human struggle that unites us all. All the feelings are a type of temptation/urge. All humans have these feelings/temptations/urges. Many humans are just like slavish puppets bossed around by feelings/urges/temptations. Other humans have discovered the spiritual freedom of which
my book speaks and have become the master rather than the slave.
What varies is simply, as
my book says, the "props in the common human struggle against temptation and misery". Or, in other words, what varies is just the props in the common human struggle for spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) and for the invincible graceful true happiness (a.k.a. inner peace) that such freedom entails.
My book was inspired by a simple question:
"What is the opposite of temptation?"
In contemplating that question, I wrote
my book about spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) and the wonderful invincible inner peace (a.k.a. true happiness) it provides, with a
grace and gracefulness that is so amazing and empowering that it at least seems supernatural.
Fundamentally, all humans have the same struggle. It's sometimes called the spiritual struggle or just spirituality itself. And all humans have the choice in each and every moment to choose to be an Übermensch (a superhuman) or not. That choice is always a choice, and it is always 100% yours and only yours.
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott
"When we rebel against fleshy material nature in this way, our success is absolutely guaranteed and infinitely easy, for we rebel without fighting; we succeed without trying. When it comes to the contentment of inner peace and spiritual liberation (a.k.a. self-discipline), you are omnipotent. You need not even snap your fingers. In the words of Voltaire, you are free the instant you want to be."
- In It Together, page 105 success-is-a-choice.png (683.19 KiB) Viewed 11596 times
* That is, unless they are free-spirited and happy as they walk themselves to an early grave via morbid obesity, which surely some are. If they are free-spirited and happy, then I say more power to them, as in that case they don't struggle with hunger. In that case, they aren't fighting hunger and losing, but rather just happily playing with the joy of hungrily eating using happy free-spirited choice.
** Please don't get me wrong or read between the lines; I believe psychobabble is very useful in the taxonomy of humans and communicating which props represent one human's props in their version of the common struggle, so I don't use the term psychobabble with any tone or derision or such.
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.