Three statements of human existence

by Tim Brunson PhD

There are three very simple two word statements that can sum up how we humans experience our universe. Indeed, these statements, which pretty much respectively follow the three major philosophical epochs of the past few centuries – and especially our last one hundred years – dramatically influence the totality of our subjective experiences to include what we believe to be true, how we act, and how we think (and create). Furthermore, it seems that entire populations of psychologists (and other mental health experts), medical doctors, educators, counselors, sociologists, and social workers ply their trades more so as a result of their affiliation and a priori values as they guide their charges back toward what they presumptively feel and believe to be congruent with their theory of the mind as it may be aligned with one of these statements.

These three statements, which are: I AM, I DO, and I THINK, not only generally follow the philosophical trends known as Modern, Post-Modern, and Meta-Modern, respectively, but can be seen in popular culture in the form of art, architecture, and film and theater. When I ask a client, a patient, or one of my radio show guests which of the three they consider as the most important or influential in their life, generally, I find that their selection becomes a droning theme that seems to influence all other personality and behavior patterns that later emerge.

It is also interesting how the preference for one of these statements over another tends to influence those who are in the helping and healing occupations and professions. For instance, someone who is of the I AM ilk will most likely focus on helping their subjects find their true identity, their true name, and their essence therefore regarding all deviations to be illusory, transitory, anti-harmonious, and incongruent. The I DO crowd identifies people more by the roles that they play, what they have achieved, and their potential. The I THINK group, which is probably the rarest, focuses on assisting their subjects fostering intellectual and creative urges. This is where I would find art and theater therapy being applied.

It is also interesting to explore what the predominant orientation is in effect at any one time and how this influences a person's approach. It seems that the predominant mode at the time when one was born and in effect during their basic personality formation will dramatically affect their outlook and how they deal with others. For instance, psychological (and philosophical traditions), which emerged during or right after the two world wars of the 20th century tend to explore unconscious mind conflicts and focus on finding one's true essence. This group, which includes most therapists of the early years of the Baby Boomer era, seems to care most about helping their charges look inside themselves to discover who they really are. Those who were born later or are the children spawned from the I DO group seem to emphasize accomplishment, potential, material wealth, etc. These I DO people respond very well to rapid therapy techniques and seem to be more open to trends like Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Cognitive-Based Therapy, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, and even hypnotherapy (to include Ericksonian Hypnosis). It is interesting that when a subject who is more aligned with the I DO statement sees an I AM therapist, time is spent trying to get the subject to focus less on achievement and more on finding their true nature – which may not be very productive. The opposite, however, is also true. An I DO therapist has little time for lengthy talk therapy such as Freudian psychoanalysis. The goal is to get their charge to process information (including altering linguistic patterns) and behave differently. Interestingly, older subjects who grew up in the 1940's and 50's, may not respond well to I DO forms of therapy as they see it as way to mechanistic and insufficiently respectful.

The interesting phase that we are now experiencing involves the forming of a hybrid or amalgam approach. In fact, this is the thrust of Meta-Modern philosophical thought, which explores the failure of both the I AM and I DO orientations while seeming to preserve the best of both. As we humans have been recently going through a tremendous achievement and accomplishment state facilitated by the exponential impact of applied technology (i.e. the Internet, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc) coupled with more sophisticated application of capitalism in our economic systems, it seems that most of us have been sucked into a form of one-dimensionality, which naturally aligns us within the common society by empowering us (and limiting us) mainly to serve as cogs in a functioning and pragmatic machine. This de-personalization causes such dire dysfunctionality that I AM approaches – to include the recent emphasis on rather ancient mindfulness concepts – are being once again interjected into therapy even though the mechanistic, rapid I DO era techniques still seem to be on the upswing. It is very interesting to sit on the sideline and watch these somewhat opposing concepts interplay in the area of mental health – and in the media and art. At this point, I want to make it very clear that I am not preferring one over the other despite the fact that when I DO cultures reign supreme social ills, such as drug abuse, incarceration rates, and child abuse, seem to be more prevalent than in those cultures that focus mainly on I AM.

At this point, I have failed to address the importance and value of the I THINK mode/world view. It seems that the heretofore emphasis has been on social control by establishing acceptable parameters of identification or behavior. Indeed, training/educational institutions, legal systems, etc. seem most concerned about fostering I AM (i.e. pre-dominantly religious cultures and socialism) or I DO (i.e. capitalism) as both appear to more likely assure social harmony and order. This means that the thinker is most likely an anomaly, such as an Einstein who for many years could not get a job in academia because his brazen claims rocked the foundation of Newtonian physics. These pariahs normally serve as fodder for intensive, shallow scrutiny and other forms of public crucifixion. Therefore, seemingly the role of the typical IAM and I DO therapist, educator, or law enforcement person is to quickly reform or transform such errant behavior (i.e. thinking – and the passion that may go with it) into more socially acceptable parameters. While I most definitely believe that the superior human frontal lobes have much more relevant capabilities than merely designing new forms of social control, it may takes us a few more centuries to achieve our true intellectual potential (which hopefully will include a pleasant balance between the AM, DO, and THINK dimensions of our humanity). Of course, that is provided that our current AM and DO obsessions don't result in our erstwhile annihilation.

The simple typification of modes of existence does not stop with these three statements. In fact, some reason that one may have a causal or other correlative effect on one (or more) of the others. Descartes statement that "I think, therefore I am" is a prime example. When exploring or examining a person's basic orientations, it is important to investigate further. For instance, once someone clarifies their orientation, a clinician may then ask their subject to explain its meaning. Therefore, they may say, "I am, therefore I am," which is what I would expect from someone of a more fundamentalist religious or political persuasion. They may conversely say, "I am, therefore I think," which I find to be a very contradictory and oxymoronic declaration as neurologically these processes seem to be mutually exclusive. From that point one could also consider other variations such as "I am, therefore I do," which is seemingly the mantra of the Protestant Work Ethic crowd, "I do, therefore I am," which clearly describes the work alcoholic, "I do, therefore I think," another oxymoron, "I think, therefore I think," the mantra of the Mensa crowd, or "I think, therefore, I do," which may describe the drive to innovate and the entrepreneurial spirit." Frankly, I consider Descartes' statement to be quite Utopian at this stage of human evolution.

Regardless, pondering these three basic existential statements – and their various derivatives just mentioned – may give those of the different transformational endeavors such as medicine, mental health, and coaching greater insight as why they choose to approach their practices in a specific way. The design of more effective interventions, such as better hypnotherapeutic scripts, could follow. Likewise, by improving one's understanding through the use of yet another intellectual prism, as this in many ways describes the nature of their typical subjects, may give the practitioner opportunities to be more understanding, adaptive, congruent, and effective in their helping and healing efforts.