There are many self-help books, but they all suffer from one fatal flaw: they assume the solution to your problems lies in changing yourself. This is a clearly misguided approach for many reasons.
The first is the most obvious. As Aristotle’s principle of identity states, A=A. Or, put in words, “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.” As such, changing yourself is impossible: to change yourself, you would cease to be you. The new person might be better. And, let’s face it, probably would be. But it would not be you. As such, changing yourself would be ontological suicide and you do not want any part of that.
The second is less obvious but is totally historical. Parmenides of Elea, a very dead ancient Greek philosopher, showed that change is impossible. I know that “Parmenides” sounds like cheese, perhaps one that would be good on spaghetti. But, trust me, he was a philosopher and would make a poor pasta topping. Best of all, he laid out his view in poetic form, the most truthful of truth conveying word wording:
How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown.
Nor was [it] once, nor will [it] be, since [it] is, now, all together, / One, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek? / In what way, whence, did [it] grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow / You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought / That [it] is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow / Later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus [it] must either be completely or not at all.
[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous… Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together, but all is full of what is.
And it is all one to me / Where I am to begin; for I shall return there again.
That, I think we can all agree, is completely obvious and utterly decisive. Since you cannot change, you cannot self-help yourself by changing. That is just good logic. I would say more, but I do not get paid by the word to write this stuff. I do not get paid at all.
But, obviously enough, you want to help yourself to a better life. Since you cannot change and it should be assumed with 100% confidence that you are not the problem, an alternative explanation for your woes is needed. Fortunately, the problem is obvious: other people. The solution is equally obvious: you need to get new people. Confucius said, “Refuse the friendship of all who are not like you.” This was close to the solution, but if you are annoying or a jerk, being friends with annoying jerks is not going to help you. A better solution is to tweak Confucius just a bit: “Refuse the friendship of all who do not like you.” This is a good start, but more is needed. After all, it is obvious that you should just be around people who like you. But that will not be totally validating.
The goal is, of course, to achieve a Total Validation Experience (TVE). A TVE is an experience that fully affirms and validates whatever you feel needs to be validated at the time. It might be your opinion about Mexicans or your belief that your beauty rivals that of Adonis and Helen. Or it might be that your character build in World of Warcraft is fully and truly optimized.
By following this simple dictate “Refuse the friendship of all who do not totally validate you”, you will achieve the goal that you will never achieve with any self-help book: a vast ego, a completely unshakeable belief that you are right about everything, and all that is good in life. You will never be challenged and never feel doubt. It will truly be the best of all possible worlds. So, get to work on surrounding yourself with Validators. What could go wrong? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Returning, briefly, to the topic presented. What is the distinction between partial and total validation? Is it demonstration of my notion of contextual reality, or something else? Is anyone ever totally validated? I don’t think so. No one agrees upon;accepts; universality, because contextual realities differ. This has been a feature of religion/philosophy, for as long as humans realized they could THINK. Factions fractionalized. People lost touch with commonality, because of contextual reality. Result: ideas of unity are meaningless. Others have posited this, and been rejected. And, just so. Hell, I am out of beer. Again. Stuff happens.
I don’t have onions, cabbage or potatoes either…
What was wrong about my comment on the US CEO? Is free speech no longer acceptable, unless it conforms to status quo? This is confusing. If THIS query is rejected, I’ll have an answer…if so, nice knowing you, Professor…
Be well.
hmmmm . I wonder, is validation reality? Reality is constituative—it changes in twenty-four hours, if not sooner. My notion of interests, motives and preferences is, likewise, fluid. Connectivity>>process >>action.
Being the uninitiated person I am, I’ve considered the phrase: *total validation*. In my limited semantic experience, total validation seems, at best, redundant, granting that some of the terms I attach to my own ideas*** about philosophy may have redundancies of their own. I don’t grok total validation because any distinction between [partial?] and total validation seems false. Partial validation of something might have useful meaning, though I doubt that, unless we are discussing some vein of scientific inquiry; some bit of discovery, leading to useful advance. Total validation sounds more akin to exaggeration for effect. Validation, of anything, is either total, or it is it is not, validation at all, IMHO. Ergo, if we are confident enough to assert something as valid, the modifier (total), is unnecessary fluff? A way of talking. Aggrandizement of pompous intellectualism. There that is. So, I have edited this as best I can and checked spelling.
*** for example, Constituative Reality; Interests, Motives and Preferences (IMPs), and/or Excess, Exaggeration and Extremism.
Outstanding post, Professor!!! Short, sweet and to the point. A philosopher, walking-the-walk; talking-the-talk; briefly, concisely and succinctly. I try to write that way, but, efforts do fall short of the goal line. I have read few self-help books, but enjoyed Gail Sheehy’s (sp?) book. Passages, and, LIKE to imagine it helped someone. Was briefly interested in Dr. Peale’s (sp?) book on positive thinking, but, never got around to it. So, my views on such things are generally brief, and therefore, not encompassing. Does positive thinking=validation experience? I can’t say, however, they both seem parallel with my notion of *constituative reality* and her cohort in crime,*interests, motives and preferences*…. (IMPs, or, impishness). Do you know Schwitzgabel, in California? he and I have never met, but we seem to get along. Maybe, that is key, or, the point of walking-the-walk, hmmm? … a reason why absence makes hearts grow fonder, while familiarity breeds contempt?….when we grow too close with one-another, we grow bored. Yep. I hope it stops snowing by, say, May? Not counting on it, though. Spock, over and out.