Carl Rogers

Cum? Nu v'am povestit pana acum de Rogers? V'am dat tzatze si rautacisme si politica si sondaje si SF si rugby si munte si filme si copaci si trairisme personale, si nu v'am zis despre Rogers?

Si ce daca v'as fi zis? Voi tot rai atzi fi ramas. Si caini si cinici si carcotasi si nemultzumitzi si nevrozati si prapastiosi si conspirationisti si forumisti si ...

Gata. Positive regard.

Aici. Sau aici. Sau aici. Sau aici.

Sau oriunde, ca de'aia au inventat rusii aia geniali Google'ul.

O tzara trista, plina de umor,
care in loc sa faca terapie se uita la televizor.

:(

=========

In continuare, de aici.

The entire theory is built on a single “force of life” he calls the actualizing tendency. It can be defined as the built-in motivation present in every life-form to develop its potentials to the fullest extent possible. We’re not just talking about survival: Rogers believes that all creatures strive to make the very best of their existence. If they fail to do so, it is not for a lack of desire.

Among the many things that we instinctively value is positive regard, Rogers umbrella term for things like love, affection, attention, nurturance, and so on. It is clear that babies need love and attention. In fact, it may well be that they die without it. They certainly fail to thrive -- i.e. become all they can be.

Another thing -- perhaps peculiarly human -- that we value is positive self-regard, that is, self-esteem, self-worth, a positive self-image. We achieve this positive self-regard by experiencing the positive regard others show us over our years of growing up. Without this self-regard, we feel small and helpless, and again we fail to become all that we can be!

The aspect of your being that is founded in the actualizing tendency, follows organismic valuing, needs and receives positive regard and self-regard, Rogers calls the real self. It is the “you” that, if all goes well, you will become.

On the other hand, to the extent that our society is out of synch with the actualizing tendency, and we are forced to live with conditions of worth that are out of step with organismic valuing, and receive only conditional positive regard and self-regard, we develop instead an ideal self. By ideal, Rogers is suggesting something not real, something that is always out of our reach, the standard we can’t meet.

This gap between the real self and the ideal self, the “I am” and the “I should” is called incongruity. The greater the gap, the more incongruity. The more incongruity, the more suffering. In fact, incongruity is essentially what Rogers means by neurosis: Being out of synch with your own self.