Maps of Reality

Recently a client came in to consult with me about feeling better and said, 

“I’d like to gain control of my feelings.”  

What that statement suggests is that the client is not in control of her feelings right now, that there is some kind of learning activity that has to take place before she is in control.  Fortunately, there is another way to regard this issue, the possibility that she is already in control and there is no need for an initial step of “learning to take charge.”

There are many ways to view any issue in life.  Each viewpoint has inherent consequences, some of which may be unseen.  I would like to share some of my viewpoints or ways of thinking that my clients have utilized to function more effectively and to feel better quickly and easily.  You see, people hire me as a consultant when  they are not feeling as good or functioning as well as they would like.  I admit that, initially, my views may seem peculiar in some respects.  However, clients arc able to utilize some of these ideas immediately and positively because the approach is also simple, practical. and light-hearted.

Let me begin by saying that we are all in the same business—the business of living our own lives, of operating our one unit.  We are located some place on the continuum of time that stretches from birth to death.  We know that we have been  born and the majority of us accept that we will die.  We are not sure just when we are going to die , but no one really has any doubt about the  final outcome:  each of us will eventually die .  At least that is what the available evidence indicates.  And since everybody dies, it always turns out the same way.   Thus, there is nothing to worry about.

With no mystery about the outcome, what interests most of us is the quality of our trip, that is, how we feel during our transit through life.  Being in the same business (each  of us living his own life), we all have exactly the same motivation—to feel as good as we can as much of the time as we can.

If we accept for a moment that there is no difference in motivation, what accounts for all the variety we see in terms of what people are doing and feeling?  I am sure it is not the difference in fingerprints.  Rather, the difference results from the various viewpoints about life.  This is what I like to call “maps of reality,” a sort of interpretive framework that we use to make sense out of our environment.  What am I writing about?  I am pointing to something that seems to be relatively “invisible,” in the sense that we are not aware of it.  However, as you may soon see, it is probably the most important factor in determining the quality of our life because quality of life is determined by how we are feeling and functioning at any given moment.  How can I best describe it?

In one sense, I can’t describe “it” because I will be using it to describe itself—like using a yardstick to measure itself.  However, l can use an example so  that you can demonstrate it to yourself.  Before I give the example, 1 want  to suggest that we each have an interpretive framework or map of reality that functions as a focal lens to create our own unique image of “reality.”  Just as we are  unaware of our contact lenses or glasses once we become familiar with them, we are also unaware of our interpretive framework that determines our perception, our interpretation of  reality.

Before I share the example, I would like you to consider the function of contact lenses or glasses.  One way  of expressing this is that the purpose of the lens over the eye is to change our experience, i.e., to see better.  Imagine that a person were fitted inappropriately; he/she would see more poorly.  What if we have had lenses, fitted during childhood, that in a sense “prevent” us from enjoying life?  Since we would be unaware of the lenses, we might assume that the barriers to our enjoyment are “out there” instead of a function of what we bring with us.  Remember the paranoid person can find a reason to be suspicious wherever they go.  The gambler can  find something to bet on no matter where he is.  The person who “loves to argue” has no difficulty getting into arguments except, of course, with those who “hate to argue.”

For the example, I would like you to imagine the following scene:

It was early in the morning, the Eastern sky was bathed in pink, when she awakened and looked over at him.  Still heavy with sleep, she put her hand gently to his cheek and slowly rubbed the softness of his ear  lobe.  This awakened him and he opened his eyes and smiled as he looked into her eyes.  He continued to smile as he put his hand on her breast, whereupon she returned his smile.  At this point the young mother, fully awake, decided to get up and fix breakfast, while the little baby boy went back to sleep.

If you are the “average” or “normal” person, you experienced  a little “jolt” or sudden re-orientation when you read the last sentence of the paragraph.  How did you create that experience?  I am suggesting that without being aware of it, you had constructed a “picture” in your mind (an interpretation) of two adults waking up.  Since I provided no identifying clues other than female and male, you are likely to have “assumed” or supplied (without  knowing it) two adults, and perhaps a sexual context.  When I removed the ambiguity with the last sentence by identifying mother and infant son, you suddenly took it out of the sexual context and placed a maternal framework around it, thereby changing your experience of the paragraph.

That sudden change in your experience was due to the shift in your interpretive framework or map of reality, not the words themselves.  If you look back at that paragraph, you will see that the words are still  exactly the same, but that you are reading it differently, your “view” is different.  In effect, you  are “making up” a different “meaning.”  You are reading the same material with a different lens in place.

So without defining it, I have pointed to an interpretive framework (lens or context) in a way that can be easily understood or experienced.  It is something that you already “know,” but have forgotten or become unaware of, just as you have become unaware of your glasses once you become accustomed to them.

We have become so “used to” our “invisible” interpretative framework (and the resulting  everyday experiences) that we no longer “see” them.  It is like wearing some article of clothing that is very tight, like a belt, shoe, or turtleneck, and not knowing how restrictive it is until we remove it.  In a similar way, most  people “wear” restrictive mental clothing, but have little or no awareness of their own role or “authorship.”  They are also unaware of how easy it is to change their context or interpretive framework, once they become aware.  Recall how easy it was to shift your experience of the scene above when I identified mother and infant son.  You didn’t have to “work” at it.

Another way of illustrating the existence of this interpretive framework would be to borrow from the title of an old movie, I Am A Camera.  What I would like you to imagine is that you are a camera, that you simply  register the visual input.  Imagine walking down the street in a camera manner.  You see two children bouncing a balloon back and forth.  You register it, but do not have any more reaction to it than a camera would.

Next, witness an accident.  See the cars colliding with the accompanying bending of metal and breaking of glass.  The tape recorder part of you records the sounds but these sounds have no meaning for you.  You observe the injured and dismembered people and hear their moaning as well as the sirens of the approaching police cars.  All this is seen and heard but has no meaning for you, no experience as we know it since you are only a recording apparatus.

Continuing your walk, you observe a child eating an ice cream cone.  You see a barking dog lunge at you.  You observe a sunset.  You look in a downstairs apartment window and see a couple making love.  You see leaves falling from a tree.  You observe  a crow flying.

Each of these scenes (seens) are simply recorded and then you move on.  You have no reaction, no judgment, no experience .  They all have the same meaning—absolutely nothing.  Just as the camera or tape recorder do not “care” what they are recording, you also have only one position—complete neutrality.

As you process the suggested imaginations, you will probably experience a variety of  feelings; not having reactions will seem bizarre.  The reason I made the suggestion to pretend that you are a camera is because I think that this exercise will assist you in increasing your awareness about the existence of that I call the interpretive framework .

Yet another way to become aware of our interpretive framework is to visit another country, preferably someplace other than Western Europe, although that will do.  Recall the novelty you experienced the first time you visited Japan and saw people bowing to each other in their greeting.  Re-experience your amazement at how well  the Chinese children use chopsticks.  If you observe the African girl getting rows of bumps on her face, called “beauty marks,” you wonder about our obsession with “zits.”  Incidentally, this interpretive framework is not only visual but auditory as well.

We refer to the auditory instance as “having an accent.”  Our custom is to attribute the accent to the speaker, not the listener.  I once heard an Australian open his talk with the comment, “I may sound a bit strange, but remember that you Yanks will be listening with an accent.”  An interesting perspective.

Again I point to it’s “invisibility” in the sense that we are relatively unaware of it’s presence.  We ordinarily  operate on the premise (within the framework of) that it is the stimulus “out there” that creates our response or reaction “in here.”  It is the speaker, not our “ear” that creates our experience of an accent.  In other words, we tend to function as if we were not involved in the “creation” of our experience.

I think we are involved, totally.  One of my favorite sayings in this regard is:  Due to circumstances  beyond my control, I have been left in charge of me.  How about you?

The clincher is that we did not have this interpretive framework when we were born.  We were very much like the camera and the tape recorder.  We reacted to loud noises and sudden loss of support reflexibly, that was about all.  We did not know the meaning or significance of what we saw or heard.  We accumulated and developed this interpretive framework during our childhood.  We accepted the general “maps” of  our family and our culture while also developing the novel or idiosyncratic “twists” that make each of us unique .

For a moment, let’s call this interpretive framework or context our own personal “map of reality.”  How can we view this notion in a way that has utility for increasing our effectiveness, that will result in our feeling and functioning better more of the time?

Is it possible that we can make a quick shift that will result in our increasing our happiness?  I think so.  Just as we shifted our experience of the mother-son paragraph, we can make similar shifts in our experience of life.  Once we “shift” our view or map of reality, we can feel better quickly, with no “hard work.”  Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?  Is that limiting thought or reaction a function of “reality” or is it a function of your viewpoint or interpretive frame work?  That is an interesting question to explore.

Using maps as a metaphor, let me expand on the notion of utility or effectiveness.  If I am going to drive from St. Louis, Missouri, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, I would stop by the Auto Club and get some recent road maps of Missouri , Iowa, and Minnesota (not California or Utah).  The people at the Auto Club could use a felt  pen to trace my routes so I could visualize the alternatives before I even begin my trip.  Of course, having those routes clearly delineated on the map doesn’t restrict me—I have the choice to take side trips if I want.  The reason I want to use these maps is because they have considerable utility for me.

In contrast, let’s imagine that I was a pilot and wanted to fly to Minneapolis in a light plane.  I would definitely not want road maps.  It is not that the road maps are bad—it is just that they do not have much utility for me as a pilot.  I would be much more interested in obtaining aeronautical charts, only because I could utilize that information more effectively, not because they are in some way “better” than road maps.  I would want to know where the tall buildings and airports are located, not highway numbers.

To carry the illustration one step further, if I were a barge captain, I would  have little use for either the road maps or aeronautical charts.  Instead, I would want river navigation charts of the Mississippi between St. Louis and Minneapolis.  I would be very interested in the depth of the river, the location of the dams, locks, etc.

As you can see from these examples, there is no inherent superiority of one map over another, just a difference in relevance or utility, based on what our goals happen to be.  The various maps are limited abstractions of exactly the same territory or reality.

Speaking of goals, I mentioned earlier how each of us is basically interested in the quality of our trip, i. e., feeling as good as we can as much of the time as we can.  Now, consider this.  What if we had an inappropriate  (not wrong) “map” of how to get there?  What if we were using an aeronautical chart to guide our driving?  We would not know highway numbers, and so we might easily get “lost”, a function of our map rather than our  ability as a driver.

Similarly, we might get “lost” in our effort to feel good, if we were operating with an ineffective or inappropriate interpretive framework or “map of reality.”  For example, if  our “map” includes food, drugs, alcohol, and smoking as a means of feeling good, we could feel good momentarily and yet might end up feeling bad in the long run!  In fact, that seems to be the case.

I think that many of us have a puritanical interpretive framework as our “norm.”  The net result is that we don’t feel good very often or for very long, because feeling good is “suspect” or self-indulgent—at least according to the typical map.  Furthermore, we don’t deserve to feel good unless we have suffered first.  Remember the well known slogan, “No Pain, No Gain.”

We are likely to have a pattern of snatching defeat  from the jaws of victory.  Our puritanical framework results in our believing that life is difficult and that if we are not trying hard or suffering, we are not sincere.  If our map had the principle or assumption that suffering now is investing in the future, we would gladly feel bad now so we can get the pay-off later, such as after we retire or after we have enough money.  What is ironic is that trying harder to do something that doesn’t work still doesn’t work.  Trying harder makes our life both more “trying” and “harder.”

Getting back to our interpretive framework or “map of reality,” it is important for us to recognize (re-cognize) that the map is not the reality itself, i.e. the territory it represents.  They are not the same, regardless of our belief.  Perhaps that is an obvious point, but nevertheless , an important one.  The map of Iowa (mentioned earlier is not really Iowa—it is simply a representation of Iowa, and a useful one at that.  In other words, I can utilize it while driving—in Iowa.  I might also add that I can also use it to help start a fire in my fireplace.

Many people function without being aware of this distinction between their map of reality and the territory it represents.  This can cause considerable problems, including getting “lost” on our way to feeling good.  We do not often realize the limited and arbitrarily arrived at nature of our maps.  Road maps, aeronautical charts, and river navigation charts are  each a severely limited representation of the territory, to the exclusion of other types of information.  We can’t have all the territorial information on the map or it would be the complete territory once again.  A line from a young comic could fit here, “I  have a full scale map of the United States at home”.  The joke is that what he described is impossible.

Let me share another analogy that could help illustrate this confusion.  When we are in a restaurant looking at a menu, we  read words like “juicy” and “crisp.”  Even though there is no actual food on the menu, we point to a series of words and say, “That looks like it would taste good.”  We are speaking as if the menu were the food itself,  rather than a “map” of the food.  Although this is a ridiculous analogy, if we failed to make the distinction between the map and the territory it represents, we would eat the menu.

Needless to say, we would not satisfy our hunger.  As I said, this is a ridiculous example.  Yet it doesn’t seem so ridiculous when we get a little more abstract and personal.  Instead of confusing food with the “map” of food, let’s imagine that someone says, “I  want to be successful.”  This means that on their map they have to live in a particular house in a particular neighborhood, drive a particular car, and make a prescribed amount of money.

The reason they want to be successful is that they want to feel good—remember the universal motivation. Their particular interpretative framework (or their map) makes it clear that they can’t feel good now.  They have to wait to feel good until they have arrived at “success.”  They certainly can’t feel good now.  This means working hard, putting in extra hours, saving, maybe scrimping, and postponing feeling good for the meantime (which might be why it is called the ” mean” time).

According to the “normal” or standard puritanical map which is usual in this culture, the promise is that we will feel good soon, but not now or not yet.  First, we have to work hard , put our nose to the grindstone, our shoulder to the wheel, and stick to business.

The issue I am pointing  to is analogous to the relationship between rehearsal and production.  If the cast at the theater rehearses Othello, then  we can bet Othello (not Oklahoma) is likely to be the resulting production.  Similarly, when we rehearse a constant struggle to achieve, day after day, does it seem surprising that when we arrive at our imagined success points, we are ill practiced at enjoying our selves?

Incidentally, there are many people who have “arrived.”  They are living in that particular house in that particular neighborhood, driving that particular car, and making that specified amount of money—yet they are not very good at feeling good.  Instead, they experience what they rehearsed:  straining and striving.  You see, they haven’t practiced feeling good about themselves along the way, because of their map or framework.

Not that they haven’t tried to feel good.  They have tried very hard to feel good.  At times, they have felt so good they have had a hangover as a result.  Or, they may have tried to assuage their hunger for feeling good by eating good, with the result  that they may have trouble tying their shoes.  Look around you (or in the mirror), there are millions of overweight people with the resulting overload on their hearts.  Add to that the large number of individuals who are doing anorexia, bulimia, or fad dieting behavior to themselves.  Perhaps there is an unspoken commandment on our map, “Thou shalt always be at the wrong weight.”  If that were part of the map, then it would almost guarantee that people would spend a great deal of time feeling bad.

There are 40 to 50 million people putting smoke in their lungs  in order to relax.  Another huge group of people use alcohol as medication, trying to solve their problems and feel good through the use of a solution or liquid that is not a solution, simply another problem.  Another large group of people use and abuse themselves with legal drugs (valium, sleeping pills, etc.).  Still others use illegal drugs.  Of course, some of these people fit in several categories at the same time— like fat alcoholics who smoke.  Each of these behaviors can be viewed as an attempt to feel good that ends up with people feeling bad.

There is some positive fallout to some segments of the population from all this.  Judging from the number of ads that I see on television regarding alcohol and drug dependency units, the advertising industry is doing well.  Many of the hospitals in my area now have eating disorder units in addition to their chemical dependency units.  However, 1 am certainly not complaining, all of this “trying hard” is good for the “shrink” business!

So, what does all this mean?  Of course, it  means whatever we want it to mean.  We all construct our own individual meanings and viewpoints.  I will share the map that I have made up.  I think that the above  mentioned difficulties, dis-eases, or addictions result from people utilizing an ineffective map or strategy for managing themselves.  It is not that they are bad drivers.  Rather, they simply got “lost” on their way to feeling good by attempting to follow an aeronautical chart while they were driving a car.  No wonder they didn’t know the highway numbers.  No wonder they were constantly getting lost.

What happens when people use an inappropriate map, at least inappropriate for feeling good now?  They suffer a lot.  Perhaps a descriptive motto for this puritanical map might be, “Life’s a bitch, and then you die.” Another contender could be the one I mentioned earlier, “No pain, no gain.”  If we follow this map and we are interested in gain, where would we look?  In pain, of course.  And what would we gain?  Pain, of course.  What a beautiful formula for not feeling good now.

What is even more ludicrous is that most of the so-called helping professionals (ministers, physicians, social workers, psychologists, etc.) are operating from this same set of maps.  You can watch them on television talking about how difficult a struggle it is to overcome bad  habits.  They often say that the first step is to “gain control of your life.”  That statement stems  from a map that views control as something that we do not currently have, as well as something that is elusive to get.

The “helpers” will add that what is needed is effort and tenacity.  We can see this in chapter headings in the self-help books:  Breaking Bad Habits, Overcoming Your Past, etc.  Those are “struggle” words and I feel worn  out just thinking about those terms.  Again, I want to point out that they also are not bad drivers, they are simply operating from a map that has little utility for successful living, if feeling good now is a high priority.

I confess that I was “normal” in the past and used  this kind of “standard” map.  However, I wasn’t feeling good. Nor was I very helpful to my clients, even though my intent was sincere.

At this point,  I no longer categorize myself as a “helper.”  Now I have a different map.  I see myself as a consultant.  I am someone who invites clients to “lighten up.”  I am someone who reminds clients of  their own  sovereignty within themselves as well as their own value.

I have this unusual notion that I can’t help others.  They can only help themselves.  If I could help (fix) somebody, then I would be more powerful than they are.  When a therapist assumes the role of “helper,” the therapist’s job includes “changing” the client.  Thus, the clients are less involved, waiting for someone else to make them feel better.  With that attitude, they place limits on their own sovereignty.

Another aspect of this issue is that as soon as I am powerful enough to help somebody, there is also the possibility that I might say the “wrong thing” and thereby, end  up “hurting” them.  You see, help and hurt come as a pair.  When I was operating from the “normal” map, I would tie myself in knots internally “trying hard” to be helpful and “trying hard” not to be hurtful.  What a great role model for an uptight client, an uptight therapist!

Another perspective might be that if I were powerful enough to help or fix somebody else, then I would be God.  Fortunately, that job is already taken.

Towards the end of the first interview with my clients (which usually lasts from 2 to 3 hours), they frequently indicate that they are feeling much better.  Yet the world that they are returning to (their job, their spouse, their children, their parents, or whatever) has not changed at all while they were sitting in my office. They are feeling better as a result of utilizing an alternative map or re-presentation of “reality.”  That means that the locus of power is internal to the client rather than external.

Sometimes, I ask my clients if they know who made them feel better.  Many respond, “I know what I’m supposed to say,  I’m supposed to say that I did it.”  I then add, “You had better say that, I certainly don’t want you to leave here feeling better and blaming that on me.”  Usually at this point, they look at me oddly and then break into a smile.

Getting back to the interpretive framework or map, what would be the benefit of using a different map, a so-called unusual or atypical map?  What would it look like and who would be the beneficiary?  The hallmarks of this map would be the assumption that we are not bad drivers; in fact, we are good drivers (okay).  Further, we are in total control of our vehicles (body and mind).  This is in distinct contrast to, but does not negate the existence of, the puritanical map.  The latter says that we are bad drivers and also that we are only in control of part of us, not all of us.  The part we do not control includes our feelings and emotions.

The contrast in the utility of these maps is immediately obvious.  With the unusual map, we don’t have to get better first to feel better—we don’t have to improve in order to feel good.  More likely, if we feel better, we will improve naturally.  In addition, if we don’t feel good now, we can change immediately rather than waiting helplessly for conditions or people around us to change.  If we are not in charge of ourselves, obviously a change in our feeling is difficult, if not impossible.  On  the other  hand, if we are in charge, then change could be easy—a distinct advantage compared to the puritanical map.

Let’s return to the driving analogy.  You are in your car alone and when you turn the wheel left, you go to the left, and when you turn the wheel to the right, you go to the right.  In addition to the steering mechanism operating well, the rest of the vehicle functions well, also.  The road that you are driving on is Interstate 55 from St. Louis to Chicago, a distance of approximately 250 miles.  It is just like most roads: there is a smooth area in the center, a shoulder on either side , and a ditch alongside each shoulder.

If you have ever driven long distances and become a little sleepy, you may have drifted over to the right shoulder.  As soon as the wheels start out on the shoulder, the sound and feel of the car is different.  This is sufficient feedback to alert you so that you can gently turn the wheel to the left a little and avoid going into the ditch.  It is not a good idea to yank or jerk the wheel since this will likely result in going into a spin.

It isn’t difficult to drive.  Most of the time, we do it with cruise control on and function as if we were on automatic pilot.  However, as soon as we see something different or feel ourselves on the shoulder, we can disengage the cruise control and automatic pilot to become fully aware.  We can not be more fully in control than we were during the preceding moment when we were unaware (there is nobody else in the vehicle), but we can typically make a shift in our awareness.  We can become attentive.

I recently attended a seminar led by a psychologist who shared a formula that I thought was interesting.  He said that change or growth is a function of motivation and  awareness.  The formula for this relationship was:  G = M x A.  He pointed out that he sees everybody as sufficiently motivated, so that is not the issue.  Rather the issue is that people have a limited awareness of the number of options in their repertoire.

 The notion of limited awareness is similar to my suggestion that we have been functioning on the basis of a  map that may not have much utility for what we are interested in:  feeling better now.  I think that with increased awareness of options (a map with more utility), we can make remarkable changes quickly and easily.

An apt analogy might be jokes or riddles.  The basis of a riddle is that we are asked a question, whereupon we scan our “map” for the answer.  Usually we don’t “see” the answer, but once we are told, we laugh at the recognition (re-cognition).  For example, what do you call a boomerang that won’t come back?  If you haven’t heard that one, you will search for an answer.  When I write the answer, you will immediately recognize (re-cognize) it.  The answer is a stick.

A longer riddle may be appropriate to illustrate the restrictive nature of our assumptions.  I have two coins in my pocket and one of them is not a nickel and yet they add up to 55 cents, what are the two coins?  As you search for the answer (those of you who haven’t heard it before), you look through your options and probably will come up with, “I don’t  know.”  When I give you the answer of a nickel and a 50 cent piece, you  may say, “But you said one of them was not a nickel.”  That is right, one of them is not a nickel, however, the other one is a nickel.  The one that is not a nickel is the 50  cent piece.  I did not say that neither of the coins was a nickel.  According to your interpretive framework, you may have assumed the words, “one of  them is  not”, to be equivalent to “neither of them.”

There is no difficulty arriving at the solution when we make the appropriate interpretation.  If we utilize a road map while driving and an aeronautical chart while flying, we will experience much more effectiveness when compared to the reverse.  Similarly, if we utilize the atypical map, we can use our sovereignty to feel better quickly.

Back to driving, let’s imagine that I have driven from St. Louis , Missouri, to Springfield, Illinois, about 2/5 of the way to Chicago.  Let’s imagine further that I have had an  extremely bumpy ride and I am getting very poor  mileage.  When I look back at the tracks of where I have been, I see that I have driven most of the distance in the ditch and in low gear.

No wonder that I have had a bumpy ride and lousy mileage.  I have driven in the ditch and there is no way that 1 can change that.  It is in the past.  However, I do notice that by turning the wheel to the left, I could have driven on the smooth part of the highway anytime I had wanted.

Now, at this moment, if I don’t limit myself with an interpretive framework that says that I am not in charge of the steering wheel of my vehicle, and that change is difficult, I can begin using my control to drive on the smooth portion of the highway immediately!  Where I have been need not determine where I will be unless I am using a map that points to that conclusion.

Driving on the next section of the road, I have new choices.  It is very easy to drive on the smooth part of the highway.  It is also easy to drive in the ditch, even though it is bumpy.  I can (and will) determine the proportion of time I spend in the ditch and on the highway, what gear I am going to drive in, and whether I keep my foot on the brake or not.

Further, I notice that I am alone in my vehicle and that the other drivers alone in their vehicles have their hands full of their own steering wheels and cannot reach mine.  I can worry about them a great deal or I can  worry about them very little.  It is my choice.  I can worry about the future (the condition of the road around Bloomington, 3/5 of the way), or I can feel guilty about driving in the ditch earlier.  I am in  my vehicle alone and am totally in control of it.  Of course, doing apprehension about the future or guilt about the past is the equivalent of driving in the ditch.

Let’s look even  further at  the driving analogy.  As I drive down the highway of life and begin to “do” upset, in this case meaning I am getting on the shoulder and heading for the ditch, I can sense the changes in my feelings and I can gently turn the wheel to the left and avoid going all the way  into the  ditch.  Again it is my choice.  Just because I start for the ditch, doesn’t mean that I have to continue to go all the way into the ditch.  Further, even if I do get in the ditch, this doesn’t  mean that I have to stay there for a long period of time.

Look back in your life.  Do you realize that you have ended each of your upsets, at least temporarily?  Whether it be anxieties, jealousies, depressions, guilts, etc., you have “gotten off” the painful focus.  Even if you did a 3 year depression, you have managed to get off it, if only for a few minutes.  My invitation to you is this: why not get out of the ditch sooner rather than later?  What is amazing is that if you drive on the smooth part of the highway most of the time, you won’t have much time to spend in the ditch.  And, vice versa.  The only reason  people aren’t feeling good is that they are too busy feeling bad.  This epidemic of unhappiness seems to be our national pastime.

Feeling good (according to the “atypical” map) is so easy and simple that people who have been operating according to the puritanical map (the “normal” map) not only don’t see it, but they don’t believe it.  Maybe this is an example of believing as a precondition for seeing!

 I might add that feeling bad is also simple and easy when operating according to the usual map.  Many people are “blind” to the existence of another map even when that option is pointed out to them!  Besides, people tend not to trust feeling good—the natural high.  They wonder if they are not kidding themselves or imagining it.  Incidentally, those are good questions to ask yourself the next time you are feeling bad (driving in the ditch).

We are simply more accustomed to feeling bad or tense or worried or whatever.  That seems to be the norm.  Next, we deny that we have the steering wheel in our hands.  Instead, we wait for conditions to change.  Perhaps we are waiting for the highway department to pave the ditches.  Good luck!

It is all a matter of feedback.  Yesterday, I saw a young lady who was doing jealousy extremely well.  Before we began, I asked her if she wanted to have a cup of coffee.  She said, “No thanks,” and went on to explain that she’d already had two cups of coffee and that if she drank a third cup, she would get a headache.  I didn’t say anything then, but I did note internally that she was well acquainted with the value of negative feedback (the headache).

She went on to explain how jealous she was about her boyfriend talking to other women, especially if women were attractive and there was a lot of laughter and enjoyment evident.  She also explained that she had been jealous before, although not to this extreme.  Further, she reported that as a child, she had frequently done tantrums as a method of trying to get her way.  Her conclusion was that she was “spoiled” (another label for bad driver).

In the more traditional models of therapy, once we reached the conclusion that she was a bad driver, she would have to go back to the past and try to figure out how she had “gone wrong.”  This would require  extensive and expensive detective work, ferreting out the significant aspects of her early experience.  It is also clear that it would take a long time and require a great deal of work to “break such a bad habit.”  Based on such  a map, she would not trust anything that was simple and easy.

Back to my client—I asked her how she created her feelings of jealousy, since I assumed she was in charge.  She looked a little confused and then said she didn’t know, it “just happened.”  I suggested that she probably imagined (pictured in her mind) the two of them (her boyfriend and the other woman) flirting.  She agreed and went on to explain how badly that reflected on her—that she wasn’t attractive enough to keep his interest (another way of experiencing insecurity).  That was the reason she would make a scene like storming out angrily.

Subsequently, she said she would feel embarrassed, yet angry at him because he had “made” her feel jealous.  Since she appeared to be so involved in telling her story, as if she were reliving it at that moment, I asked her if she were currently  feeling some jealousy, just thinking about that specific incident.  She said yes, she could feel some jealousy.  I said, “Good, you are certainly powerful, you can make up jealousy right now, and your boyfriend isn’t even here.”  She seemed both startled and interested, so I went on to share a little about the non­ traditional map or view.  What I pointed out specifically was that she was steering.  She could do  as much or as little jealousy, for as long or as short as she wanted, no matter where she was.

At that point, I brought up her not wanting a third cup of coffee because she didn’t want a headache and pointed out how she had learned to avoid negative feedback.  Similarly, she could start feeling jealous (start toward the ditch), but that as soon as she became aware (felt the wheels on the shoulder), she could expand her awareness of choice and gently steer herself back towards comfort and security (without going all the way into the ditch).  In this way she could “get ofP’ her jealousy and feel good immediately.  It was her choice, just like turning down a third cup of coffee.  I pointed out that all of us feel what we are thinking about, so if we don’t like what we are feeling, we can change our thoughts.  We can even chuckle at ourselves rather than beating up on ourselves for heading toward  the ditch.

She said that she had never looked at it that way, that she never knew she had created her feelings of jealousy by what she thought about, and that she was looking forward to playing her role differently in the future.”  Looking forward to playing” certainly seems like light-hearted language to me, perhaps an indication that she was already utilizing a different map.

Do you notice that her language also implies positive rehearsal?  And rehearsal usually leads to production.  I am fully prepared to have her report in the next session that she chuckled at herself when she started to do jealousy.

Another good possibility is that she will report doing jealousy in some situations and not doing jealousy in others, and wondering why.  I will offer the notion that why is a question  that has very little pay-off in this kind of a situation, since it usually leads to more time on the shoulder or in the ditch.  However, I will congratulate her on those occurrences when she didn’t do jealousy.  I will add, “Now that you know that you don’t have to do jealousy, that the control is not external, just do more of what you did instead of jealousy.”

I suspect many readers will balk at the quick change notion.  “It sounds too easy,” or, “You make it sound so simple,” are frequent comments used to dismiss simple and easy change.  I see that as skepticism and point out that it is a function of the “normal” map.  We have been  taught to distrust and reject anything that comes too easy because the only things that are worthwhile and that you appreciate in life are the things that you have worked for long and hard.  Long live the Puritans!

I am not surprised at your skepticism, it is “normal.”  I think that you are a good driver and you are free to drive your vehicle anyway you want.  As a matter of fact, you have been driving your vehicle all along while using your sovereignty to pretend that you are not.  I certainly have in the past.  I just don’t do it as much as I did formerly.  I like the pay-off of operating as if I were in control rather than pretending that I am not in control.

We have some interesting customs or traditions in this culture—some useful, some quaint, and some with a negative pay-off.  An example of the first is that we drive on the right hand side of the road.  Why?  Because we got started that way.  It is clear that we had a choice because in England they do just the opposite.

An example of the second custom is how we lower our voices and talk softly when we enter a funeral parlor.  Although nobody has taken Funeral Parlor Behavior 101, we automatically sense what others do and do the same thing without much awareness of making a choice.

The reason I say the tradition is quaint is that we don’ t need to be afraid that we will wake up the dead.  Of  course,  you can do indignation and say that it shows respect for the deceased, and I’ll say, “If you say so.”  If the custom were to talk loudly, and somebody talked softly, we might again do indignation because that is not the way we do it in this country.  We act as if one custom precludes the contrasting custom, which of course, is a function of our map.

The custom with negative pay-off that I want to focus on is this notion of external events doing our steering, that we do not have the steering wheel in our own hands.  For example, let’s imagine that it is Saturday morning.  George and his wife are having company later in the day so he wants his lawn to look nice.   George is in the garage trying to start his lawn mower.

The mower has a pull type starter and he gives the cord about five healthy yanks.  When  it doesn’t start, George, “without thinking” (meaning he is thinking outside his awareness), begins to add frustration each time he pulls and the mower still doesn’t start.  By the time he finishes the tenth pull, he has used his control over his body (vehicle) to get the blood vessels to begin standing out on his neck, to make his face blotchy, and to add acid to his stomach.  By the twentieth pull, his veins are very noticeable, his face is uniformly red, he has acid in his stomach, and fire in his eye.

This is not a good time to talk to George; if you are his little boy and ask him a question, he is likely to yell  at you to get the hell out of the way and stop bothering him.  If the dog gets in his way, he is likely to kick the dog.  In addition to muttering obscenities, he is contemplating using a sledge hammer on the mower.

Do you want to know what is funny about this custom?  The lawn mower doesn’t care how much upset George creates within himself.  It does not feel intimidated in the slightest.  George’s stomach and heart  are  giving him some negative feedback, but George is pretending in his mind that it is the lawn mower not starting  that is causing his upset.  According to his map, his upset is not a function of what he is doing to himself.  Since most people operate with this map in mind, George is “normal” and his feelings are understandable and justifiable.

If I were to use this map, I would say, “Sure, I understand it and the feelings are justifiable.”  However, I want to add, so what if it is justified, his “doing” upset doesn’t seem to work in the direction of either feeling good or starting the mower.  If he wanted to prove he was sincere, he could have a heart attack and then the lawn  mower could be sent to jail.

By this time, the  female readers are probably shaking their heads, nodding in agreement about male stupidity.  Well, let me share one of your scenes.  Ethel has just washed the kitchen floor when her 3 year old  daughter wants some orange juice.  Mom pours some cold orange juice into a glass and hands it to her, cautioning her to be careful and hold the glass with  both hands since she just washed the floor.  Of  course, there is condensation on the glass and little Sally reaches for something while holding the glass in one hand.  As you might imagine, the glass slips, the orange juice is suddenly lying all over the newly washed floor.  Ethel blows her lid, hits the little girl, yells at her for being inattentive, tells her she is a bad girl who never listens, and sends her to her room.

Does all this upset cause the orange juice to jump back into the glass?  Not at all.  This is totally wasted energy and yet so ordinary, usual, justifiable, and understandable.  While she is cleaning it up and muttering to herself, Ethel is adding acid to her stomach and strain to the relationship with her daughter (whom she loves).

In more general terms, the two examples can be seen as manifestations of exquisite control based on the internal (and “invisible”) interpretative framework or map.  It goes like this:  anytime the world isn’t the way I want it to be, I agree to do some form of upset.  This, combined with the tradition of treating ourselves badly is a great combination for keeping the people in the helping professions in a sound financial condition.  Normal and sensible, but idiotic.

 Let me end all this by saying that I have made up everything that I have written here.  I must have made it up because it wasn’t here before I wrote it.  Further, the reason that I want you to know that I made it up is that I don’t want you to take me or it seriously.  If you are normal, you are already too serious.

What it boils down to is that I am inviting you to consider a “map of reality” that has two fundamental assumptions.  One, that you and I are unique and precious human beings always doing the best that we can.  We are only limited by our awareness.  In other words, it would be appropriate for you to treat yourself as if you had value, as if you were a friend.

As a way of illustrating the implementation of this approach, if the mower won’t start or there is orange juice  spilled on the freshly washed floor, it is appropriate that we do a moment of disappointment and sense our wheels on the shoulder of the road of life.  We can  then relax, breathe out, and chuckle.  It is not necessary to go all the way into the ditch and stay there.

The second fundamental assumption is that you operate you and I operate me.  You r steering wheel is in your hands and my steering wheel is in my hands.  You and I are very responsive mechanisms.  Getting red in the face, putting acid in the stomach, and creating anger or jealousy are excellent examples of our exquisite internal control.  Unfortunately, since we don’ t treat ourselves as if we had value, we use our sovereignty to follow the custom of this culture and mismanage our selves by drinking, eating, smoking, producing high blood pressure, and other health issues that are currently so popular in this country.

By playing around with the notion of another map, we may not get “lost” quite so often.  By operating from the position that we are worthwhile and in charge of our steering wheels, we could drive on the smooth part of the highway for most of our trip through life.  One benefit to ourselves would be that we would get great “s mileage. “

Now that you are aware, how are you going to use your awareness of control?  You can dismiss all that you  have read or you can experiment.  I think you are up to you.  In other words, you are making up your life and I am making up mine.  Each of us is making up our own life.  Perhaps every thing is mad up.  Let me end with a short paraphrase of Alan Watts.

It is amazing what doesn’t exist in the real world.  In the real world, there are no things nor are there any events.  That doesn’t mean that the real world is an empty space.  Instead it means that reality consists of a marvelous collection of wiggles and squiggles upon which we project meanings in the same manner that we look at clouds and see images or look into the sky at night and see constellations.  Certainly there are groups of stars called constellations in our mind’s eye, but the stars are not out there already grouped, holding their breath, waiting for us to name them.  We provide the names, images, concepts, and experiences while reality is divinely indifferent.

BE GOOD TO YOUR SELF:  SMILE!