Wu-Wei also result in a state of self-transcendence by forgetting oneself and the passing of time, but through a different path of “action without action” and characterized by the emotion of peace and harmony (i.e., mature happiness rather than feelings of excitement). Wu-Wei is primarily situated in the default mode network of the brain.

Personally, I can accomplish more through Wu-Wei than action because most of my impactful insights and life-changing decisions came from mindful meditation or biblical contemplation. I also have experienced mature happiness through Wu-Wei rather than pleasurable activities because not only can I have a blessed time of inner peace and deep joy in communion with God, nature, and others, but surprisingly also have chaironic happiness.

References

Clough, R. B. (n.d.). The daoist wu wei love of rocks and walden. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/24153106/The_daoist_wu_wei_love_of_rocks_and_walden

Clough, R. B. (n.d.). Wu wei – Augustinian-Daoist transcending through humility. Academic.edu. https://www.academia.edu/24152170/Wu_wei_Augustinian_Daoist_transcending_through_humility

Moleski, M. (2012). Attending to mysteries: instilling Polanyi’s epistemology with the wisdom of Wu Wei. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/4302659/Attending_to_Mysteries_Instilling_Polanyis_Epistemology_with_the_Wisdom_of_Wu_Wei

Tinery, J. (2014). A meditation on the art of not trying. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/a-meditation-on-the-art-of-not-trying.html

Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 52(2), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022511

Wong, P. T. P. (2012). Toward a dual-systems model of what makes life worth living. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wong, P. T. P. (2020). Made for Resilience and Happiness: Effective Coping with COVID-19 According to Viktor E. Frankl and Paul T. P. Wong. Toronto, ON: INPM Press.

Wong, P. T. P., & Bowers, V. (2018). Mature happiness and global wellbeing in difficult times. In N. R. Silton (Ed.), Scientific concepts behind happiness, kindness, and empathy in contemporary society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Xing, Y., & Sims, D. (2011). Leadership, Daoist Wu Wei and reflexivity: Flow, self-protection and excuse in Chinese bank managers’ leadership practice. Management Learning, 43(1), 97-112. DOI: 10.1177/1350507611409659

This article was drawn from: https://www.meaning.ca/isepp/rifs/

The post The Role of Wu-Wei in Flourishing appeared first on International Network on Personal Meaning.

Numerous health care experts interviewed in the media have talked about free time and boredom. In an April CTV interview, psychologist Vivien Lee recommended that people struggling with their mental health “try to focus on what you can do. What is in your control day by day.” According to Lee, setting a new daily routine and sticking to it is key for our mental health. Our routines should set time aside for physical activity, relaxation, friends and family; establish a set sleep schedule; and set limits on television and social media.

Unfortunately, such advice does not bring people any closer to understanding why free time and boredom are problems in the first place. As John Eastwood, Principal Investigator at York University’s  Boredom Lab put it, “Boredom is a crisis of agency … telling a bored person to go read a book or watch a movie is like telling a drowning person to swim to shore. If they could, they would” (cited in Waters, 2020, para. 12). In this blog article, I examine the research on boredom as an emotion, as a response to meaninglessness, the modern problem of free time, and two of Frankl’s boredom-relevant concepts: existential vacuum and noö-dynamics.

Boredom is Not a Trivial Emotion

The relative lack of psychological research on boredom in comparison to other emotions is surprising, given how commonly we experience it and its negative impact on mental health. A US study found that 91 percent of youth in the United States reported feeling frequently bored (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2003). Boredom is often perceived as harmless. Research by Eastwood and his colleagues (2012) found that many people consider boredom “fairly trivial and [a] temporary discomfort that can be alleviated by a simple change in circumstances,” such as changing one’s daily routine (p. 482). As the authors pointed out, however, chronic boredom can have significant adverse consequences, including reduced life expectancy (Britton & Shipley, 2010), depression and anxiety (LePera, 2011; Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000; Vodanovich et al, 1991), emotional eating (Crockett et al., 2015; Koball et al., 2012), problem gambling (Blaszczynski et al., 1990; Mercer & Eastwood, 2010) and substance use (Iso-Ahola & Crowley, 1991). Boredom at work is a significant contributor to workplace accidents (Fisher, 1993).

Boredom as a Response to a Life That Lacks Meaning and Purpose

In a recent Wired magazine article, boredom researcher Erin Westgate suggested that boredom is a particularly problematic emotion during the COVID-19 pandemic because those affected by it might ignore shelter-in-place orders. Dr. Westgate also questions the standard advice of finding a good book, movie, or puzzle to erase boredom: “Boredom is a completely natural reaction to not being meaningfully engaged in the world” (Waters, 2020, para. 5). According to Westgate, boredom is a function of an inability to focus on—and find meaning in—a given task. Boredom as an emotion may be spiking during the current pandemic because (a) many of the things that gave life meaning pre-pandemic—e.g., friends, work, going to our favourite coffee shop—may be currently off limits, and (b) the anxiety of our uncertain world may be hampering our ability to focus on tasks.

Other researchers have found that boredom is associated with anxiety (Eastwood et al., 2012; Fahlman et al., 2009) and negatively correlated with meaning and purpose (Frankl, 1946/1984; MacDonald & Holland, 2002; Maddi, 1970; Melton & Schulenberg, 2007; Watt & Vodanovich, 1999; Wink & Donahue, 1997). Maddi (1970) used the term existential sickness in reference to the boredom that one experiences due to a perceived meaninglessness in life and lack of agency.

The Problem of Free Time

Perhaps the most influential existential thinker on the topic of boredom and meaninglessness is Viktor Frankl (1946/1984), author of Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl identified a downside to the growing prosperity and technological advance following the end of World War II. Referring to his patients at his psychotherapy practice in Vienna, Frankl said that many of them had no idea how to spend their newly-acquired free time. Rather than contributing to greater mental health, free time was having the opposite effect. Frankl used the term Sunday neurosis to describe a “kind of depression that afflicts people who become aware of the lack of content in their lives when the rush of the busy week is over” (p. 129). While some of Frankl’s patients experienced depression, others became aggressive with their family members, or engaged in addictive behaviours such as drinking and gambling. The problem of too much leisure, Frankl noted, was particularly acute among his patients in retirement.

If technological advance was contributing to mental health problems post-WWII, it is likely having the same effect in the digital age. Recent news stories suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic is contributing to a collective Sunday neurosis and the problems of addiction and aggression that Frankl identified as its symptoms. Since March, 2020, when shelter-in-place orders were first issued, government officials across North America have reported dramatic increases in alcohol consumption and domestic violence. Clearly, the problem of free time and its potentially negative impact on mental health is not a new problem, although the pandemic has certainly brought the problem to light.

Frankl’s Existential Vacuum and Noö-Dynamics

Frankl considered boredom symptomatic of an existential vacuum, which arises when individuals are frequently frustrated in their attempts to live personally meaningful lives. Frankl’s metaphor of a vacuum refers to the human tendency to fill the void left by a meaningless life with an endless array of distractions—e.g., smartphones, television, junk food, and mood-altering substances. The COVID-19 polling cited above suggests, however, that such distractions can only go so far to ward off boredom, particularly when major distractions—e.g., for men, the absence of televised sports—are no longer available. Frankl (1946/1984) argued that “a certain degree of tension, the tension between what one has already achieved and what one still ought to accomplish” was a necessary part of human life (p. 127). Frankl referred to this tension as noö-dynamics and distinguished between the tension arising out of our efforts to fulfill our human potential with our desire to achieve a tensionless state, or  ‘homeostasis’. For an example of Frankl’s homeostasis, think of any television commercial showing couples lounging on a tropical beach, happy and content. Car commercials showing happy couples driving luxury vehicles is another favourite of advertisers. Vacations and material goods, however, provide only temporary satisfaction.

Conclusion

For Frankl, struggling and striving for a freely-chosen, life-affirming task is the real key to lasting happiness and mental health. Furthermore, Frankl’s writings suggest that domestic violence and addictions are symptoms of a deeper and larger problem of living a life that lacks meaning and purpose. Taken together, Frankl’s concepts of the existential vacuum and noö-dynamics suggest that boredom and free time are not problems to be overcome by making a daily to-do list. Perhaps the pandemic can be an opportunity to reflect on our lives, reconnect with our loved ones, and find ways to have our actions better reflect what we find meaningful in life.

References

Blaszczynski, A., McConaghy, N., & Frankova, A. (1990). Boredom proneness in pathological gambling. Psychological Reports, 67(1), 35–42.

Britton, A., & Shipley, M. J. (2010). Bored to death? International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(2), 370–371. Doi:10.1093/ije/dyp404

Crockett, A. C., Myhre, S. K., & Rokke, P. D. (2015). Boredom proneness and emotional regulation predict emotional eating. Journal of Health Psychology, 20(5), 670–680. Doi:10.1177/1359105315573439

Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495. Doi:10.1177/1745691612456044

Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Gaskovski, P., Eastwood, A. E., & Eastwood, J. D. (2009). Does a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimental analyses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 307–340. Doi: 10.1521/ jscp.2009.28.3.307

Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417. Doi:10.1177/001872679304600305

Frankl, V. E. (1946/1984). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press. (Original work published 1946)

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Crowley, E. D. (1991). Adolescent substance abuse and leisure boredom. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 260–271.

Koball, A. M., Meers, M. R., Storfer-Isser, A., Domoff, S. E., & Musher-Eizenman, D. R. (2012). Eating when bored. Health Psychology, 31(4), 521–524.

LePera, N. (2011). Relationships between boredom proneness, mindfulness, anxiety, depression, and substance use. New School Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 15–25.

MacDonald, A., & Holland, D. (2002) Spirituality and boredom proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1113–1119.

Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page (Eds.), The Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 134–183). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Melton, A. M. A., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2007). On the relationship between meaning in life and boredom proneness: Examining a logotherapy postulate 1,2. Psychological Reports, 101(3F), 1016–1022. Doi: 10.2466/pr0.101.3F.1016-1022

Mercer, K. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2010). Is boredom associated with problem gambling behavior? International Gambling Studies, 10(1), 91–104.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2003). National survey of American attitudes on substance abuse VIII: Teens and parents. New York: Columbia University.

Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2000). Boredom proneness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 149–155.

Vodanovich, S. J., Verner, K., & Gilbride, T. (1991). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to positive and negative affect. Psychological Reports, 69(3 Pt 2), 1139–1146. Doi: 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3f/1139

Waters, M. (2020, March 31). This pandemic is perilously boring. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/this-pandemic-is-perilously-boring/

Watt, J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness and psychosocial development. The Journal of Psychology : Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 303–314.

Wink, P., & Donahue, K. (1997). The relation between two types of narcissism and boredom. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 136–140.

The post Boredom and Free Time During the Pandemic appeared first on International Network on Personal Meaning.

When there is great risk to life, the government tells the public to stay home. The government tells    frontline workers to protect the people who get to stay home. For most of us, our focus is on avoiding COVID-19, and we can cry, panic, isolate, and avoid situations where we feel unsafe. For frontline workers, however, there are no options. We expect them to risk personal safety to help us. Their professionalism keep us safe, even while they may feel overwhelmed and exhausted.

Although the current pandemic has been here only for a few months, we’re beginning to understand the added pressures on frontline workers. They are trying to cope with increased numbers of patients, coupled with shortages of supplies including safety gear and medical supplies. Depending on the work setting, they may also be coping with long-standing low morale within their profession. Prior to the current pandemic, many police, firefighters, and emergency response teams were struggling with emotional exhaustion and high suicide rates.  We also hear reports of high levels of stress related to risk of infection with repeated exposure to the virus and concerns about infecting loved ones. For many workers with young families, it is emotionally taxing to come home after long shifts to children who have been away from school routine, friends, and meaningful activities.

Many workers are taking on increased hours because of staff shortages, where less experienced frontline workers have either quit their jobs or taken leaves of absence. This means the bulk of the effort is taken on by those with many years on the job. Although they are competent professionals, they are also at high risk for burnout and compassion fatigue because of the cumulative nature of job stress.  Errors made on the job because of cognitive and physical fatigue are often devastating for these workers because errors may put others at risk or cause accidental death of a patient.

The World Health Organization assures us that it is normal to experience work-related anxiety and depression during the pandemic, which may lead to any number of stress-related problems, including trauma and increased drug and alcohol use. Most of us are inside a safety bubble; frontline workers protect that bubble, acting stoically despite risk. Yet many struggle with the complexity of maintaining this stoicism despite being a fallible human. For those who struggle to live up to the expectations they have put on themselves, guilt and shame can be crucial factors in the development of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

We need to learn to listen to the struggles of frontline workers and first responders, to attend to their struggles. We’ve learned from the previous pandemics of SARS, MERS, and Ebola that it is essential to help those suffering from job-related stress to process these experiences. These efforts take time and support from management and government. And from the public.

We have a duty to those who are keeping us safe during the pandemic, and we can help even if we’re not mental health professionals. We can listen to their stories of loss, grief, and feelings of inadequacy. We can appreciate that many stress-related symptoms our frontline workers will experience will not surface for many months or even years. Anxiety, depression, fear, existential angst, and the gradual, often imperceptible erosion of one’s emotional stability are looming for these workers, even if today they seem to have it all together. Mental health professionals have learned from past pandemics that job-related stress injuries take time to heal. All of us can help by listening to the struggles of those who have willingly put themselves at risk to help us and not forgetting about them.

A new member of INPM, Jeri-Lyn Munro is an Registered Clinical Counsellor with a private practice in Ladner, BC. She specializes in trauma work, PTSD, Critical Incident Stress and often works with frontline workers.

The post Learning to Listen appeared first on International Network on Personal Meaning.

The solution strategy I’m talking about started as an epiphany on the night of May 9, 1993. Then, to bring this forward I met with elected officials, gave talks, convened a conference on “Innovations in Democracy,” organized a TV show, wrote a book (Society’s Breakthrough, 2002), presented seminars, and sparked demonstration projects. Many people supported experiments with what I call “The Wisdom Council Process” in organizations, schools, and communities. And this process has taken root in Austria, for instance, where two states—Vorarlberg and Salzburg—have adopted the “Wisdom Council Process” (in German: “Bürgerratte”) into their state constitutions.

Unknowingly as a society, we structured ourselves to talk, think, and make collective decisions in a way that generates problems. You name the global issue—climate change, L-curve distribution of wealth, rise of authoritarianism, loss of species, destruction of our food systems, structural racism, etc.—these are all-natural outcomes of our system of economics and governance, which is based on competition and judgment. Especially as we reach the limits of planetary resources on which we all depend, like soils, fresh water, air quality, trust, antibiotic effectiveness, fisheries, etc. This competition assures that we will deplete or ruin these commons and limit our people as well. This system evokes the motivation of self-interest rather than the equally natural motivation of community service. And so, we find ourselves in institutions with a primary goal to maximize profits, while serving the public interest is often illegal.

Key to solving all society’s big problems … and to fulfilling our lives … is for us to stop and think periodically as a global system, to face our problems in a heartfelt, creative, collaborative way, and determine win/win solutions that we all support. This new thinking process can establish the context of shared meaning that we’ve been lacking.

Even if a global constitution existed, that wouldn’t be enough to adequately address society’s problems. Our current idea of democratic governance (i.e., a constitution, voting, representatives, balance of powers, laws, etc.) will still support the dynamic of competition and self-interest. To successfully manage the commons, we all need to get into a different mindset and culture. And it needs to happen soon. Sound impossible? It’s not. Making this change only seems impossible because our system structures a kind of thinking in us—discussions, debate, deliberation, brainstorming, negotiation, and judgment—by which we avoid facing impossible problems, and don’t solve them.

Society’s Breakthrough doesn’t change anything, except to add the missing conversation and form of thinking. It structures a way for us to call “time out” regularly to talk as global citizens. And then we call “time in” again, to go back to normal. Only, the old-normal will have changed. It’s hard for old-normal to exist once we start facing our problems, working with others, and realizing what’s needed. This new mode of thinking puts us into relationship with one another and a higher level of thinking. It creates a new set of answers, a new context of meaning, and … by itself … a more participative, holistic, and wise form of democracy and economics.

We all know from experience how this simple approach will raise consciousness for a human system—global, national or individual. Practicing it as an individual helps me to face my problems creatively, achieve breakthrough answers, and restructure my situation. The “magic sauce” for achieving this lies in my ability to stop what’s going on, and to change my thinking process to be more open, reflective and creative. This change is the difference between “decision-making,” which relies on judgment to determine what to do vs. “choice-creating,” which relies on creativity to gain clarity and enthusiasm for what to do. Decision-making is good for thinking fast and solving within-system difficulties. Choice-creating is good for impossible-seeming issues, providing a way to transform us and our system.

You may have said or heard someone say, “We can’t change until there is a crisis.” That’s right. If we face our problems only in the spirit of decision-making, then it is normal to avoid facing the big impossible-seeming issues until a crisis overcomes us. But then sometimes we can break out of the “box,” start facing the issues creatively, reach out to others, and overcome the challenge. The trick is to evoke this spirit of choice-creating early before the crisis overwhelms us.

We can use the Wisdom Council Process to do this at large scale. Using it, we can assure regular moments of whole-system, choice-creating at a global—or national—level. Briefly, here’s how it works. We identify one key global issue that needs solving. Then, being as mathematically correct as possible, we randomly select 10-16 people from the global population. They are brought together in one place as a symbol of all. They hear briefly about the issue from different perspectives, for just a little while. And then they meet in private with someone skilled in Dynamic Facilitation. (This is a key social innovation which allows us to reliably evoke choice-creating, even from random people who may be uneducated, uninformed, closed-minded, radicalized, or having poor meeting skills.)

Despite language and culture difficulties, in just a couple of days, this group will come to unity on a clear sense of the problem and, to some extent, what needs to happen. Then, they walk on stage to a large “global community meeting,” with many officials, celebrities, and media co-sponsors. They present their conclusions, plus their story of the shifts and breakthroughs, which allowed them to reach these conclusions. Then, they disband. In three months, a new Wisdom Council is randomly selected, and the process is repeated. This ongoing nature of the process assures that the whole-system conversation continues.

By itself, each Wisdom Council has no power. The power of this process comes from how it facilitates all of us into a new kind of public conversation, one that is more choice-creating than decision-making. Because the Wisdom Council reached unity through shifts and breakthroughs, when the rest of us hear their presentation, generally we say something like, “Yes, I think so too.” And we look around the virtual, global room and realize, ”Hey, we’re all on board with this!” This evolving unity has ultimate power in society, the power of “We the People” to write a constitution for example.

Different meetings happen between Wisdom Councils, like gathering representatives of NGO’s, government agencies, and foundations to coordinate their responses to the Wisdom Council. Over the course of time a unified perspective develops, which leaders of governments, corporations, and institutions recognize and support.

For a fuller description of Society’s Breakthrough—its history, the problems it can address, the specifics of the idea, the underlying social innovations, the new model of change, experiments and examples, projected benefits, and how you can support this project, please see the website for the nonprofit organization: The Center for Wise Democracy (www.WiseDemocracy.org).

The post Society’s Breakthrough … and You appeared first on International Network on Personal Meaning.