R.D. Laing on Ontological insecurity

Diposkan pada oleh Skeptical Inquirer

A personal author’s note on the importance of R.D. Laign’s theory:

First and foremost, don’t let the term “ontological insecurity” scare you off! I truly think that having access to theories on human behaviour can allow us to question ourselves, others and our society. By doing this we can eventually reach a better understanding of who we are. We can let go of social pressures and social ideals that we may not be able to attain. We can become humanagain instead of automatons. We can stop being so hard on ourselves. We can seek help when we need it without feeling ashamed. We can feel good in our skin, and accept that we have some control on our life. We can understand that as human beings we will always have limitations (it’s only human), and we can accept that flaws and mishaps are not a death sentence or a lack of luck but rather a blessing without which we would never have to push ourselves to become better than we were yesterday.

R.D. Laing was a Scottish psychiatrist who’s work focused on mental illness, with a particular interest in psychosis. His views were heavily influenced by existential philosophy.

So, what’s an ontological insecurity anyway?

It isn’t as complicated as it sounds! Ontological insecurity refers to a loss of identity. This is when a person feels like they’re being threatened by the thought of no longer existing (of nonbeing). Laing described three types of ontological insecurity…

Engulfment: The loss of identity

In this scenario, someone is moving against the individual. They are controlling or attacking them, therefor creating a sensation of an imminent threat and of engulfment. Such a relationship causes the person to struggle to preserve their sense of identity.

Ex. Growing up in an abusive home or being in a relationship where everything is about the other person (where you feel that you are losing your sense of self)

Implosion: Vacuum of an empty self

In this scenario, the person implodes and is pushed to withdraw. They feel as if the (external) world is rushing in and wiping out their ‘already empty’ identity. This individual wants their feeling of emptiness to be filled but is afraid of what it would be filled with. This causes them to withdraw. Typically, they have low self-esteem (feeling that they are not enough).

Petrification: the doubt of being alive

From a fear of not being seen, the individual is pushed to become compliant. They feel depersonalized, irrelevant. They’re afraid of being treated like an object rather than a person, or of being manipulated through someone else’s indifference. Because of this fear, they become compliant.

An interesting quote by R.D. Laing, taken from “the divided self” (1965, p. 69):

“Such a divorce of self from body deprives the unembodied self from direct participation in any aspect of the life of the world, which is mediated exclusively through the body’s perceptions, feelings and movements (expressions, gestures, words, actions, etc.). The unembodied self, as onlooker at all the body does, engages in nothing directly”

My interpretation/explaination: the unembodied self, perhaps as a result of ontological insecurity, does not ‘experience’ things as the embodied self would. They over-think, scrutinize and analyze what they do or say instead of experiencing the the moment directly. For example, they could beat themselves up for saying something that they think was stupid, when in reality any listener would find witty and insightful on a whim.

Tinggalkan komentar

Diterbitkan oleh Skeptical Inquirer

• Central For Inquiry (CFI) • Skeptical Inquirer • Free Inquiry • Point of Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Yang nyata ialah manusia itu sendiri bukan tuhan, bukan manusia pikiran tuhan, tetapi tuhan adalah pikiran manusia, agama tidak merubah kenyataan dan mengukir sejarah, tetapi manusia itu sendiri yang merubah dan mengukirnya. Bukan tuhan yang menciptakan manusia tetapi tuhan adalah angan-angan manusia. Agama tidak merubah kenyataan tetapi menusia bisa merubah kenyataan. 2. Agama ialah proyeksi manusia : tuhan, neraka, surga, malaikat. Kenapa? Karena manusia butuh tempat untuk mencurahkan keluhan karena dunia tanpa hati, jadi penderitaan tempat lahirnya tuhan. Dengan demikian agama disebut keterasingan manusia dari kehidupan karena struktur masyarakat tidak mengizinkan secara penuh perealisasian diri sendiri, sehingga manusia membangun kerajaan angan-angan (agama). Dalam kenyataan manusia menderita lalu ia mengharapkan surga 3. kenapa agama khayalan, karena agama tidak inderawi, sedangkan manusia inderawi, manusia penuh dengan kepastian sedangkan agama berbau unsur spekulatif, unsur yang tidak bisa diterima secara ilmiah 4. Jadi agama dan tuhan ialah ciptaan manusia itu sendiri, tetapi manusia itu sendiri lupa dengan ciptaanya (seperti pada zaman jahiliyah dahulu sebelum nabi muhamad dating : orang-orang kafir zaman dahulu mengukir tuhan dari kayu dan batu, yang kemudian disembahnya, sama seperti kita kini yang memproyeksikan tuhan lalu menyembahnya). Agama penyembahan tuhan terhadap dirinya sendiri. Agama penyembahan manusia terhadap ciptaanya sendiri 5. Sehingga khayalan atau angan-angan itu mempunyai eksistensi realitas yang membuat manusia takut dan harus menyembahnya dan tuhan mempunyai hakikat lain yang manusia harus sembah. Sifat-sifat itu yang membuat manusia egois. 6. Penderitaan manusia ialah tempat lahirnya tuhan, penderitaan yang memaksa manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama, itulah dasar yang menyebabkan manusia merasa butuh agama dan tuhan 7. Teologi harus diganti menjadi antropologi dan agama ialah candu rakyat. 8. Kritik agama hanya meruska bunga khayalan pada rantai, bukan bunganya yang harus dipatahkan tetapi rantai itu sendiri. Rantai (factor yang menyebabkan manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama) 9. Kita seperti wayang dengan penuh kesadaran dan kemauan tetapi kita tidak bisa lepas dari tangan sang dalang. 10. Kalau semua ini benar, maka manusia bukan merealisasikan keinginanya tetapi mengharapkan berkah dariNYA (proyeksi manusia itu sendiri/perubahan pasif) 11. agama ialah keterbatasan: agama melarang kita bergaul dengan duniawi, sehingga kita hanya memikirkan surgawi Tanpa agama kita bisa hidup lebih baik, tanpa mengaharapkan hibah/welas asih dariNYA, hanya mengandalkan kenyataan dan diri sendiri. 12. Kepasrahan adalah kelemahan agama 13. Tuhan seperti halnya dengan setan, bila ia terus diyakini dengan adanya exsistensinya maka semakin berkuasalah ia, kita seperti member roh kepadanya dengan keyakinan kita. GROUP : https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientistsecularist