That man feels( think or talk) is a fact; what he feels( think or talk) is not fact.

A quote:

That man feels( think or talk) is a fact; what he feels( think or talk) is not fact.
by Dr Murray Bowen.

It caught my attention.

Our thoughts and verbal expressions are not facts of the natural world but rather products or functions of our brain. When we lack factual knowledge, we tend to fill in the gaps with imagination, which is subjective content that cannot be incorporated into a scientific theory. However, subjectivity can be part of science if its function in a system is understood. Although the content of subjectivity is not verifiable, its effects may reveal knowable and predictable processes or patterns.

For instance, research shows that believing in one’s recovery from a severe illness can facilitate recovery. The belief is subjective, but the recovery is factual. Similarly, people’s remarks to each other may be subjective, but the effects of their words can be observable and predictable enough to reveal a pattern of interaction.

For example, when a husband feels neglected, he may accuse his wife of “not caring.” The wife, in turn, tries to prove that she does “care.” The husband then stops making accusations. Whether the wife “cares” or not is unprovable, but the effects of the husband’s accusation and the wife’s response are factual and reveal a pattern in their relationship.

The family, whether of two or more individuals, is seen as an “emotional unit.” In the context of a family unit, the functioning of one member is predictably accompanied by changes in the functioning of other members. This phenomenon is exemplified by the overfunctioning-underfunctioning reciprocity between two spouses or parents and a child. Specifically, when one person overfunctions, another person may underfunction, and this pattern is reinforced by each person’s mode of functioning. It is important to note that the functioning of each family member is interdependent and can significantly impact the overall functioning of the family unit.

In short, what an individual feels (thinks or talks) is subjective and not verifiable, but its effects are factual, and that is, what the individual feels (thinks or talks) can reveal itself in patterns in functioning. It is accurate to ascertain that man is an evolved life form; however, nature’s drumbeat still governs his behaviour.

In my clinical practice, I try to see patterns of emotional functioning. This effort depends on shifting from a cause-and-effect model, which holds one or a few variables responsible for a specific outcome, to a systems model. The systems model defines the interrelationship of multiple variables without assigning a cause. In my last blog, I described “the various contributing factors that work in relationship with each other to the feeling I was experiencing on the 2nd of December. It would have been easy to blame myself or someone else for my mood. However, to think about blame divides it into right and wrong viewpoints and is replete with self-righteous pronouncements about “what should be.” Systems thinking provides a path through the polarities toward a more emotionally neutral view of the human process.

I ask the readers to stay with me and not to dash down systems thinking by saying something like, “It is wrong to kill someone and all the wrongs we think we see in the world.” I agree it is wrong, but I will be mindful of taking a self-righteous stance and becoming polarised. I agree it is challenging to shift from cause-and-effect thinking, especially about human behaviour. It is a challenge because it comes across as an intellectual process as if I am asking you, readers, to rationalise. However, it requires emotional change as well. People may talk in systems terms without an emotional change, but their actions will still be based on cause-and-effect thinking.

My next blog will discuss the emotional disequilibrium and how we adjust by complying and rebelling.

The tone of today’s blog was set on the “Family Systems Journal article Volume 18.1”.