M vs Frankl

Upon receiving some extraordinarily outstanding advice, I picked up Frankl's "A man's search for meaning" recently. I guess unless you're insanely stupid, you've already picked up on the vibe that I thought the book was somewhat awesome.

Essentially, Frankl writes about his experiences with Auschwitz and his theory of logotherapy. And while his stories about Auschwitz were interesting enough, I would have preferred less of this detail and more detail on logotherapy theory.

Now I'm no psychologist, psychiastrist, or anything else psych-ist (although I am an -ist), but I do have a greater-than-your-average-bear interest in behavioural theories. That said, at times I found the book was written in a way that might exclude many readers. I think if you were to ask Microsoft Word to compile the Readability Statistics on this book, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level would be over 14.

There was certainly many aspects of the theory that I agree with. Firstly, the part about being "optimistic". Frankl speaks about applying meaning to any situation and therefore you can optimistic about it. This has expanded my belief around how development of your ability to be hopeful will enhance your ability to be happy. So now not only do I believe it is possible to be happier in your life by rationalising an optimistic viewpoint (in the realms of personalisation, permanence and pervasiveness) of any event, but also attaching meaning to it will work too.

If my interpretation is correct, Frankl's view on self-transcendence and self-actualisation are similar to those of Maslow. The hierarchy of needs describes self-transcendence as being accessible from any level. Frankl certainly implies the same thing. There is a distinct difference however. Frankl argues that "self-actualisation is possible only as a by product of self-transcendence". Maslow implies that you can gain a level of self-actualisation without self-transcendence. Without another frame of reference, my instinct is that it is likely that when we try to define human spirit into a model, no matter how complex, there are parts that are non-linear and neither theory can explain neatly. I'm comfortable with the idea that the concepts of self-actualisation and self-transcendence exist and there is no clear path to follow to reach either.

Now, due to my confirmation biases, I'll end this post here. I'll need to read the book again I think to better form opinion on the parts of logotherapy that did not neatly sit within my sphere of existing understanding. Watch this space.