I think there have been some misunderstandings, or mine inappropriate choice of words and/or tone. Because words and tones matter and what a word might mean to me might mean the exact contrary to someone else and, if we are not aware of this, then meanings are twisted and the discourse goes astray. Let me shortly clarify few things.
IMO it is about taking a first-person perspective that questions the premises of our thinking. It is not so much what we have to think/believe rather it is about becoming aware of why we think/believe in some narratives. Because, at the end it is our ideological background that leads us to act/believe/say certain things. For example, who is REALLY in our non-metacognition the “solo thinker”? The egoistic individualist, or the outsider who is the “different” one that does not conform? I have seen to many times among my former teacher collogues pointing consciously at the former and then (evidently unconsciously) behaving rudely against the latter. Something more than mind is at work here and we have to work on it to disclose it.
Maybe “symptom” was not the best word choice and which has misrepresented my thought. Of course the longing and desire for independence and freedom is not a pathology. But, if it is so manifest, it means something. It points to a lack of independence/freedom that, indeed, could lead to pathologies.
Yes, that was the sense of my post above.
The meaning of my word choice “wishful thinking” was in the sense of a self-deception that hinders progress opposite to “magical thinking”, “visions”, “dreams”, “future projects”, “utopias”, which are great psychological powers to progress, independently from its realization. The first crystallizes the status quo the latter are disruptive of the status quo. But if you like to use the terms as synonymous I’m fine with it, will keep that in mind in the future.
Exactly! We can’t (re-)construct if we don’t deconstruct, especially our unaware assumptions and automatic mental patterns. I myself like to
As you say, deconstruct in a process of construction.
Did I criticize groups for wishful thinking and desires? I’m surprised to see how my words must have been so unclear and can’t see where my “critics to groups” has been expressed? My critics was limited to what stands behind the idea of the article precisely because it is felt against groups.
At any rate, I will not insist. Having differences can also be a glue for unity. Eventually we can clarify further, if needed, in a session.