Moving through the Motivational Fields of Well-being

Motivation is a topic I am quite passionate as well as motivated to write about. I am interested in it for two different but interconnected reasons. First, I want to know what moves us to act and live a certain way, so in a more precise sense, this could fall into drive and need satisfaction, but also how motivation can engender, create, and sustain beliefs. My own motivation in all of this is to relate and integrate beliefs and actions into a drive for better and improved holistic health and wellbeing, that is, promoting and ideally leading to physical, emotional, mental, and psychological wellness.

I had the pleasure to attend a webinar by Dr. Chris Johnstone from the College of Well-being who discussed many of the factors that I am interested in exploring. Without motivation, this intrinsic push, we would not be able to bring about necessary and significant changes and improvements in our health and lives, so it is of importance both for me personally on how to deal with and heal various aspects of myself including my private and professional life, but it is also relevant for effectively transmitting that gained knowledge to others.

Yet one of the things to keep in mind, contrary to our general and overall perception, is that motivation is not stable. In fact, it fluctuates; it waxes and wanes. We cannot be constantly motivated throughout the day, the same way, we do not want to be driven at every moment of our life as this would be quite taxing on our energy levels. Out of necessity and for our own good, we need downtime to use for rest, pause, and reflection.

Moreover, motivation can be influenced easily and can be, for better or worse, rather gullible. Conversations can sway us one way or another. We can motivate ourselves and others to do what is beneficial and healthy, and this is something I am aiming and driving for, which is indeed my main motivation for writing. But communication can be used for ill means and shady purposes or it might simply be ineffective regardless of the underlying intentions. The person can be pushy and bossy wanting to have their way, and they may try to convince you to do things you are not inclined nor willing to do in the first place.

Or the way a person with good intentions, often a parent or maybe a friend, tries to communicate may be too pushy and demanding for us to accept, let alone adopt their point of view. They may even engage in shaming or belittling us, which would have, motivationally speaking, the exact opposite intended effect: we rebel against them and refuse and reject their suggestion, regardless if it is beneficial or not. In other words, I will try not to push my ideas and experiences down your throat but need to keep up avenues of respect and courtesy and merely give you the ball and put it into your court to play with. You may choose to take up playing with that idea or just let it be. This would be up to you.

To put motivation into perspective, we need to briefly trace its history. In fact, motivational interviews and interactions are an outgrowth of the humanistic concepts and ideas of Carl Rogers. They have been further developed and elaborated by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick. Motivational theories involve seeing the person through empathic and sympathetic eyes and to give them the space they need and ideally create an environment of unconditional love and acceptance for them, which are terms and actions proposed by Carl Rogers.

To achieve real foundational change in a person and to motivate them for further action, we must refrain from pushing and confronting them. This has been the commonly accepted but harmful and counterproductive method of dealing with addictions, for instance. The last thing a person afflicted with an addiction wants and needs is a sermon, punishment, or rejection from loved ones, caregivers, and health care and mental health practitioners.

The most productive results would be achieved through a collaborative conversation style. The confrontational style generally does not work because we do not want or like to be told what to do. This may bring up feelings of inadequacy and incompetency and could hearken back to our years of childhood where parents and teachers would scold us and make us feel bad, ashamed, and guilty about ourselves and our actions. In fact, resistance is the enemy of motivation.

However, a collaborative communication style, one that is not lecturing and is not pushy and demanding would strengthen a person’s own motivation and commitment to change. To achieve that, we first need to listen. This is not just hearing what the person says, its content, but rather perceiving and feeling what it is they are trying to communicate to us. It is a deep form of listening in which the other person has our full and undivided attention. It is also a kind of listening that we are generally not accustomed to in our hectic lives where we tend to multitask and run about and run around. In fact, we need to take the time to practice this skill of deep listening as it may not come to us naturally.

Moreover, in motivational interviewing, we want the “change talk” to come out of the mouth of the client. It is again not telling them what to do but putting the ball into their court and asking them what it is they want to do with it. In this type of communication, the will is predominant and most important, that is the express intention and desire to change on a certain level or to modify certain actions and behaviors.

A person that reaches out for help is usually propelled by this desire for change. They experience an inspirational dissatisfaction and are fed up with the status quo regarding one or various aspects of life. But instead of jumping and rushing to conclusions, suggestions, and treatments, we must first explore what the person really wants to do about that situation or condition. In fact, we want to find the want behind the should, and this would pave the way for how to do and go about doing it. Ideally, we want suggestions and improvements to come from the afflicted person themselves.

In motivational interviewing, there is a four-process model. We begin with engaging, and that is a sort of setting the stage and answers to the question who. At this point, we are trying to get on the same page and build trust and rapport with each other. It should not be a one-sided or unidirectional conversation since to build rapport both need to engage and disclose relevant personal information to each other.

Once the conditions have been set and the person is willing to openly talk about their issues, then we move to focusing, that is, working together to have or reach a shared and agreed focus. This is more about what it is we are talking about and dealing with. We would streamline our conversation on and around the given topic.

The next step is evoking. Here we try to gently elicit responses from the mouth of the client. We expect them to tell us about their reasons and perceptions and this boils down to the how of change. In other words, we are drawing out what is important to them and how it could work. We are distilling elements of will - the intention and desire for change - combined with the way or direction: what it is the person needs to do to reach the desired outcome. This is paving the way for effective and sustainable change.

This would then lead to the final stage of the four-process model, which is planning. At this stage, we are together shaping and working out the specific details of the subsequent steps to take. This is basically the action plan that turns out to be, for the most part, based on and around ideas proposed by the clients themselves. In this case, we are facilitating the conversation and may occasionally guide and steer them in a suggested direction, but we are not telling the other person what to do.

It is indeed a collaborative conversation style and a process and development that is mutually involved and engaging. It is not merely the person looking for advice and suggestions and us telling and teaching them what to do and how to go about it, but it is a more explorational style, a common and unifying quest for positive and lasting change.

Yet we ought to keep in mind that this is not necessarily a linear style or process, but rather it circles and delineates layers of engagement. Sometimes, or rather often, we need to go back to the first stage of engaging as the person may occasionally loosen their rapport and trust in the connection and communication with us.

We must also be aware that evoking is not always comfortable, and that the other person could close or shut down, so we would need to re-engage them and get them back on track and on the same page. In fact, engagement is a predictor of outcome, and the more engaged the other person is, the better the results would turn out to be.

Engagement is also a key coaching and teaching skill and it goes hand in hand with motivation. I know from personal experience that if my students are not engaged, that is they either lack trust and rapport or lack interest in the topic and content or both, it is going to be very difficult for them to become motivated.

It is essential to understand the other person’s perspective, where they are coming from and to have a clear-eyed focus on the road and obstacles ahead. There would certainly be cognitive dissonance at play in the interaction. This is the discrepancy or uncomfortable gap that exists between where the person is and where they would like to be.

Put differently, they are here (the current state) and they want to be there (the preferred state). Throughout the process and the conversation, uncomfortable feelings will be brought to the surface, so it is essential that there is safety. We need to make the environment safe and sound so that others can feel comfortable enough to talk about uncomfortable issues.

One of the best ways for doing that by providing us with core tools is the OARS model. The O stands for open questions. The questions are open-ended enough to draw out the thoughts, reflections, and emotions of the other person. For example, when it comes to the common question of how old the person is, we would be less interested in the exact age of the person but rather how their age makes them feel or how they feel about their age.

Moreover, we want to affirm as much as we can. That is, we would be actively supporting their agency as well as notice, underscore, and encourage strengths in their answers. We want them to take positive steps forward and want to affirm and reward their ideas and initiatives whenever possible and feasible.

The next step would be reflective listening. This is usually echoing back what you hear and is part and parcel of the Rogerian client-centered counseling technique. We want them to re-think and re-evaluate their answers by repeating it back to them. It also serves a second purpose, namely, to check for validation and to confirm that we have understood the other person correctly and are indeed on the same page.

The last step is summarizing. This can lead to longer reflections and thoughts about the process. We basically collect what they say and offer it back to them. This would be composed of aspects and solutions that have been said and covered during the conversation. We can also be reiterating and reconfirming specific plans for action.

It is important to underline that we are not controlling or setting the agenda, but it is the other person who brings items to the table. Yet we do need to have a common focus, and this means not just following everything the person says and suggests but rather to guide and direct them in the best possible direction. Throughout the process, we are trying to draw out motivational energy, but we are always aware of certain pitfalls.

For instance, the opposite of change talk is sustain talk. This is the conflicting, counterproductive and impeding desire of holding onto the status quo. It often happens because people are working with and through mixed feelings. There is part of the self that wants to stick to the known here and now versus the undetermined and undefined there.

This conflict or resistance can be most strongly felt at the initial stages of the conversation where the other person is cautious and wary. That is when engaging and affirming them would help to create rapport and trust so that they feel more at ease in the situation.

Nonetheless, it is important that any type of affirmation be accurate and genuine. You should not affirm what is not in the best interest of the other person nor should you twist and distort information and feelings about the topic or the other person. Most of the time, the other person would sense or perceive this, and they could break off their trust and rapport with you.

Finally, you want to always aim for progress but not for perfection. Perfection is not an ideal state, and it is the perfect way of de-motivating another person. The focus should be more on manageable steps that can be taken from the here and now and that would gradually, with patience and persistent effort, take us towards an ideal and desired state.

But it should be a realistic outcome that we have in mind. And it is most important to keep in mind that the path always lies in the hands of the other person. We can serve as a map or tour guide, but the journey must be undertaken by the other person. But at this point, they would have already taken the crucial and all-important first step, which is of itself quite an accomplishment, to begin with.

Praise for the Crowd? A Talk by Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht

Over the past months, I have been following quite a few webinars offered by different institutions ever since Covid-19 has taken us captive and has constrained and confined us in our movements. I used to physically attend a variety of talks and lectures in my vicinity, but ironically, Coronavirus has now given me more options by enabling me to attend lectures not only in my area but all around the world.

In fact, two of the series that I have enjoyed the most so far are the Rotterdam School of Management of the Erasmus University and the ETH lecture series of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Although the former has been a case of hit and miss, the latter has been pure gold so far, and the talk I shall discuss here is indeed by ETH in Zurich ably moderated by Chris Luebkeman.

I must admit that I had not heard of Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht - who shall from now on and with the greatest respect (hochachtungsvoll) be referred to with the moniker “Sepp.” Yet within the first minutes of the talk, Sepp did not fail to impress me. He is evidently erudite as well as passionate about his knowledge – he rightly claims that professors love to talk – but he also embodies an offbeat angle and quality that is bathed in and enveloped with a dry sense of humor, something I myself strive for, both in my writing as well as in my classes.

Case in point, apart from being an academic scholar, he also loves spectating sports, particularly soccer. So much so that he prefers to find himself in the Südtribune, the standing section of the Dortmund stadium that can, at least in non-Coronavirus times, hold up to 32,000 standing people. Herr Professor was told not to go for security reasons, especially considering his age, and then it was recommended he should at least go with a bodyguard. 

Sepp retorted that he would not mind the risks and dangers simply because they did not outweigh the pleasure of being immersed in the crowd, and that in no way he would take a bodyguard with him as it would serve as an invitation and a potential reason and motive for the crowd to beat him up.

This was within the first few minutes of this talk, and I knew right away that what would follow and what he had to say was certainly worth listening to. His topic and stance were also rather unusual. In his most recent book, he deals with and examines the concept of crowds. 

Contrary to most intellectuals, he praises crowds (Lob für die Masse) and does not necessarily share the pejorative and rather condescending view that crowds embody and signify ignorance, danger, and violence. As someone who tends to like crowds, I do not entirely disagree with him, but before my views be known, let us first examine, what Sepp has to say on the topic.

First off, the discussion of crowds comes at a very peculiar moment in time and history. Regardless of whether one likes or enjoys them or not, they are discouraged since they are a source of infection and contagion during this pandemic. In fact, even those who usually frown upon or hate crowds may miss them under these stringent and demanding circumstances, a seeming remnant and throwback of the good old days of careless safety and security.

Although the cause in and of itself is certainly important and significant, an additional component of why the Black Lives Matter movement managed to attract and draw massive crowds recently was the fact that people missed being in crowds and that it offered the perfect excuse and reason to be in one without facing any potential consequences by the authorities (although it still came with significant personal health risks and consequences). Despite limitations on mass gatherings, the police and politicians wisely sidestepped the issue during the protests so as not to incite further and more violent manifestations down the road.

The second thing that we miss out in a world run by webinars, Zoom meetings, Facetime, and Skype chats is the random encounter. This cannot occur as easily and frequently as used to be the case. We do not run into people anymore as our meetings and encounters are carefully planned, structured, and programmed in advance. Although I enjoy the Zoom meetings myself, I miss running into people in the hallway and corridors of our university or the brief chat at the water fountain, in the washroom, in the instructor’s room.

But what is a crowd, and what constitutes and sustains it? By definition, a crowd needs to be a certain number of people. Sepp claims that it may be hard to set an exact number, but in a lab or group setting, five to seven people seem to be an ideal benchmark, whereas in a family, more than twelve persons would be considered a crowd since not everyone would have the opportunity - or would at least find it challenging - to physically convene and assemble at the same dinner table.

Yet when it comes to the concept of crowds, there are three movements and directions to consider. Crowds function and operate in a lateral manner. That is, in a crowd, people will often find themselves standing next to each other, often elbow to elbow. 

Although we have a feeling of being in a crowd with the physical proximity of other bodies, there is also an element of solitude at play. In a crowd, such as a soccer stadium or during a rock concert, communication and conversations are generally excluded and often discouraged and frowned upon. Sepp told us that one of the worst things for him to occur during a soccer match would be a member of the crowd talking to him.

This leads us to the next direction as the crowds are also transitive, that is they are focused on a shared intentional object. That could be either a game (a soccer or tennis ball), an event, or music. These objects of desire almost always have a clearly defined and a set and determined boundary.

This is to accentuate their importance, and it is often enforced by security guards who ensure that this space is protected and not infringed upon. In a soccer match, it would be disrespectful to enter the field in the same way that the concert stage is only for the musicians unless one is invited up there – a special honor – or unless the musician decides to leave the comfort of the stage and to surf the crowds.

The third concept of importance is an upward vertical movement. A crowd tends to elicit feelings of elevation and euphoria. This happens when the crowd feels empowered. This can go in either direction towards the positive or the negative. In a soccer match in which the home team is ahead and winning or in an electrifying rock concert or even in a mesmerizing church service, people tend to sing and chant in unison.

There is a particular rhythm that is initiated, propagated, and sustained and that can involve dancing, clapping, and hopping as well. The rhythm produces intensity, and it is this intensity that translates into feelings of elevation and euphoria. In Sepp’s own words, you are then almost in a black hole, you block out everything else and only do and engage in what the crowd is doing.

Now we can see how synchronized movements could then lead to uplifting feelings and create a sense of harmony via identification and acceptance among and across all the individual members of the crowd. At the same time, we can envision individuals being hypnotized and becoming hysterical, of either speaking in tongues or shouting and chanting words of hatred and bigotry. 

We can also see the potential for violence, an unwanted and often unintended outcome of gatherings, which may have started out as a peaceful get-together and gathering. This also explains to an extent the dark spots of history and occurrences, such as lynch mobs and Nazi congregations.

Sepp accepts that where there is a crowd, there is a danger of violence. He defines violence in a broader sense as the occupation of bodies against the resistance and will of other bodies. Hence, whenever you find yourself in a crowd, there is a certain risk of things going (terribly) wrong. 

The same could occur in a rock or sports event in the case and context of a life-threatening emergency, such as a fire or an earthquake, that could potentially lead to a stampede as people are rushing for safety towards designated emergency exits.

But Sepp believes that we are underestimating and underappreciating the beneficial and empowering aspects of the crowd. Crowds do not always have to be intimidating, and he finds the intellectual stance of disregard (Verachtung) towards the masses to be somewhat anti-democratic as it also automatically precludes and imbues the masses with a lack of intelligence, volition, and intention.   

Yet crowds can also elevate and create a mystical feeling of union. When we look at and discuss crowds in social theory, there is less focus on the body itself, while it goes without saying that a crowd must be composed of separate physical bodies. 

These bodies on their own may exist in anonymity and solitude and could be lost in the crowd, but, in a different sense, they are also absorbed and harmonized and engulfed by the crowd. This could lead to a mystical feeling that is best expressed in Christianity with the concept of the church and its congregation as they come to re-present and em-body the mystical body of Christ.

In another sense, stadiums are also a ritual of presence. They are often used as a form of union and celebration since people gather for a common cause and are unified in their joy. 

On the other hand, they might also congregate in their grief as would occur with mass funerals of celebrated people or as in the case of the funeral made in solidarity with the family and friends of George Floyd, a victim and a living symbol to police brutality and injustice. To claim that the masses are always wrong or mistaken is not appreciating the extent and potential reach they have towards positive social change as well as their aim for justice and equality.

In fact, one of the most profound and ground-breaking effects in Western history was the French revolution. This may have started as an impromptu gathering as there was no strategic plan to storm and take over the Bastille, and which, on paper and in theory, would have made little sense and would have not been conceived as fruitful or helpful a priori. 

In other words, Freud’s concept of masses falling to leaders would not be pertinent in this case as there was no obvious or immediate leader, to begin with. It was a group and gathering of dissatisfied people who decided to manifest and air their grievances.

As they marched towards the Bastille, they grew in number since more and more people joined them, hence creating a massive crowd. Nobody had the intention, nor did anybody give the order to storm the Bastille on July 14^th 1789, but it happened nonetheless, and it had repercussions for the rest of human history. 

The loss of individuality had created a swarm of people who wanted effective change, and they were not manipulated nor were they easy to be dissuaded from their will and desire.

For the most part, I agree with Sepp, and I find his mystical view of crowds utterly fascinating. As someone who has always enjoyed crowds, I am to a large extent in favor of them. 

But I think, Sepp is overly enthusiastic about them, an enthusiasm I appreciate but do not personally share with him. I think when people gather in a crowd or in a rally, they tend to lose not only their judgment but often also their common sense, and sometimes even their reason. 

Crowds can be easily swayed and manipulated, and I intuitively agree with Sting’s song “All This Time” from his album The Soul Cages: “Crowds go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one.”

This inherent threat is mainly due to the make-up of our psychology. Freud was right that we would more easily succumb to a leader when we are in a crowd. There is a sense of hysteria and mass hypnosis that could permeate the crowd, and that is above each of the members, and this can be quite dangerous. People wish to fit in and conform, but they are also naturally inclined to copy their fellow members via mirror neurons. Hence, they might suddenly find themselves espousing beliefs or engaging in behaviors that they would otherwise not embrace nor condone.

We do not have to go as far back as Nazi Germany to see and prove this. The recent campaign rally of Donald Trump during which thousands of people decided to put their own health and safety at risk by refusing to wear masks during a pandemic is a concrete example. These people wished to act as to his bidding and desire, and it is an example where masses are led - or rather misled - by a person they see and envision as powerful or as a figure of authority.

There is a persistent risk and danger of crowds becoming mobs, regardless of the cause and political situation, and I believe that we cannot dismiss or diminish that troubling aspect of the masses. It is the lack of individuality that concerns me, so I think it is important to always be on guard and to preserve one’s right and option to stand up for one’s ideas and to go against the crowd. 

When crowds go blind and hysterical, the responsible and conscientious person caught in the middle needs to speak out and let his or her voice be heard, and they need to expose the truth, at the risk and expense of being criticized or ostracized.

So I shall not sing my hymns and praises on crowds but would rather remain silent or even hold my breath. And I shall avoid crowds like the pest, especially during this pandemic. Notwithstanding, I found Sepp’s ideas fascinating, insightful, and thoughtful, and despite my reservations, both timely and significant.

Coping with Grief: A Book Review of Finding Meaning by David Kessler

Grief is something that all of us must deal with at some point in our lives. Sooner or later and every now and then, we will lose a loved one. They will be missed, cherished, and grieved. There will be a hole in our lives, while our hearts will feel less full because of their lack of presence. We also notice that neither fame nor money can save or protect us from the cold grip of death; the rich and the famous, like every being, are forced to die, and everyone’s time is limited.

In the context of today, death has never been more upfront and present while the Covid-19 pandemic is wreaking havoc and the number of deaths keeps growing exponentially. Each rising number on the screen represents another human being who has fallen to this dreadful disease, another person that it has taken away from us prematurely.

Each rising number will have a crowd of people trying to mend and deal with the loss of a cherished being, and they will grieve this unexpected departure, a life cut short due to this ravaging and lethal virus. But it is moreover a death that cannot be grieved in traditional ways with its accustomed and helpful rituals, but one that will sting even more with grief, pain, and suffering.

What is the meaning of all of this? How can death possibly have meaning when it indiscriminately and insensitively takes away people we love and care about and even people we depend upon for our existence?

David Kessler’s latest book Finding Meaning: The Sixth Stage of Grief is a find and a treasure to keep close to heart, especially during these painful days. David is one of the most known and celebrated grief experts in the world. He worked together with Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in developing the five stages of grief that have identified and defined the grieving process and that have helped millions and millions of people not only to deal with the pain and suffering but also to understand and grasp its process.

The five stages of grief are denial (shock that the loss has occurred), anger (that someone we care about is no longer with us), bargaining (what-ifs and regrets), depression (sadness from the loss) and lastly, acceptance (acknowledging the reality of the loss).

But after losing his son - whose life was cut short in young adulthood - the renowned grief expert had to deal with his own grief. He realized that although the stages delineate the process and pangs of grief, there is one vital stage and dimension that is missing. This is concerned about how to make sense and find meaning out of the grief. Why did we have to lose the person so close to us and so cherished by us?

In his life and work, David has had to face the pain and suffering of many people, and he has given expert advice to them on how to manage and deal with their grief. He has been called to plane disasters, mass shootings, fires, and terrorist attacks. For instance, with any plane disaster, he outlines that there are three location points where psychological help and services would be required, that is the plane’s departure point, the plane’s intended arrival point as well as the crash site.

The arrival point must be one of the most excruciating places to be in those moments. People would be waiting for news of their loved ones, and in many cases, it would not be clear whether they had survived or not. In these situations, people react with understandably extreme forms and outbursts of grief: they scream, pass out and fall to their knees, while it would be the grief experts’ job to keep them safe throughout. 

At this point and under the given circumstances, his reach and outreach would be limited; he would simply be present for them, give them water, tell them to sit down and witness their pain and suffering.

That is indeed one of the most basic things that anyone of us can do when a loss has occurred in a person’s life. When somebody has lost their loved one, I would always feel awkward and a tad guilty around them. I would not know what to say because I would not want to offer sayings or formulas that are commonplace and cliché, but at the same time, I would feel guilty since I had been fortunate enough not to be afflicted with and be spared from that pain and suffering.

But this book demonstrated to me that in those moments, it is not what we say that matters most, but the simple fact that we are there for the afflicted person. We are there to witness their pain and to validate it. 

Offering condolences means I am present to your grief, and I acknowledge and respect it. This gives the grieving person the emotional support and connection they need at that precise moment as it is being witnessed by another person.

In a northern indigenous village in Australia, they have an amazing tradition that commemorates the death of any villager in a simple but profound and effective manner. When someone dies, everyone in the village moves a piece of furniture or something else in their yard. It may be a small gesture, but it communicates to the person who is grieving that their pain not only counts but that it has been witnessed and acknowledged by the entire village.

Yet in the modern world, grief is something we shun, avoid, evade, and often do not wish to talk about. Some even see it as debilitating or think of it as a form or as a sign of weakness. 

But when we refrain from respecting and expressing our grief, when we are not giving our pain its due and release, when we lack rituals and closure that remind us of the person we have lost and that the person has left us indefinitely, and when we lack unity in the face of death, it will wreak havoc in our interior, keep us bound and attached to the pain, and hence it will become traumatic.

Grief needs to be both expressed and witnessed in the form of mourning, often with tears as evidence of one’s love that the person who died was someone who mattered deeply, and this should not only be limited to funerals, the communal time where we openly witness each other’s grief through music, stories, poems, and prayers. 

Grief is a continuous process and needs time to run its course. This is, however, more difficult, and cumbersome in societies that tend to neglect and evade any talk of death and that have fewer rituals to deal with this aspect of life since the way we view death reflects how we look at life.

We all grieve differently, and we show it in different ways. Some are more expressive about it than others, some go on with their lives seemingly unaffected by it, and others harbor and linger on their pain. Grief is as unique as our fingerprints. Be that as it may, we all must fully process the grief. And part of the process includes facing and confronting the pain and experiencing it fully. This is the only one to deal with it.

David would often be asked if the pain would lessen or go away with time. His answer is that it does not. The pain will always be there, and it will always sting and be painful. Time on its own does not automatically or magically heal this wound. But while the pain would remain, we have the chance of becoming bigger than it and to move on and to move ahead with our lives.

We can find meaning in what may appear to be a random and meaningless event. The meaning is tied to deeper questions and more profound answers and understanding about our existence. We are not and should not remain stuck and have the power to change and re-define our thoughts and perceptions about events. We would then realize that death has meanings we had not noticed before.

This realization would have significant effects on our lives as well as on those around us. We may deepen our connections to those that are still with us. We may appreciate the extra time we have been given and not let it go to waste. We may appreciate more the beauty all around us that we took for granted for many years as we were living on autopilot all those years. 

We may set new priorities or change and modify the ones that were driving us by replacing our quest for money and recognition with simply being and with enjoying one’s own company as well as those of others. In other words, death may teach us how to live again.

In many cases, the death of a loved one leads to different ways of commemorating the person while also leading to contributions that will honor them and perhaps bring about change in the world. It was the death of her teenaged daughter Cari by a repeat drunk-driving offender in 1980 that led Candy Lightner to found the organization MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) or the murder of his own son Adam that sparked John Walsh’s TV show America’s Most Wanted to reduce homicides by catching criminals and perpetrators, while there are countless other foundations and organizations that are built upon and inspired by the death of people we love and care about.

In many ways, love and grief are quite similar and interconnected. Whenever you love, you would need to accept, embrace as well as brace for the fact that you will experience loss at some point. In fact, the pain you feel when you lose a loved one is proportional to the love you had for that person. 

They go hand in hand, and with love, you must accept grief. To quote Erich Fromm: “To spare oneself from grief at all costs can be achieved only at the price of total detachment, which excludes the ability to experience happiness.”

Living is not the same as being alive. You might as well live in a bunker all by yourself if you want to avoid loss and death, but no one, most notably and least of all, yourself, would benefit from that situation and outcome. In fact, it would rob our existence of its very existential essence, our capacity to love and grow, and to find meaning and happiness in life.

In John Augustus Shedd’s words: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are built for.” We cannot allow ourselves to avoid reality, to live in a fantasy, or to get stuck in the past. We must face the truth and move forward, no matter how painful it may look or seem at first. This is how meaning is born.

In fact, David Kessler has written this book as a reflection of the love he has for the son he has lost. Meaning is a post-acceptance stage in which healing often resides, and the book is a manner for him to keep his own pain moving while also being of service to others as he has been throughout his life. 

In a way, it also signifies a return to life for him with writing being his chosen form of finding meaning as well as healing. Healing, in David’s own words, does not mean the loss did not happen. It means that it no longer controls us.

We tend to see death as a “catastrophic, destructive thing,” but in the wise words of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, it can also be viewed as “one of the most constructive positive and creative elements of culture and life.” Death means being face to face with a situation that may seem hopeless, unchangeable, and insurmountable, but at the same time, it invites and challenges us to change ourselves. We cannot escape pain, but suffering is optional.

This comes down to a choice that Viktor Frankl profoundly and beautifully explored in his seminal Man’s Search for Meaning: We can choose to respond to any given situation and turn tragic events into an opportunity for growth. It does not mean that your grief will get smaller but that you must get bigger in the face of adversity. As a matter of fact, meaning has tremendous power and potential to heal us.