There are enumerable books on psychology, and almost as many theories concerning the basic facts as there are psychologists in the field. The greatest difficulties are contradictions caused by an inability to establish explicit definitions of terminology, or if these are established, to confuse the terminology in one psychologist's approach with that of another's. To compound this difficulty, there is a tremendous lack of agreement on the basic issues involved.
It is no wonder then that two theories seem to be logically sound, verifiable by experimentation and observation, even effective in dealing with people, predicting or explaining behavior, and yet the two theories reach contradictory conclusions, by entirely different approaches, as defined in the respective theories.
Many examples could be found by comparing the interpretations of any given behavior by various schools of thought. If one of these schools of thought is accepted - or acceptable - by anyone to the exclusion of all the others, there is no point to them, in developing a unified theory, which is the purpose of this work.
If two contradictory theories both have validity, it should be obvious that the contradictions must be the result of interpretive differences, and that, in reality, they must be complimentary to each other. Unfortunately, this view of contradictory theories is not as obvious as it should be, and it will be necessary to review the theory of contradiction - which is the foundation of any system of logic. But, for the view of contradictions of theories presented to be true, it is necessary that there be a premise common to both theories, and a logical system based on this premise, which is included intrinsically in the statement of theories.
The first problem then, which presents itself in a development of a unifying theory, is the determination of such a common basis. The second problem would be to show that this common basis, and the corrollaies derived from it, are actually included intrinsically in many, most, or all of the present, accepted, or acceptable theories. The third problem would be to show the extensions and limitations of such a theory with its relationships to all other fields of man's endeavor, if such relationships exist.N1
With regard to method, the preceding paragraph represents the general plan of our work. I term it "our work" because I want it to be that. By speaking in this plural sense I hope that I can help you be more critical. It seems that the opposite may be true. It usually is. But here, we will be bucking defense mechanisms which will be more easily brought into play if an attempt is made to accept - rather than just consider - repulsive ideas.N2
If you cannot accept the arguments presented, you should define what's wrong with them before continuing with me. You must if you are to proceed. You must accept at least tentatively any premise that is made if the ideas presented are to be given a fair trail. We must proceed together if you are going to be able to follow a development that is integrated to a point where all parts are necessarily related to each other, and to the whole.
It is so important for us to proceed together that I will meet you half way. In view of all the preceding subjective material which I could not expect you to accept at this point - if ever - I shall disassociate myself from it.
Any disagreements we may have had are now dissolved.
If we refer to any of the preceding material, we shall refer to it as Mr. x's - as if he were a third party. Mr. x is now only one example of an individualistic individual - maybe not the most representative, nor as representative as he might think he is, bur certainly one who has tried to interpret and understand himself and his own limited world.
It is useful for an individual to dis-associate himself from his own interpretations - as I am doing - in order to view his knowledge and theories objectively. This is essentially what both of us must do if we are going to work together to remove fact from opinion; to separate man-made "facts" from reality.
Admittedly, it's no t easy. Mr. x is a persistent guy, from whom I cannot separate myself.
Although we shall have to review various interpretations of reality, we cannot review everyone's opinion; and, fortunately or unfortunately, the decision of which interpretations we will review is left to me - or Mr. x. If this were a personal communication rather than a book, we could - and would - use your interpretations as well. But since Mr. x cannot be eliminated, we might just as well make use of him.N3
Concerned as he is with other people's problems (as well as his own), and as he is with philosophical and theological concepts, it will be his job to offer justification, observations, discussions, etc. when he feels it is pertinent or helpful to our discussion. Such inclusions will appear in another type style and can easily be avoided.PS1 In fact, it is recommended - urged - that they be avoided on the first reading, unless some serious problem or objection is found in our discussion. We could then follow one main stream of thought together without being disturbed by unnecessary considerations.
From this point on, we shall consider the material presented to determine its validity first, then its acceptability. For: acceptability does not depend upon validity, nor validity on acceptability. This is part of the more general problem of subjectivity vs objectivity, the confusion of which adequately defines "abnormal" - or better - "unhealthy", psychology. At the moment we don't have the necessary tools to go into this problem, so let's just dispose of it with a more superficial treatment.
If validity and acceptability were necessarily dependent upon one another, it would be useless to question traditional (valid and acceptable) concepts, and progress would be impossible. But what is valid should be acceptable; what is accepted should be valid. Then progress can be made when a discrepency is noted.
Mr. x seems to think he found some; we might test them. We might also find some others to test. But we can also make progress by rejecting valid and accepted theories and by then replacing them with equally valid theories or concepts which might be useful, more inclusive, more complete, or closer to the true picture - even though such replacements may not be as acceptable at the time. They usually aren't. It is never easy to change traditions. After all, who wants to accept the responsibility - or the consequences?
Mr. x seemed willing to stake his sanity on the validity or the truth of what he presented, knowing that its general acceptability is difficult. Psychotics actually do stake their sanity on the validity and the truth of some ideas that their peers find totally unacceptable - and if not the ideas themselves, the resulting behavior. The beatniks, non-conformists, hoboes, monks, criminals, cloistered religious, scientists, etc. - all find something in our "normal" society that they are unable or un-willing to accept. Some are justified, others are not.
If we want to understand the problems of an individual's adjustment to society, (acceptability vs validity; subjectivity vs objectivity), we must be willing to look at the most psychotic, the most crack-pot ideas and justifications to determine their validity. Knowing the extent of the validity of an idea, or behavior, of another is necessary if any understanding is going to be gained concerning that individual's adjustment. Without understanding, there could be little done to help either individuals or a society with an increasing number of such maladjusted individuals.
Certainly the willingness to accept the consequences of non-conformity argues for some validity. We must be willing to look for, to find, and to accept the validity of ideas, concepts, theories, and the resulting behavior, even if we find and maintain that these are unacceptable, though valid. We must be able to accept the validity even if we reject everyhting else concerned with a particular interpretation. We must be able to view things from different points of view. We must strive to make our own point of view as general as possible so that we can include other points of view as specific applications of our general theory.
Another important consideration with regard to method involves semantics. Words are our tools. They can be used in a static or a dynamic sense. We can let them mean what we want them to mean because we are interested more in the ideas they represent than in the words themselves. We must look beyond the words to the ideas they represent. For the most part, we will be interested in the essential meaning of words: i.e., the most important meaning of a particular word, the meaning without which the word would become meaningless.
For example:
Interpretations are basically and fundamentally evaluations of particular sets of observations or circumstances. If an interpretation did not evaluate anything, it could not be an interpretation, and if, a paricular set of circumstances were not involved, it would not be an interpretation so much as it would be a simple evaluation. In many ways "interpretation" and "evaluation" are almost identically synonomous terms, yet it seems that interpretation involves more than a single simple evaluation, but rather, a group of evaluations taken together.
Emphasizing only the essential meaning of words will enable us to use them in their most usual and broadest sense, as well as easily limit or extend them to give better definition, or different shades of meaning for applications in different frames of reference.N4
To gain an appreciation for such a use of words through their essential meanings, let's consider the word "values". This word is of particular importance to us because "values", or value judgement, is the common basis we seek.
For:
All psychological theories can be defined in more basic terms of values.
Since the word "values" is our primary tool, we must develop some special appreciation for it, as well as for an appreciation of using the essential meaning of words.
We can begin to do this by consulting an unabridged dictionary and accepting all the definitions given there in their broadest or most general sense. We want to obtain as general a concept of values as possible so that we can restrict it as we desire at any time. Since this, our common basis, must also pervade all psychological theory, it is absolutely essential to obtain the most general concept of values possible to insure that it will be a ubiquitous tool. We will, therefore, extend the concept to include, literally, everything imaginable. We can do this very simply by allowing anything to enter our minds, and then assigning a value to it. Now we can say that the most basic property of anything , whether real or imaginary, is that it has value, if only "thought" value, or "existence" value, or some other assigned or relative value; e.g., a number. We could even assign no value, or the value of nothingness. The kind of value is not important to us here at all. As soon as we consider any particular kinds of, or types of, values, we immediately limit ourselves.
The essential definition - the essential meaning - of "values" is: A basic property of anything conceivable - of any concept: - the nature of conception itself establishing an arbitrary value which is either qualitative OR quantitive.
This concept of values may be a little difficult to grasp at first but will become clearer as we go along.
.
.
.Let us now return to the statement:
All psychological theories can be defined in more basic terms of values.
The simplicity of the statement probably arrouses suspicion of it, disrespect for it, and produces a strong inclination to disregard it as being, not only presumptious, but also ridiculous, particularly on first contact with it. With a little reflection, however, the power and force that this concept has will become apparent and yield a great deal of insight.N5
We must be very careful, however. There have been in the introductory essays, -- and there can be as we proceed, -- so many ideas presented to which opposition can be raised, -- must be raised, -- that is necessary to make as few assumptions as possibe. We must therefore define very clearly the assumptions we make and test them. This caution must be taken most seriously because others before us have realized the importance and basic nature of values but have gone astray.
Let us then examine carefully the statement:
"All Psychological theories can be defined in more basic terms of values."
that was just made and establish some validity for testing it further.
First, the purpose for making the statement is to test a common basis. We want to test this because a system based on such a common basis would be extremely useful. But, for it to be useful, it must be able to define at least some of the accepted psychological theories at least as adequately as these present theories do. Since we want to make our system as useful as possible we might as well start with "all psychological theories" until we are forced to narrow or limit the statement. We will then obtain the most useful system we are capable of deriving.
Second, the fact that others have recognized the basic nature of values indicates that the statement has some validity. Indeed, if it has any validity, we might be on the right track of establishing the foundations of all psychological phenomena; but certainly, we should test further. How should we proceed? Well, if others recognized their basic nature, we might gain some direction by searching the literature to find some such statements. Two of them are presented below, which should be sufficient for our purpose.
In Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents", the very opening sentence is:
"The impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards, that everyone seeks power, sucess, riches for himself and admires others who attain them, while under-valuing the truly precious things in life."
Note that the term "standard" is synonomous with "value" in the sense that it refers to particular kinds of values.
In a magazine, "Columbia", dated April 1959, by Dr. James E. Hayden, M.D., Phd. (Louvain) F.A.P.A., at Marsalin Institute in Brookline, Boston, is quoted:
"Here religion enters the picture. To think and to choose is to weight values. The minute you deal with man's mind, values and their chief determinant, religious belief, become an inseparable part of his psychic content. The content of mind is such that it cannot be divorced from values - and not just social and ethical values but above all basic moral values. Any attempt at such a divorce is an unscientific violation of the natural link between (1) the ability and need to weigh values and (2) the emotional disturbances to which what we might call secular psychiatry unduly limits itself."
So far, to remain as objective as possible, all we have is a possible common basis, a statement through which we might test this basis to show its usefulness, and sufficient evidence to indicate that we might be on the right track.
Before we continue, it might be helpful to review the establishment of our common basis to indicate how we might best proceed. It will be remembered that this, up till now, has merely been "thrown in" for consideration. It is not necessary, nor is it our purpose, to answer the question: "How can such a question be deduced?" It might be helpful. Besides, an indication of the answer is almost demanded, if only for the sake of showing that the concept was not "pulled out of a hat". The discussion will therefore serve at least to indicate that values actually are the common basis of all psychological theory; and it will also serve as an application of a general technique in finding "essences".N6
.
Society, the family, religion, friends, schools, laws, and just about anything that can be lumped together and called environmental forces have a tremendous impact on the psychology of any individual under consideration. Seeking a common basis to discuss the effect of these environmental forces leads us to the conclusion that it must be common to all these forces.
One thing that all of these have in common is that they all try to, - and do, - establish values or standards of one kind or another for the individual. There seems to be nothing else common to all of them. If there were, a consideration of them would be in order; but, at least one has been obtained for testing. That's enough. We've accomplished our proposed task. But our proposed task was not general enough. We have restricted our investigation to include only environmental forces. Let's see if we can extend our investigation to include all the forces acting on, in, or through an individual.
Evolutionary forces can be considered to be either environmental in nature, or forces which are characteristic of the individual, i.e., hereditary or genetic characteristics. All evolutionary forces can be considered as being environmental in nature - the genetic characteristics of one individual comprising a part of the environment of another individual - and they then propose no difficulties; they can be include as establishing "survival" values. But so do the genetic characteristics of an individual establish such survival values for that individual, irrespective of other individuals. In fact, the interplay of forces of the environment with individuals' genetic characteristics also has meaning in terms of survival value regardless of what other values they try to establish. In fact, it is the interplay of the genetic survival values with the environmental survival values that determines the course of evolution.
Certainly these ideas of survival values and their interaction are consistent with evolutionary theory, and they even enhance it, representing as they do its essence. But this is making the assumption that evolution is a true, a valid, and an acceptable theory - which assumption is hotly contested from several quarters, particularly on religious grounds. In essence: Religious beliefs - which might be considered to include personal beliefs - are used by some to deny evolution; others use evolutionary beliefs to deny religious beliefs; and still others find both evolutionary and religious dogma to be mutually compatible.
We cannot ignore the problem. Involving as it does the nature of man, it has a great deal of significance for psychology. Indeed, it is a basic problem, having been raised in seeking a common basis - a more basic approach - to psychology. The quotations of Dr. Hayden and Dr. Freud previously made are pertinent here. But surely we can appreciate the fact that religious and scientific beliefs - or values - both affect man's behavior so that we cannot discard either from consideration.
Let's see what tools we have available to solve this problem. If we remove the restriction to psychological theory from our discussion of contradictory theories with which we began this chapter, we obtain a very general concept - and theory - of contradictions which can serve as a useful tool in resolving most of the problems with which we shall deal. This is important enough for us to re-state this theory in general terms and then use the results obtained to solve the problem we just developed. The results obtained and their use could also serve as a partial test of the validity of the theory, if there is any question about it.
Contradictions are the result of interpretive differences (since none are existent in nature as such); and the contradictions can be removed by re-interpreting in terms of something common to both interpretations - with the guarantee that there is somthing common to them - the true nature of the entity or phenomena being interpreted.
Now, from the establishment of our common basis, values, it is indicated that interpretive differences are differences of evaluations, or differences due to different values being attached to the same entity (whether real or imaginary). Also indicated is the fact that the evaluations (to be contradictory) are only partial evaluations; or evaluations within different frames of reference; or the attachment of values from different points of view, with either those holding one, the other, or both positions either refusing to recognoze the other position, or simply remaining unaware of it.N7
Applying the results obtained to the problem we raised concerning the nature of man as viewed from evolutionary and religious points of view indicates that these opposing views value the origin or creation of man differently but that their common aim is to elucidate an aspect of human nature. We can derive some understanding of this common basis of human nature by re-interpreting the contentions of both positions, including their essential ideas but resolving the contradictions. It should be realized that we must include both positions, if only for the reason that we, as psychology students, cannot discard either from consideration since they both effect man's behavior rather generally. Such a synthesis might be questioned, and we will question it. But first things first. It seems to be more appropriate to develop and understand what we are questioning, especially since the synthesis has been accepted by many, and should have some validity.
The evolutionary concepts of man - taken alone - states that man is simply an animal, originating and developing from other animals. The religious view insists that man is more than an animal: that he is a creature having an animal body, and in addition to that, a rational soul or mind. Since it was pointed out that the "religious" view, as we are using the term, can be considered to include personal beliefs, we shall use the terms mind and soul interchangeably.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question, via e-mail
1. Hit the 'back' button to return where you were
2. Go to the next Chapter
3. Go to the Home Page