We have developed a definition of psychology, and we have shown that it has unique properties. The definition was shown to indicate the relationships of psychology to philosophy, all the physical sciences, and all the humanities. We noted that simply by changing our point of view, psychology has philosophy and the sciences as its basis and the humanities as part of its scope. It was also shown that all of these relationships are reciprocal. All fields can produce psychological effects and psychology can affect all fields. In essence, our definition was shown to be the most general one imaginable, yet it could be applied as specifically as we desired. To do so , all that is necessary is the restriction of one, or all, of the general terms of our definition.
In effect, our definition summarizes the field of study. It does so whether it is considered in its full general sense or in a limited sense. By simply restricting its generality, we define the limits of its scope, and have a summary of the specific field so defined. We can derive our system, or theory, from it by simply restricting all terms except one, enumerating the possibilities this one general term allows, and then repeating the process -- allowing a different term to remain general until all possibilities are considered. Our theory , by the nature of its development, will indicate many things, -- e.g., -- possible hypothesis, observations, procedures, tests, etc. - and of what nature they must be to be relevant. To develop some appreciationfor these properties, we shall again return to our general definition.
Psychology is the study of values, their relationships, and effects, with respect to man.
The definition has been somewhat simplified from that previously presented because: we noted that "values" can be considered as a single or composite entity, and therefore, includes "sets of values"; the term "relationships" can be considered to include "inter-relationships"; the term "man" can be viewed in the same way that we view "values" by virtue of the fact that we can define man in such terms if we desire.
We have already considered one very general and important relationship -- the reciprocal dependency of the terms "values" and "man" or "individual" with respect to kind. It is this relationship which allows us to proceed as indicated with the assurance that restricting the terms also restricts our field and vice-versa. We can be sure that by systematically applying the the process of restricting one term at a time we can include all the possibilities because the effects depend upon the kinds of relationships. This does not mean necessarily that we are capable of finding or enumerating all the possible kinds of relationships, nor all the effects of any particular relationship. We are assured however, that all that we do enumerate will have psychological meaning because they can have effects. Our job is not only to determine the relationships but also the possible effects.N1
With the establishment of the complete generality of the term "values" in mind, it should be apparent that the systematic restriction of the three variables to elaborate all possibilities is reduced to the restriction of the single variable "values". Rather than simply restrict this term, it would be better to consider the general class of values in its complete generality; divide the general class into two sub-classes -- e.g., real and imaginary -- and then restrict ourselves to one of the sub-classes. Such a procedure still does the simple task of restricting our study as we desire, with the added value of keeping tabs on what is excluded as well as what is included.
Let us first consider a relatively trivial division by considering values in a singular or plural sense. We could then consider man in a singular and plural sense, and thereby further restrict and simplify our study without any loss in its generality. We can do this because each of us must approach the general study of all of man's knowledge as individuals, or as man in a singular sense, which is consistent with the establishment of ourselves as standards.
This process yields the following relationships symbolized by "X".
1. A single value . . . X . . . . man (singular)
2. A single value . . . X . . . . man (plural)
3. A set of values. . . X . . . . man (singular)
4. A set of values. . . X . . . . man (plural)
Viewing these, we shall try to see what possible meanings they might have for us and psychology. Our purpose is to obtain a general idea -- a bird's eye view, if you will -- but not a careful specific analsysis. We will leave such specific analysis for later work.
The first ralationship is that of an individual to some value, standard, or "norm". Not having any restrictions on the kind of value, we can consider any kind of value. For example, we can choose:
a) A value of our own making, e.g., an I.Q. value.
b) A value which the individual has or might have, such as a "character" value, a personal value, a characteristic such as a genetic one with "survival" value, etc. whether such values are conscious, subconscious, or unconscious.
c) A value from any "subjective" source, or from any "objective" source, regardless of whose definition of these terms is used.
d) A value from a religious source, whether such is considered to be objective, or subjective, etc.
We can also view these relationships from various points of view, at least from ours and from the point of view of the individual under consideration. If we identify ourselves with the individual and consider what effects an outside value could have on us, we can see relationships to our personality and/or character establishing or affecting a particular value, and vice versa. If we make the substitution of "values" for "man", or the equally valid substitution, "man" for "value", we can see relationships such as:
1) A value to a value, which could have meaning in terms of establishing relative values in our personality and/or character.
2) A man to a man, which could be viewed from various points of view as well: e.g., -- a mutual effect on each other; one man effecting the other or his value -- either total, or partial; etc.
Certainly, all of these can produce productive ideas and areas to pursue further and more carefully. We can also see that we didn't even "put a dent" into all the possibilities. Without going through the other three general relationships we enumerated, we can see that by just making the same kind of observations, we will obtain many more possibilities. We will just enumerate a few that are particularly important.
1) Individual . . . X . . . society
2) Society. . . . . X . . . society
3) Individual . . . X . . . particular society
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (family, religion,etc.)
All of these relationships operate in both directions. If we introduce the time element we would be able to view various kinds of histories, developments, or evolutions. Throwing such relationships back into the types of relationships we have already enumerated produces even more interesting relationships: e.g., -- the effects of cultural development on a relationship of individuals, societies, institutions, religions, etc. We can even view such relationships at various stages of development: e.g., -- a "savage" society vs a "civilized" society.
The number of possibilities is staggering. Certainly, there are an infinity of infinite variations we can consider. But before we junk our system as being useless by virtue of the complexity it develops, let us make some observations to try to appreciate our position. These results should not cause us to panic; they should be expected. We have set out to study a most complex subject, -- man, -- ourselves. Each individual represents an infinity of variations which we wish to understand, at least partially. We want more. We want to understand such an infinite complexity in an infinite number of possible situations, and even the relationship to other infinitely complex individuals and groups. We have a simple approach. We have a simple explicit definition which allows us to handle any particular or general view. Our definition is consistent with these observations because, in its simplicity, it can evolve a system which allows for infinite variation. We should be able then to develop a simple and valuable system upon it.
Most important to us at the moment is the fact that restricting our study to a study of man in an individual sense poses no serious problems. The relationships to a single individual considered as a complex set of values are the same as the relationships to a society as a complex set of values. To regain complete generality, all that is necessary is the consideration any individual, rather than a specific individual. Regardless of what group or society we consider, it is composed of individuals, -- which allows the establishment of a "normal" or a "representative" individual of a society. Considering ourselves as standards then implies that we are the "normal", or the "representative", or the healthy individuals of our society.
We can now consider one of the most difficult, but most important relationship of psychology: -- subjectivity vs objectivity; imaginary vs real; or, the inside world against the outside world. The importance and difficulties are easily appreciated by realizing that confusion of this relationship is the essence of abnormal or unhealthy psychology, and that the relationship also has conscious, subconscious, and unconscious aspects, as well as subjective involvements with associated defense mechanisms. We shall consider the relationship from the three points of view indicated so that we can understand the similarity as well as the differences between the real, objective, outside world and the imaginary, subjective, inside world. That all three points of view are concerned with a single relationship and not three different ones can be appreciated by realizing that there is a similarity between the "real" and the "image" world.
Philosophical considerations of this relationship can (and have) yield(ed) the two extreme positions represented below:
Both of these statements can be considered to contradict themselves as well as each other depending upon what "everything" is taken to mean; i.e., "everything" considered as the objects themselves is objective; but considered as a concept, or the representations of objects, in the mind, it is subjective. We will accept both positions as being equally valid. As indicated, their validity depends upon the point of view, so that we will develop and accept a third point of view which includes both statements as valid and non-contradictory. This is not a difficult task, yet some will consider it impossible. The very nature of the disagreement makes this apparent and understandable, for, regardless of what position is taken, there are subjective involvements.
We will therefore begin with subjective considerations and apply our theory of contradictions to resolve the problem within the inside world of images. The development and the generality of our theory of contradiction allows us to do this without considering any justification for doing so. We might however utilize the same kind of justification offered for resolving the contradictory interpretations of the nature of man as seen from evolutionary and "religious" points of view. This is suggested because the resolution of the contradictory views of man's nature remains incomplete and because it is the pecularities of man's nature which allows the development and solution of the problem with which we are now concerned.N2
For our purposes we will differentiate subjectivity and objectivity in such a way as to at least distinguish between the two. This in essence is the same as defining them, but our interest at the moment is not to define them accurately, but merely to distinguish between them. The essential similarity between a distinction and an accurate definition is not what we are going to discuss. It is mentioned here only to indicate that making such distinctions by applying them to various subjects or subjective frames of reference can also derive adequate definitions and then accurate ones, at least conceptually.
We must develop a point of view -- or better, a frame of reference -- which will include two extremes. To begin with, we will simply state both extremes together and see what observations or hypothesis we can use to accomplish our goal.
Everything is subjective and objective simultaneous.
This statement is not contradictory if we realize that: if something were only objective, it would not be relevant to any subject, and therefore meaningless to that subject. As soon as something which could be considered to be objective (in any way whatever) becomes relevant to the subject, a relationship is established between the subject and object, and the something considered is therefore both objective and subjective simultaneously. And if, on the other hand we begin with something that is only subjective, it would have no meaning for us, unless "we" were the subject making the consideration. For: if we begin with a subject and nothing else, the only thing that could be relevant to the subject is the subject himself and nothing else (except Nothing). But even in this case, anything that can be relevant to the subject (the subject himself) in a subjective sense is also objective, that is relevant in an objective sense at least to an observer (a student of psychology) if not relevant objectively to the subject himself.N3
It is obvious that our use of the term "objective" must extend the concept of "objectivity" to include "things" which are not "objects" in the usual sense of material objects if we are to develop a "scientifically objective" theory which can include "thoughts" and "Subjective involvements" in an objective sense. But we have no experience with a subject or object existing in a vacuum; i.e., we have no experience with anything "purely subjective" or "purely objective". We can therefore consider subjectivity and objectivity only in their relationship to each other.N4
So far, we have noted from our consideration and delineation of subjectivity and objectivity that the decision as to whether something is subjective or objective depends upon the point of view or the frame of reference from which it is viewed. We have introduced a term -- "relative" or "relevant" -- to help us understand the synthesis we made to include both extremes. We then should agree that everything -- subjective and objective -- is relative or relevant. We can then say that everything is subjective, objective and relative, simultaneously. We have only to ask the question: "Relative to whom?, to define the point of view or the frame of reference, and with this established, we can define subjectivity and objectivity for everone and everything included in that frame of reference. We have included in our delineation of subjectivity however a particular characteristic which limits our answer to this question. The characteristic is the ability of the subject to know.We should then be able to propose a distinction based on "knowability".
Although we could answer the question: "Relative to whom?, in several ways, it behooves us to consider the answer to be: "Relative to us.", in order to maintain consistency with the establishment of ourselves as "primary standards". Furthermore this point of view emphasizes our appreciation of "subjective relevance" in terms of our own conscious knowledge with which we are directly concerned at present. Since we are interested in knowing, it seems most logical to begin with ourselves as subjects and with our ability to know. With these observations we can propose a distinction which is very simply.
For anything to be "objective" it must have at least the property of being knowable, whether it is known or not to any particular subject. It becomes subjective when it is known, or rather, when it affects the subject in such a way that he can know of it. This allows us to test the effects of things that we know about on a subject who does not know these things. We can then also handle the possibility of something being relative or relevant to the subject with or without his knowledge. We can see this by a simple example.
You and I can decide to shoot a subject we are considering. If we tell the subject, that is, try to give him (or it) the knowledge of our intention, it may or may not affect his behavior. The possible effect on his behavior would depend upon whether he has the ability to know or not, and also on his evaluation of this knowledge if he is capable of knowing. But regardless of his ability or lack of ability to know, or evaluate, the execution of our decision will certainly be relevant to him, or to his state of existence, or to our appreciation of his state of existence.
There are implications from our work so far. You will recall that the work presented here was preceded by introductory essays which are certainly relative and relevant to me. One can make the extension that these are only relative to me, and therefore not only completely subjective but only subjective. I will admit that there is validity in asserting that these essays -- and everything presented so far -- is completely subjective. It is. But it is not only subjective.
We can show how completely subjective it is by reviewing our establishment of a general concept, and definition of, values upon which all of our work has been based. I appealed to you to consider anything that came to your mind, whether real or imaginary: i.e., whether objective or subjective. In making this appeal to your ability to think, I didn't question your view of objectivity, nor whether you have any such concept. The appeal was to your thought, and therefore whatever came to your mind -- whether you considered it to be objective or subjective -- made no difference to our discussion. Your idea of objective may have been quite different from mine. If our ideas about objectivity differ so that neither of us can accept the other's view as being objective, we must accuse each other of being completely subjective. We have been. But we have not been only subjective. We have not been only subjective unless we considered no "objects" existing outside of our minds. I have considered "objects", have you? I have considered you, and you are an "object" outside of my mind. I have also considered myself. I am an "object in a material sense at least to someone else. If we have made such considerations we certainly cannot accept that: "Everything is only subjective". We can, however, say that: "Everything is subjective", meaning that it is not only subjective.
If we accept anything to be objective, we can extend this concept by simply stating: "Everything is objective". For our purposes we have said that everything -- to be objective -- has at least one property. It can be known. It is knowable; it being understood that to say something is not known does not mean that it cannot be known. Therefore all subjective knowledge is also objective; but, all objective knowledge is not necessarily subjective unless we consider humanity collectively, or unless we consider a being that has all possible knowledge; e.g. God. A thought, or knowledge, has real objective existence. It also has subjective existence. The limits of its objective existence depends on the nature and extent of the mind(s) containing it. Even if its existence was limited to a single mind: it certainly is subjective -- It's known; It certainly is objective -- It can be known, and made known to others. Its objective existence may be simply a limited one. But we can't see, taste, or touch an idea, a thought. So? All this means is that its existence is of the nature of non-material, i.e., spiritual, "things" or entities: e.g., Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity, and such "things". They may not have material existence, but they certainly do exist. We can't see, taste or touch them either. We know them in the same way we know our thoughts. They have effects. An effect of my thoughts is this book.N5
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
1. Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
2. Continue to next page.
3. Go to the Home Page