.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The contention that defense mechanisms will be arroused by utilizing the device of the literary "we" to force a more critical attitude may be contested. Yet, objections to the preceding paragraph arise as a result of such defense mechanisms and it is important to determine the source and validity of the defense. Consider the following subjective ideas:
I will associate you with me so that the ideas and reasoning will be presented as ours. The decision to do this rests on considerations made to answer the question: "Why would you object?" We shall review some of these considerations here.
One possible reason is that you don't consider us to be on equal levels; therefore, should not work together. But, I consider us to be equal. Now, you might refuse, or wish to refuse accepting our equality, or some other conclusion, or premise that might be made. I have given sufficient evidence to support this contention in my essay "I Am Great". But, I shall make a few other comments here.
I make a big issue of equality because it is an important issue. I recognize one Man greater than myself. He was crucified by those wo wished to be greater than Him. Although I have no right to expect better treatment, I hope for it.
The history of man from the beginning of time is haunted by the attempts of one, or more, men trying to be better than one, or more, other men. It stands to reason that the best should rule and control the others. And these attempts are still with us: e.g., with respect to education:
Obviously an educated man is better than an uneducated one. The sign of the educated man is the degree, or degrees, without which one is certainly incapable of doing a good job at anything. Indeed, in our society it has developed to the point where it is almost impossible to get a job without a degree - (or a connection) - other qualifications not withstanding.
I certainly am not better than anyone else. I don't have a degree. You're wasting your time if you think your any better or worse than I. But certainly, you accept your ideas and opinions to be better than mine - or you wouldn't hold them. Yet, I shall force you to reconsider such basic concepts as life; I shall try to help you change you opinions and erroneous ideas - and you must - to understand and appreciate the consequences and concepts that can be developed. And I'm sure that you will scrutinize a logical development very carefully if one of your "pet" ideas is attacked. For example, if you followed the most logical discussion on record, and come upon the conclusion: "Animals are not living creatures", - I'm sure you will review that development very carefully, if you don't discard it first.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At the time that was written, there was no way for you to contribute. Since then, Someone created the internet - special for us. I will set up a section on this website to deal with any contribution you make, anonymously if you like, or with links to your website, or e-mail address.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via
e-mail
Hit the 'back' key to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Again the contentions made may meet with objections, probably the most vehement ones coming from the philosophers. But anyone who has had merely a brief encounter with semantics, even if only in a discussion that became entangled in semantical problems (such a discussion would be better called an argument - in fact, in essence, argument finds its definition in this idea of semantical entanglement) might demand some justification for making such an "over-simplified" presentation.
The first observation that could be made is that a discussion becomes an argument when basic ideas become involved - and the reversion to semantic resolution can be validly considered a defense mechanism.
The philosopher is singled out because he has the greatest capacity for raising semantical problems since he is the one who has contributed most to the perversion of the use of words.
It was stated above that words can be static or dynamic. They must be both, not merely one or the other, though they can be used in either a static or dynamic sense. The philosopher has always attempted to use words as static entities by giving them "perfect" definition - and this simply cannot be done; The more elaborate or specific the definition, the more limited the use of the word becomes. But words are representations of thoughts - and only representations of thoughts. As such words and language mirror the content of the mind - which is constantly changing. The "perfect" definition of words then becomes the statement of "essences" or essential meanings - which leaves a word somewhat vaguely defined, allowing it to receive its proper limitations and definition in its use.
It might also be pointed out here - that while the "intellectual" has attempted to establish the static nature of words by careful definition, the "common man" has insisted upon their dynamic use through a lack of careful definition. No one can deny that colloqualisms - even the vulgar ones - especially the vulgar ones - are used in an amazingly dynamic fashion that has frequently been considered "shocking" - but effective.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To show that this is so, it could be noted that our definition of "values" includes but avoids the problem of real vs imaginary (since it includes both) and therefore the problem of subjectivity vs objectivity, which we have not yet discussed. Also included, but avoided, are the general philosophical problems of existence, of a real outside world, the problem of gaining knowledge of that real world, and therefore the problem of determing the nature of thinking.
It is simply implied that, if, and only if, a real outside world exists, and if, and only if, knowledge of the real outside world can be obtained without self-deception, then everything in the real world has value to begin with - (as a basic property - as basic as its existence ... given to it by the Creator - if you will). Therefore, the nature and manner of conceptualizing determines whether knowledge of it (the real world, or anything in it) is real or true, or only self-deception or delusion; - the values themselves being a measure of the truth or the deception: i.e.,: Having value, it (the real world, and anything in it) can be valued (and/or re-valued): i.e.,: Though the inside world may depend upon the values given by man's mind, though man's knowledge of the outside world may depend upon the values given, the outside world (if it exists) is not so dependent.
Since this is true philosophically only if an outside world exists, there is no need to answer any of these questions to proceed - and the problems remain included , yet avoided. However, the answers to these questions represent the philosophy of psychology, and since the demand to aswer these questions is psychological, they represent equally well the psychology of philosophy. Another note of interest might be made here; simply, the indication of the relationship of existential philosophy to abnormal psychology that was made in the introduction to this work, as well as the "existential" approach in the essays immediately following.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Indeed. Merely considering the concept of values - that every concept has a value - is sufficient to show that it is a common basis of all possible theories, psychological and otherwise. For: In developing the idea of values, all that was required was the conceptualizing of anything (real or imaginary) PS2 - and it should be apparent that the process of conceptualizing is similar - and can be considered to be identical- to the thinking process - from which all theories are derived and of which values are the primary result since the nature of conceptualization itself establishes a value for the entity conceptualized.
Considerations of values, or their relationships, then become evaluations, and if applied to understand a particular phenomenon, or to maintain consistency with other values, the result is an interpretation, an hypothesis, or a theory. Considering values, as such, allows the consideration of a theory at all levels, and any particular theory becomes merely a particular set of values, evaluated and interpreted in a particular way, for a particular purpose.
The following discussion is presented primarily to show the simplicity of deriving the idea of values as the common basis through which all psychological theories can be viewed and related. It is also presented to raise some problems and to develop the "tool" of logic - through the principle of contradiction alone - so that it can be used to show the "rationality" of all interpretations including those of psychotics. This is done simply by removing the unnecessary limitations imposed by formal logic - primarily the limitation that one must remain entirely within a single frame of reference for all the principles of logic to be valid. But to change the frame of reference, as the psychology student must, the only principle that can be maintained is the principle of contradiction - upon which the other principles depend anyway. The problem of what is rational, or what is logical, is not quite as simple as formal logic seems to imply - so that it will be necessary to review the foundations, the development and the assumption that must be made to establish a "formal logic" - i.e., - a theory of contradiction.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This says nothing new. It merely defines interpretations and contradictions in terms of values. This is repetitive because the idea of values is intrinsically included in them. The contention that values are the common basis should have led us to expect such results. Still the philosophical questions posed earlier remain included yet avoided, for: values and evaluations are merely the common basis of interpretations; they can be used to resolve all contradictions; but they remain merely the common basis of knowledge, or the gaining thereof, without necessarily answering the question whether an outside world exists or not. The answer to this question merely determines whether the knowledge is truth or delusion - without effecting the relationships we have established. In other words - the theory of contradiction is not dependent upon the existence of an "outside" world for its valid application. This is a very important result and deserves some further discussion and justification.
Certainly the theory was developed by referring to an "outside" world (if one exists). The removal of contradictions is logically demanded only if an "outside" world exists and if the "outside" world has one, and only one nature - that is - if no contradictions exist in nature as such but rather as contradictory interpretations. But if one does not accept the "outside" world, or if the "outside" world is considered to be only confusion, there is still no reason why he cannot remove contradictions and confusion entirely within the "inside" world of the mind. In fact, there seems to be a psychological demand to do so - and could be attributed to being merely a satisfying intellectual experience. The fact that contradictions and confusion can be - indeed must be - resolved without reference to the outside world is what allows or forces the unhealthy form of "rationalization", or "double-thinking" to occur and represents the essence of the development of functional psychoses.
Yet, the demand to maintain consistency or integrity by removing contradictions and confusion, whether it occurs with reference to the outside world or not, is healthy. For: If this does not occur, a "conflict" situation is developed and results in neuroses. The removal of contradictions and conflicts in the internal world does not necessarily lead to a psychoses - so long as the external world is recognized and some attempt is made to maintain consistency with it, as well as maintaining consistency in the internal world. To do so requires that at least one relationship with the outside world be retained, and one alone may be sufficient if it is accurate and strong enough. But such a relationship is rarely found and it is necessary to check constantly the relationships established in the internal world against those that exist in the external world.
Furthermore, these views of the development of psychoses and neuroses need not be limited to only the functional types. If one considers such processes to occur on a subconcious or an unconcious level, organic dysfunction can be seen, by an outside observer at least, to be the cause of either an inability to resolve contradictions and conflicts; an inability to become - or remain - aware of certain aspects of the real world, etc.
Yet, since all the relationships established in the main discussion have been established by referring to the "outside" world, (the real world), and to the true nature of the entities discussed, the developments and the conclusions obtained are as objective, or "scientific", as they can be, and will produce a better understanding - a truer picture - of the real, outside, objective world.
Furthermore, since this book is not written for patients, nor to create any, there can no longer be any question about the existence of an outside world. We can only question the knowledge of it, and the gaining and using of that knowledge. The real world exists, - an outside world exists, - even for those - the patients - who refuse to accept it. Rather than question the existence of a real world, we will question its nature; why it is sometimes refused recognition; or why and how those who question its existence try to make the outside world conform to their own internal world.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The three problems we had set for us at the beginning of this chapter have been solved, in essence at least. We have established a common basis; we have established its relations to other fields of study; we have indicated that values , as such, are included intrinsically in all theories. But that's not enough. Considering the attempted establishment of valid knowledge on the basis of the theory of contradictions (which pervades all "knowledge" - real, imaginery. and psychotic) shows that any proof on the basis of logic alone is doomed to failure. Logical proof is impossible. Proof is a psychological phenomenon which depends on the nature of thinking. Everything we have considered is a product of thinking; includes all knowledge - even the knowledge we shall gain; but considering knowledge in terms of logic, resolution of contradictions, and values, is not sufficient. We have to view knowledge in terms of ourselves as standards to determine what is valid and what is not, and this always occurs, if not consciously, unconconsciously.
We shall deal with this problem more fully in the next chapter, but it will be noticed, though the development is logical and consistent, it begs the question more than it proves anything. All that can be shown logically is what must be accepted concerning an outside world if consistency is to be maintained. Since it is done with a consideration of all possible knoeledge, it is the most elaborate "proof" possible (though at points it may be presented in a trivial fashion). The fact that we take into account all possible "knowledge" - real, imaginery, and psychotic - and maintain consistency throughout, forces the acceptance of what is presented, or the decision that one of us is inded insane by our own definition, and the accepted definition of sanity. For: The three possible attacks on the development are:
(1) The outside world does not exist;
(2) The outside world has more than one nature;
(3) The principle of contradiction is invalid.
Accepting the facts necessary to maintain consistency may not be easy, but if it is done, we will realize how much work there is for us to do in correcting the errors that have been nurtured for centuries.
A diagramatic representation summarizing the psychological view of all possible knowledge and anything that can come into the mind of man can also be made. It is done below in two steps.
The representation of a single individual and/or all humanity.
Figure 3
The relationships of man to the philosophical view of all valid knowledge, plus the relationship to the "psychological knowledge" ordinarily excluded from philosophical consideration.
Figure 4
It should be pointed out that the "concentric" "figures" are not to be considered as being one outside the other, but actually as being super-imposed upon one another. The diagram is essentiall the same as Figure 2. It can be considered to be a result of questioning the validity of the philosophical knowledge represented; or as the development, the basis, or the "validity" of philosophical knowledge - as represented in Figure 2 - is established.
Some analogous diagrams are also included with no justification. They interested me. They might interest some theologians.
Psychological relationships of an individual to the Trinity.
Figure 5
The relationship of humanity and all knowledge to the Trinity.
Figure 6
.
.
.
Do you agree, or degree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where were.
.
.
