If you have no intention or desire to think, close this book now. What I have written is not written to be read, but studied and thought about. If, on the other hand, you can or will at least try, this book can be of extreme value, for its purpose is basic, and therefore, manifold. You must be willing to accept the authority of your own mind, not the authority and prestige of any so called expert, or the credentials of a PhD. You must be able to analyze what's said in the light of your own intelligence irrespective of "who" says it.
Because it is so basic I feel morally obligated to warn you here. I try to present material to force you to think so as to re-evaluate basic ideas.I discuss some philosophical and some religious concepts, particularly, God. If you feel that your ideas may be on shaky ground, or if you don't wish to expose your basic beliefs to attack, again, close this book. If on the other hand you feel that your beliefs are firmly rooted, or that they need re-evaluation, by all means accompany me to the extremes of sanity and patience.
Although at times it might appear that I am being facetious, what I have to say is said in all seriousness. I point this out to those who find religious concepts, ideals, or unusual ideas to be ludicrous, and also to those who find them useless or impractical. The former should find plenty of material to tickle their distorted sense of humor; the latter should be at least mildly surprised.
At this point I shall make some predictions as to your reactions in reading my work. I expect that they will be the same as the reactions I have observed to myself as a person. I have already stated that it will be necessary for you to think; and also that material is presented in such a way that you will be forced to do so. You will find this irritating, but I find it unavoidable. I also try to present material in a simple-minded way -- in the way that I have been enabled to gain insights and understand them. You will object to this as well, and feel that I am wasting your time with trivialities.
If I thought that this was true, I obviously wouldn't present such material in the way that it is presented. But it is unavoidable, because I contend that you don't know what the thinking process is, at least not accurately.
You have the ability to think. You have used this ability throughout your life but I doubt that you can define it explicitly and accurately. You use this ability in much the same way you use your ability to breathe -- without giving it a thought. When, and if you do, give it a thought, it becomes a difficult problem to understand with accuracy.
This ability to think -- thinking -- is of primary importance in psychology. Thinking (and the thought processes) will be discussed; but it is too basic, too multifaceted to be presented first. A great deal of confusion has been created because of a lack of understanding of the thinking process. The only way to develop an understanding of, and an appreciation for, this basic topic is to fight through the misconceptions that have been developed. For this reason I can make a further prediction -- the more formal education you have had, the more difficulties you shall encounter.
As now, I find myself frequently between the devil and the deep blue sea. I am writing for any one who has the ability to think, and the desire to use it, whether educated extensively or not. Certainly anyone who has reached the college level should be able to understand what I'm talking about. It is my opinion that a high school student could understand as well as a PhD in psychology or philosophy assuming that there is an honest interest in doing so. The PhD, however, presents some particularly formidable problems in demanding an "exactness" and a "sophistication" that requires the inclusion of material that leaves the less educated somewhat befuddled. The PhD on the other hand must "suffer" through "over-simplified" discussions. Neither the complicated nor the simple presentations are unnecessary since the complicated ideas develop from the simple ones. The PhD begins with the more complicated and must struggle to learn to appreciate and understand the simple. The less educated must struggle in the other direction.
It might appear that I have set myself an impossible task. But I have developed an insight and an understanding which allows me to envision what some of the most brilliant minds -- from the time of the Greeks to the present -- have stated to be impossible. I wish to share that insight with you but the "impossible" of necessity is difficult -- requiring as it does many unique approaches. This work is the first step -- a step which is unnecessary if you can think honestly and define the nature of thinking as it is related to all human experience and knowledge.
I doubt that you take me seriously. I'm sure that my suggestion to close this book was taken lightly -- merely a psychological trick. But I may be wrong in your particular case. Rather than guess about it, I'll give you something to think about now -- a few thoughts you may be able to follow, but probably won't understand; a few questions you won't be able to answer.
Thinking is related to Truth.
Consider: (1), Thinking is directed by and develops known truths in such a manner that it is directed towards Truth. When is this statement true? When is it false? How do distortions of Truth arise? Can you see the relationship of Truth (as understood through thinking) to philosophy, science, and psychology?
Thinking is related to Love.
Consider: (2), Philosophy is literally defined through its Greek derivation as: "love of Wisdom". Isn't truth part of wisdom? Isn't the other part of wisdom the usefulness of the truth to satisfy the love? Does usefulness require consistency with Truth?
Consider: (3), Thinking is directed by love and develops accepted "truths" in such a manner that it is directed towards satisfying the love.
Consider: (4), Biased thinking is the expression of self-love, or the love for something other than Truth. Can you see the relationship to psychology? What about the emotional aspects of thinking and loving? Can one think without loving: or love without thinking?
Consider: (5), The relationship of thinking to love defines the depth, the height, or the scope of thinking, as the relationship of thinking to the object loved determines the method or manner of thinking.
Consider: (6), Love is related to thinking as sex is related to a simple sensation; love is related to sex as thinking is related to a simple sensation.
What do you mean when you say: "I love." "I think". "I believe." "I feel." "I need." "I want." ? ? ? What is the same about these expressions? What's different?
Can you now define thinking without excluding any of these relationships? Can you include any of them? Can you now define thinking in such a way that you can -- not only include -- but also explain, some or all of these relationships?
These few thoughts and questions concerning the multi-faceted nature of thinking could serve many useful purposes if you will consider them from, such points of view as the following:
. . . As a preview;
. . . as an aide to an appreciation of both the seriousness
and the problems of the undertaking you have started;
. . . as an aide in helping you decide at any point whether it is worthwhile continueing or not;
. . . as an aide to help you realize the necessity for repeating ideas in different frames of reference as well as the necessity to look beyond the repitition to see the change in meaning due to the transition;
. . . as support for some of the contentions I have made, or will make -- contentions you might otherwise consider "trivial", "petty", or "absurd".
That seems like quite a tall order. Actually all that I expect you to have gained is a relatively superficial understanding -- just enough to give you some direction when there seems to be none, and some tolerance when I become particularly annoying. I can only offer the simple advice to pass over the relatively trivial problems you might find on the first reading with my guarantee that enough will be gained to make a second reading more valuable. I promise to stick enough pins into you to keep you moving while spoon feeding you enough nourishment to do so.
I have been warned about presenting my thesis in the manner I have chosen. The contention is that I will lose many readers. I doubt it. For all the things I have been called, I have very rarely been considered a bore. Even though I lose readers, most shall be irritated enough to either do some thinking on their own, or return to re-reading my work for some further stimulation and insight. I couldn't honestly apologize for presenting material that forces you to re-read it and to think. It's a highly desirable effect.
I have also been told that I have a tendency to apologize unnecessarily. That's a mis-interpretation. An individual's psychological characteristics are included unconsciously and unavoidably in everything he does. I therefore try to explain -- to bring into consciousness -- the why, where, and how --not apologically -- but to be objective by questioning and explaining my motivations at times. After all that's part and parcel of our problems; and speaking generally, the problem of all students. The problem of bias is particularly important in psychology where each individual tends to be his own expert.
Certainly anyone who is serious about gaining knowledge and insight would do well to recognize that the title of student applies equally well to the beginner and to the PhD's. If you have the delusion that you "know what the score is", or that you don't have to re-evaluate the foundations of your knowledge -- like a student -- you will not be able to distinguish what I mean from what you would like to think I mean. All of this is precluded by the fact that there is no point in reading this, or any other serious book, if such are your feelings.
It's only when you've gotten this message that you will appreciate the depth in some seemingly trivial points of discussion in the pages that follow, and in the routine business of living. Again the sophistication that an extensive formal education imposes will cause a rebellion against the impositions I will make. This is your problem, not mine. To maintain honesty in my presentation, I must reject, and have rejected, attempting to be more lucid with the sacrifice of accuracy and honesty.
I have developed some very interesting and very important insights without the "benefit" of extensive formal education in the specific areas of psychology, philosophy, and theology. Primary to all of these areas is the ability to think -- which I have, and which you have too. I have utilized my ability to arrive at a position which is more basic than any other presentation I have ever come accross or heard about. For this reason I can see a great deal of confusion incorporated into the presentation of these subjects and particularly in the area of psychology. I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion that -- having the ability to understand the basic difficulties -- I also have the ability to present my understanding in the best manner possible, though it may be difficult.
For example: Most psychologists would be of the opinion that a discussion of psychology should not attempt to foster emotional involvement if it is avoidable, since subjective involvements may interfere with objective judgements. I disagree. I want to arouse your emotions if I can. The medium of a book does not lend itself readily to such a purpose. But I can try. Maybe that's why I seem to taunt you like a child of five jeering: "I know something you don't know". I do. Then again, maybe I'm just a tease. But if you're interested in psychology, or in people, you should be willing to put up with an individual's idosyncrasies. I have many. Why try to avoid them when they can be used advantageously in selecting the better students of psychology? After all. getting down to a basic level always has some "patient's resistence" associated with it. My resistence shows up obviously enough in my idiosyncrasies: yours perhaps will show up as a rejection of what I say -- for no definable reason.
At this point I would like to make another suggestion and prediction. If you find anything you think is difficult, vague, erroneous, over-simplified, etc., write your objections down. You will raise -- you must raise -- many objections, questions and criticisms to the theories and "facts" I propose and you will be tempted several times to dismiss them (and possibly the entire work with them). It is very simple to dismiss another's argument as contradictory, or absurd, if you use tools (words and logic) which contain inherent contradictions. A basic contention I have already made is that you cannot adequately or accurately define the thinking process. It follows from that that your tools are not as precise as they should and could be.
The ease with which a human being can incorporate contradictions into his reasoning, and reject other reasoning which may be valid and non-contradictory is remarkable. Such is the basis of man's ability to "rationalize". It is a basic psychological demand which either underlies, or is defined as, "defense mechanisms". The question is not whether these exist or not. They certainly do exist. The questions in any particular instance are:
What is it defending?
Is the defense adequate?
Is it justified by "ego", or a valid interpretation of reality?
Man is a rational creature. His ability to rationalize has taken on an added meaning of justifying actions or thinking which are not really justifiable. Man must rationalize. He must remove contradictions to progress. After all, contradictions are man made. Certainly no contradictions exist in nature as such, but rather, as contradictory interpretations of partial evidence derived from nature. If man creates contradictions, he should be able to remove them as well. The incorporation of apparent contradictions into reasoning to justify thoughts and actions which are not what they should be, is simply a carry over from a normal and necessary process (usually to satisfy the ego). It is this distortion which has given the idea of "rationalization" its bad name.
Orwell utilized this ability very well in his novel 1984. He characterized it as "double-thinking". All of us "double think". Indeed, it appears to be part of our nature. A question which should be raised is whether "single-thinking" is possible. If so, it could be considered "true, valid thinking". Then would there be any need for "double-thinking". And, if so, what?
The basic theory which is to be presented certainly appears to be vague at times. Yet, it must be to avoid forcing you to "double-think" along any particular lines without preventing you from doing so. If it is too general and too vague for you, you can tentatively attach whatever interpretations seem to be non-contradictory to you. Then as we progress you should be able to remove the contradictions you may have incorporated.
This arrangement has an advantage. It allows me to separate the learners from the non-learners -- those who would lead a full life from those who are satisfied with their present existence. The advantage is simply one of selection. Those not capable of understanding the true nature of thinking should not be able to get far enough to even consider it: for, the ability to understand is related to the desire to understand. The true nature of thinking is related to the true nature of man. The true nature of man is related to the Nature of God.
The nature of the thinking process -- the establishment or formation of thoughts as well as their subsequent development, associations, etc. -- is considered in the third chapter. It is there that most of the loose ends deliberately left in the preceding work will be drawn together. I refrained from considering the nature of the thinking processes earlier in order to present what I consider to be the necessary background. As such, the first portion of the work will be something of the nature of a general review although some difficulties may be encountered which can only be resolved after obtaining a better notion of the nature of thinking.
I leave a lot of work to you. I must because thinking has distinctive, individualistic characteristics. I want you to follow my thinking, but I want you to do some on your own as well. I present a number of associated ideas without offering what you would consider adequate evidence to support their association. I go off on a few tangents to help stimulate imagination, and I sometimes utilize such ideas without sufficient justification to you at the time. Yet sometimes I find it necessary to "split hairs" on similar points.
The elaboration of detailed and specific references, observations or applications, unless absolutely necessary, would tend to defeat my purposes by expanding the size of the book to ridiculous proportions. More important than that, it would tend to eliminate emotional involvement which is so important in deriving basic understanding -- particularly since emotional phenomena are of special interest in psychology.
It may be apparent that I not only utilize an "existential" approach, but also try to capitalize on it. This seems to be in keeping with the present trend toward existential philosophy, a survey of which is a tremendous study in abnormal psychology. Mind you, I'm not knocking it. Abnormality is not necessarily bad. On this note I shall begin to introduce myself, a human being, and as such, a suitable subject in a psychological work.
Through all of my life, starting from my early childhood, most attempts at manifesting or asserting myself as a person or an individual were met with opposition:
"You're nuts."
"You're crazy."
"You're different."
"Be realistic."
As I grew older, the opposition did not change very much. The tone of the statements or exclamations changed, and were accompanied with the more subtle suggestion that I seek psycho-analysis and therapy.
This does not sound like a particularly unusual story, not today, in this day and age.
Within the past year, (just preceding the beginning of this work), the frequency with which I was baraged with such "helpful" suggestions from my friends and associates, (And even my family on occasions), increased. In addition, the same suggestion was offered to me on a professional level, directly, by members of the medical profession. The same advice was offered many times , indirectly, by a number of physicians with whom I had the pleasure of working.
I insist that I need no psychiatric assistance. In fact, I maintain that it is the psychologists, analysts, psychiatrists, and, actually. the whole "cock-eyed" world that could use some adjustments. I have crystallized my views in an attempt to decide whose idea of sanity is correct. I am now thouroughly convinced that it is mine.
Then one of the purposes of this book is to present my case and let you decide for yourself whether it is I who have detached myself from reality or whether society is the guilty party. If the decision is made now that I must be the one guilty of error, then what follows should certainly place me as a psychotic, or close enough to one, to make me a good candidate for a mental institution.
I have no particularly wild objections to accepting free room and board from the state.
My approach is quite different from any presentation of basic psychology that I, and probably different fom those that you, may have had the pleasure to peruse. To begin with, I wrote a few essays which are included as part of the introduction since they demonstrate the germ, the evolution and the final climactic decision to undertake the more basic, objective work of the psychology itself.
One other essay is included, the first one, which was my first attempt at writing anything for purposes other than just fulfilling a required assignment. This did not precede the others by any great length of time and is included because the context of thought is relevant.
I offer the following outline to help demonstrate this development:
1. Letter to the Editor - The "germ", an idealistic, rebellious nature.
2. The Outnumbered Male - "Toying" with thoughts.
3. On Education - A more general rebellion leading to:
4. I Am Great - Establishment of the value of the individual.
5. Rationale - Climactic decision and assertion of individuality.
6.Acknowledgements - An autobiographical sketch of motivating forces.
I offer these as an index to an evaluation of my personality and/or character; which might prove interesting of itself, but also necessary to an objective evaluation of the work I propose as objective. They are the matrix, - the substance of thought from which the thesis developed. All of these essays have one thing in common which should give them added psychological meaning. They were all written in the "wee" hours of the morning, their thought content being sufficiently disturbing to prevent me from sleeping.
Another lesser reason for their inclusion is [was] the hope that you can obtain a feeling for my style - as well as a feeling for some ideas - and thereby have less difficulty in understanding the more objective ideas in the main work. However, as much as I like this section of the book, I must admit that it can be skipped. Each section, each essay, each chapter is written to be somewhat complete by itself - i.e., complete parts. The advantages of the added work far exceeds the one disadvantage of added repititions.
The first step can be taken now by considering the following statement taken from a text (A Textbook of Histology - by Maximow & Bloom - 7th ed. - W.B. Saunders Co.) and modified from its specific reference to its general meaning. The modified statement represents the essential aspects of scientific method, the portion in parenthesis extends it to scientific thinking. The modifications are underlined.
"Experiments, observations, procedures, (and interpretations) are useful if they provide reasonably faithful representations of the major features of the thing being studied and if these are sufficiently reproducible in all laboratories (or minds) so that description based on standardized procedures may be re-interpreted in some common language. Special procedures attain value as they represent more faithfully the true nature of the entity being studied or as they demonstrate some special attribute."
It is important to realize that science or scientific method places no restriction on the hypothesis, except that it be useful in tying the observations of phenomenon into a logically consistent system. It is not reasonable to reject an argument, or theory, merely because the hypothesis is drawn from an area (such as theology) for which you may have some antogonistic views. The hypothesis cannot be attacked except by finding some contradictory evidence which the theory does not, and can not, account for. That is to say: It is not sound procedure to attack an hypothesis or premise unless you make an observation that was not included and cannot be included in the interpretation offered by the hypothesis being tested.
It should be recognized from the preceding remarks that a 'new' theory must contain evidence which was unknown formerly or considered to be contradictory, if it is to be of much use. When a "contradiction" appears, or seems to, it is necessary to interpret the evidence in terms of the proposed hypothesis. A real contradiction, or better, a limitation, is then indicated only if the evidence cannot be interpreted in this manner.
You can discard any hypothesis or theory as being useless for any reason whatever. Indeed, your lack of desire to use it makes it useless even though it may be true. But to maintain intellectual honesty it should be clear that discarding an hypothesis, whatever the reason, requires the substitution of a better one in its place.
.
.