I know exactly what we are. We are all pieces of a puzzle of which the picture is yet to be revealed. As soon as this picture is revealed, mankind will end. I guess the end is death after all.

Plato, Emerson, Jesus, Buddha, Einestein, Newton and those others who sought to find the truth are among the many who responded to the universe’s call to seek what is there to seek. I guess there is in fact a purpose why we all exist. We are a realization of a conceptualization of whoever is this creator for a mere essence–to find the truth. Finding the truth is a never ending search, or perhaps has an ending as everything including matter and organic, composite things have an ending.

Centuries and decades, ages–TIME is the withness to it all. Time has always been the witness to all phenonenon–natural and manmade alike. And when everything ends, space and time will remain.

As soon as this picture is revealed, we all end. But this is not something to be worried about for it is the fulfillment of man’s mission, as he has been conceptualized before his creation.

The sun is at the center of the Solar System as we all know it. Thought there has been no facts that will prove the proposition that another solar system might exist in many lightyears away from our solar system, it is possible that even another universe existed, and thus also exist other beings like us who also have the same mission in life–to solve the puzzle–other beings that looks up to the same idea of a supernatural being greater than us, beings who fear the unknown, and beings who make mistakes and learn from them.

Perhaps, there are so many things we do not know, things yet to be discovered; to be able to fit a piece of a puzzle so great that it would take decades and centuries before all pieces finally united and interconnected to uncover the picture of which mankind is destined to expose.

At this course of global warming, nature has taken its toll on us. Human beings have crossed the barrier between life and its mysteries. Mysteries in the universe, man has explained, and understood, even God who is a mystery will soon be uncovered. Man, the creator, also the destroyer. Man, conceptualized, and destined to an eternal mission.

It is likely perhaps that the end begins then, and then a new beginning–the new heaven and earth–the future of mankind–and another puzzle problem to solve. Life’s a cycle they say. History tends to repeat it self in ways we could have never imagined.

Wihout a picture, man wouldn’t have reason to live. Man, and woman alike wouldn’t be in this world without this picture for there can never be pieces of the puzzle (mankind) without a puzzle problem to solve (Truth).

Ph.D. in Psychology

According to Thomas H. Leahey, the traditional history of science was written by scientist themselves that resulted in smug and self-satisfied works, which made them biased in a certain extent that they only considered accounts in the development of science that they want to reckon. However, historians have written history on a different framework, seeing history of science as a weak human enterprise unresolvable from the rest of human history, imposing fear among scientist that this nontraditional perception on the history of science may influence their students to undermine their faith in science.

Despite the development of the History of Psychology, it is evident that much of psychology’s past have been ignore such that chapters on the books on History of Psychology provide no sense of the past and of what is like to be a psychologist, a physiologist or a philosopher before. Thus rationalizes Topics in History of Psychology is history without the past; also justifying Ebbinghaus’ famous line that “Psychology has a very short history, but with a long past.”

Even scholars or psychologist are historically ignorant about studying the field without even considering events happening outside the field that could have been significant in the study of psychology. In addition, they are shallow in a sense that even they who write about the History of Psychology commit mistakes, lacking depth of intellect or knowledge and concerned only with what is obvious resulting in many errors that new psychology historians have corrected and repeatedly written. Therefore justifying why we only have few references, whereas other books have become obsolete and others were never used.

In Leahey’s article, mistakes on the study Psychology were emphasized, including how psychology historians or scholars place value judgments to the extent of writing one’s own perspective rather than putting focus on different perspective. For instance, Edwin G. Boring’s first textbook was not only published as reference book but also has a deeper motive, which is to be used as a defense weapon against John B. Watson’s growing Behaviorism.

Psychology historians have no respect for the value of the past not realizing that everything in the past influences the present; that the past plays an important role in the development of the theories in psychology that we have right now. This is what they consider as Whig and can be linked with the presentist point of view—looking at history from the present perspectives and ideas as a product of the present. There is also an issue on internalism, whereby historians tend to have studied what was happening within the field without regards to what developments other fields have that could contribute to the development in the theories of psychology. In addition, psychology historians associate history with great men and undermining women, because women before have no stand or place in society, which is really discriminating. Furthermore, History of Psychology was represented by only few personalities whereas other great minds were ignored; thus, psychology historians focus on individuals rather than works. Lastly, they are ignorant and shallow that they only have limited view on the study as a result on the mistakes presented above.

As a psychology student, I would have to say that its disappointing that even scholars of the very own field that I am studying now are ignorant, that I also see myself like them. The fact that I have not known much and that I only remember few names and dates make me want to know more about psychology. And as mush as possible I would not want to commit same mistakes that those psychology scholars have committed in the study of the History of Psychology.

Filed under: Books, History, Psychology, Science Tagged: History ]]> http://theaspirantonline.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/on-leaheys/feed/ 1 jeelchristine Ph.D. in Psychology http://theaspirantonline.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/on-scientific-paradigm/ http://theaspirantonline.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/on-scientific-paradigm/#comments Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:37:02 +0000 jeelchristine http://theaspirantonline.wordpress.com/?p=43 ]]>

Thomas S. Khun emphasized in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” that a scientific community practices in reference to a set or rather sets of learned beliefs from accepted achievements or assumptions. And these beliefs become the foundation for learning and application. Paradigms are assumptions that contribute to the development of Normal Science, a research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community recognizes for the further research and practice, before a change or shift in paradigm occurs. These paradigms are being studied by students in order to gain membership to a certain scientific community. Basically the knowledge is being passed on to the students from their mentors, which may oftentimes lead to disagreement to basic principles due to student’s critical mindset or rather due to questions and inquiries formulated by them. However, researchers of the paradigm most often than not based their inquiries from the shared paradigm, and are committed to the rules and standards for the application of the certain paradigmic principles.

A paradigm is said to be of success and of having full potential to be of interest to scientists and scholars when it is a novelty rather a succeedent set of fundamentals based on another paradigm as a result of anomaly. From competition with a pre-paradigmic school, a paradigm emerges, especially when it seems to explain all facts which it was confronted with. Consequently pre-paradigms whose proponents never found their way out of the dilemma that they have been faced with, certainly entirely fades. This growing paradigm like an infant undergoes a process of development and within its development the more advocates it possesses, the greater is the probability for its strength to generate.

At its beginning a paradigm is limited in its scope and in precision, that is why mop-operations are relevant; and by which most researchers spend much of their time doing mopping. Thus, proceeding to more inquiries, and paradigm-based researching that “attempts to force nature into a pre-formed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies.” Anomalies usually happen but nobody seemed to have made effort to look for  anomalies since they are resticted and for those who tried to mostly were not tolerated. Sometimes the disadvantage of forcing nature to a box leads the paradigm to not function well that caused it to cease.

Researching, hence, is like solving puzzle that already has a fixed solution, thus discovering what was already known in advance. And when the result of what has already been anticipated (hypothesis) becomes null, and thereby, considered a failure. Because of the novel studies weren’t tolerated to compete with present beliefs, unexpected result in science happened.

A change in paradigm takes place as a result from discovery brought about by encounters with anomaly. And although Normal Science does not tolerate novelties, they are nonetheless challenged to pursue the belief, which would later on cause them to arise. Anomaly also excites the emergence of a change in an existing paradigm. This emergence occurs when a puzzle is being figured out. These failures are said to have been brought about by disparity and error between the new theory and the present fact.

The scientific revolution can be possible only if a novel theory is substituted to a present paradigm which occurring discrepancies doesn’t have a solution, thereby a failure, resulting in the denunciation of  the proponent for his disability to put the pieces of the puzzle back. And a paradigm shift, on the other hand is not considered a scientific revolution since it only based its inquiries on a particular paradigm. The assimilation of the new paradigm must be demanded them and the old paradigm be rejected. This is what scientific revolution means.

Indeed, progress in the fields of research and science became possible because of the structure of the past scientific methods and of course because of scientific revolution. Although there were lots of biases in the past, they became the tools for the development of science.

These people are the self-proclaimed righteous or the self-righteous, cuddled by the pillows of their own vanity, good spiritual upbringing, and great moral bearing. Consider a woman on her middle ages who is seen as a church goer and active in the affairs of her church. She is a preacher in her own right as a member of the church. She prays to God six times a day or more, and who is strictly following church dictum but rigidly punishes her children when she comes home, nags at her helpers when chores are not done properly, judges and discriminates the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual, transsexuals) movement for their immorality, and so on and so forth.

Lying in itself is a defense mechanism or maybe used as an ego defense depending on circumstances. M. Scott Peck devoted his career on psychiatry, and psychotherapy in prison cells, and throughout his career, he made conclusions on lies and about truth and wrote books People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled. He divided lies into two types; the black ones of which we know is not true and the white ones which in itself is also false but still leaves a significant part of the truth. In layman’s notion, a white lie is acceptable because it does not destroy someone else’s dignity or hurt somebody’s feelings. However,  he concluded that as much as white lies on the surface are no less than a lie, or are excusable, they are but as deadly and destructive as black lies. While lies further create superficial interactions, because they are bounded by the opposite of what is truth–a lie.

Perhaps, lying in itself is the bases of all types of ego defenses. Denying to one’s self what is truth in essence is lying as well as repressing  unconscious thoughts and feelings is a form of lying not only to one’s self but also to the outside world.

Withholding of Truth

Denial, repression, suppression, regression, sublimation, and other defenses are on recondite manner associated with withholding of truth. To withhold truth is to suppress information, which is common to all types of lies according to Peck. Withholding of truth may be a white lie because on the surface it is difficult to detect and confront oftentimes by others and rarely by self on pre-contemplative level. Withholding of truth as a white lie is more destructive than black ones, the fact the black ones are most often than not abovious in nature than while lies.

Withholding of Truth in the Family

An example of withholding truth is commonly manifested on parents as authority figures to their children. Any type of white lie parents tell their children are ravaging because the lie ruin’s a child’s perception of the world around him, and may also deprive the child to knowing truth and possessing values such as honesty, open mindedness, openness, trust, and courage.

Childhood years, as we all know, are the critical years of a child’s growth and development may it be physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual aspects that will make him/her an individuated person. It is during the childhood years that an individual starts creating within himself schemas or mental maps, mental representation of the world around, and the world within. When a parent lies to a child by withholding what is truth at a very young age triggers a rebellious behavior once the truth had been disclosed during adolescence. Consequently resulting in trust issues on the adolescent. A very good example is on adoption. When the truth behind a child’s adoption is kept locked in a box by his/her foster parents and as that box is to be opened again, it is most likely that the individual will be looking for his/her biological parents and may feel anger towards the foster parents for hiding the truth. The child was deprived of the knowledge on what seems to be beyond the young mind’s comprehension. It is no doubt why rebellious adolescence cling to the statements “My life is a lie,” “My life has always been a lie.”

Another example of withholding truth is when a parent threatens a child not to engage in vices but then on the contrary the parent engages himself to vices, the child at a very young age will not be able to distinguish between right or wrong or on the dangerous side, the child may in fact believe not on the existences of both opposite terms–right and wrong–moral or immoral. As a consequence, the child as he grows up develops psychological disorders as Anti-Social personality disorders (those having no emotion, doesn’t believe in right or wrong) and related types of dysfunctions that can be found on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Parent’s failure to let the developing child distinguish from right or wrong in a manner wherein the parent does not practice what he/she teaches, the child becomes a living deception of the original lie that was taught to the child.

Withholding of the truth is based primarily on the notion of “protection” against children or individuals having to worry than they already are. This protection is usually unsuccessful as Peck wrote. The result is not protection but deprivation of knowledge, values of honesty openness, trustworthiness, and courage for disclosure, and even the strength to face challenges in life. As soon as the child reaches adolescence and to a more mature developmental stage which is adulthood, all those lies can never be omitted from the memory of the individual. More likely will the grown-up becomes a mirror of his/her own parents as he/she has failed to search for his/her own identity. This person whether consciously or unconsciously living the dishonesty of their folks. A few may live up to his self-fulfilling prophesy, which limits his/her progress and opens himself/herself to a rather stagnant disposition, and may regress further. However, this is not true to all because there are some who are introspective and those others who care to go on psychotherapy for personal healing, to be able to fix whatever the problem there is, to let go and move forward and to learn personal power. They are the ones who did not acquire from their parents the cowardice, otherwise they wouldn’t be in psychotherapy at all. Disclosing one’s self to another person such as a psychotherapist requires first and foremost courage.

Withholding of Truth in Other Social Institutions

Withholding of truth, as much as it is dangerous, is also necessary in society, and especially in politics. Selective withholding of one’s opinion is a necessity, otherwise, society would be in total turmoil if everyone speaks up their anger, hostility, aggression and antagonism to anyone of authority. There is a saying that goes “There are words better left unsaid” and “things better left unknown.” Hence, even social institutions not only familial, but also political, and religious institutions lie. People lie and so does society. No one is an exemption.

Rumors are half-true and half-false (whatever that means). When messages are being relayed in communication, particularly passed on from one person to another, people cannot avoid committing what Sigmund Freud considers parapraxes (mishearing, misunderstanding, etc.) due to human subjectivity or the subjectivity and relativity of perception. Consequently, messages become distorted, incomplete, modified or totally changed from its original content before the message relay. We can further say that this message becomes a lie, or as it is rumor it could be half-true and half-false.

But then again, people perceive things differently. One person may believe in this rumor, while the other will not. The bottom line is that it is all in the mind. How we understand and comprehend things is the mind’s doing, not the body or the spirit–that is to say the spirit and the mind are equally different entity, contrary to M. Scott Peck‘s belief that there is no distinction between mind and spirit. However, the mind cannot fully execute its fantasies (phantasies in Adlerian terminology) without the body. It is the body that does the execution.

The mind has ways in tricking the ego. One technique used by the mind is what Sigmund Freud calls ego defense mechanisms; Eric Berne has another similar theory he calls games people play.

People are hedonistic by nature. They seek pleasure and avoid pain. But pain cannot be avoided, can they? Sometimes things become really  too painful, people resort to defending the ego against attacks from the world outside and sometimes even from the world within. The ego then uses defenses to protect the psyche from anxiety, and pain.

Anna Freud, daughter of the infamous Sigmund Freud who is considered one among the three greatest minds, continued his father’s works. She included types of ego defenses other than repression and fixation as what his father proposed.

Here are among these defenses:
Source: About.com >> Defense Mechanisms

Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe those who seem unable to face reality or admit and obvious truth (i.e. “He’s in denial.”). Denial is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred or is currently occurring. Drug addicts or alcoholics often deny that they have a problem, while victims of traumatic events may deny that the event ever occurred.

Denials functions to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with. While this may save us from anxiety or pain, denial also requires a substantial investment of energy. Because of this, other defenses are also used to keep these unacceptable feelings from consciousness. 

Repression is another well-known defense mechanism. Repression acts to keep information out of conscious awareness. However, these memories don’t just disappear; they continue to influence our behavior. For example, a person who has repressed memories of abuse suffered as a child may later have difficulty forming relationships.

Sometimes we do this consciously by forcing the unwanted information out of our awareness, which is known as suppression, but it is usually believed to occur unconsciously.

If you have ever had a bad day at work, then gone home and taken out your frustration on family and friends, you have experienced the ego defense mechanism of displacement. Displacement involves taking out our frustrations, feelings, and impulses on people or objects that are less threatening. Displaced aggression is a common example of this defense mechanism. Rather than express our anger in ways that could lead to negative consequences (like arguing with our boss), we instead express our anger towards a person or object that poses no threat (such as our spouses, children, or pets). 

Sublimation is a defense mechanism that allows us to act out unacceptable impulses by converting these behaviors into a more acceptable form. For example, a person experiencing extreme anger might take up kick boxing as a means of venting frustration. Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity that allows people to function normally in socially acceptable ways. 

Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection functions to allow the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety. 

Intellectualization works to reduce anxiety by thinking about events in a cold, clinical way. This defense mechanism allows us to avoid thinking about the stressful, emotional aspect of the situation and focus only on the intellectual component. For example, a person who has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness might focus on learning everything about the disease in order to avoid distress and remain distant from the reality of the situation. 

Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true explanation for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they weren’t attracted to the other person anyway, or a student who blames a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.

Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces.

When confronted by stressful events, people sometimes abandon coping strategies and revert to patterns of behavior used earlier in development. Anna Freud called this defense mechanism regression, suggesting that people act out behaviors from the stage of psychosexual development in which they are fixated. For example, an individual fixated at an earlier developmental stage might cry or sulk upon hearing unpleasant news.

Behaviors associated with regression can vary greatly depending upon which stage the person is fixated at:

• An individual fixated at the oral stage might begin eating or smoking excessively, or might become very verbally aggressive.
• A fixation at the anal stage might result in excessive tidiness or messiness. 

Reaction formation reduces anxiety by taking up the opposite feeling, impulse, or behavior. An example of reaction formation would be treating someone you strongly dislike in an excessively friendly manner in order to hide your true feelings. Why do people behave this way? According to Freud, they are using reaction formation as a defense mechanism to hide their true feelings by behaving in the exact opposite manner.

Conclusion

The mind is very powerful. It is the culprit behind why we act the way we do. The mind is the most powerful entity in the universe that it can move mountains, make the rain fall. It is so powerful that it is somehow connected with another entity greater than us, not necessarily a god but the universe it self. The mind, as a great entity, a king must protect his kingdom–the ego, hence, it uses defense mechanisms to avoid anxiety.  From my understanding, and based on my experience I have concluded the direct connection between the universe and the mind. Hence, the mind, at its might might is a tool for dominion, and control, and a culprit for all mental disoreders and dysfunctions.

Comments are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

The Mind Lies

Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. Worse, we do not know when we are deceived. We believe and continue believing a lie. As the cliche goes, “No one has the monopoly of truth,” logically telling as that no one exactly knows the truth, whether it ever existed or not. If we follow the phrase “minds play tricks” can we not say that truth does exist or otherwise? There is no such thing as truth, is there? But the fact that I am discussing about it, I guess it exists after all. But let us not forget to use Rene Descartes‘ method of doubt.

What we believe as truth is what our mind wants us to accept as truth when it is neither truth or lie. It could be a lie. Taking into consideration, this lie motivates an individual to a never ending search to finding whatever that may or may not universally exist. People are stupid for believing a lie. We believe what we want to believe because it is less burden for the psyche to bear.

As I introspect to this so called truth, I have personally recalled past experiences that drove me to conclusion of three types of truth than the usual Relative and Absolute truth. The first one can be distinguished from that of a lie, though I do not have a name for it. The second is Universal or Absolute truth, and lastly the False-Truth.

Truth as Distinguished from that of a Lie

Let me quote from Jean Paul-Sartre on his explanation of a lie and bad faith. “The essence of a lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of.” The ideal definition of a lie according to Sartre is a cynical consciousness that affirms truth within the liar himself. Clearly, this first type of truth is what opposes the lie. Let us take for example a man who stole a bread was caught and is continuously telling those who arrested him that he has not stolen anything. Of course on my point of view, the man is lying, and what he hides to himself is the opposition to what he is reporting. This opposition is called Truth.

Absolute Truth

In scientific terms, anything can be considered absolute truth if it is applicable and accepted universally in all types of circumstances regardless of culture, environmental differences, race, sex and etc. Sometimes it is called principle or law. An example of absolute truth is gravity. We know that there is a force of attraction between all masses in Earth and in the universe. The reason why an apple falls directly to the surface of the Earth than float on air is gravity. Although we do not see this gravity, it has been proven as existent by science through experimentation, empirical method, research, and application. The theory of relativity by Einstein, the laws of motion by Newton and the like are absolute truths due to the fact that they were proven true via experimentation–objectively, systematically, and scientifically.  

False-Truth

What about God? Can we consider God as universal?  Has the presence of God, an entirely different and unseen entity but has been reported felt by few of the believers, been explained objectively, scientifically? Perhaps no. Since the rise of science  until the present time, God is still a mystery. Though different cultures have their own descriptions and illustrations of God while there are some others who do not believe, we are still uncertain as to whether or not this god-entity ever exist. Rationally, God or the presence/existence of a supreme being is not a universal truth. It is but a relative truth I’d like to call as False-Truth.

The word, obviously is an oxymoron. A false is the negation of what is considered as true, or a contradictory to what is considered correct. We could say it is an incorrect proposition that is when I say “I am a donkey,” can you regard it as correct or not? Obviously that is incorrect, otherwise I am not here writing this blog because we know that donkeys do not write or perhaps they do but only fairytale land.

What I want to explain here is the possibility that God doesn’t exist and that it is a false-truth in sense that no one has ever seen a god before (except in human flesh, e.g. Jesus, Allah, Buddha etc.) and no one has ever proven its existence. Hence, a god is false. It is still a truth–relative truth because, somehow, there are those in planet who believe. It is truth in the mind of the believers. Therefore, it is but a trick the mind does to the psyche. As Karl Marx wrote, “God is an opium of the people,” humanity is so obsessed with this god. But its not really a God which I can say is necessary, but a belief in something greater than us, may it be a supreme being (God) or an ideal. We all know that atheists, though are not believers of the existence of god but still believe in something greater. Its called an ideal or philosophy. 

Spirituality as the Gist 

Furthermore, considering all the functions of a God in every lives of the people–a savior, redeemer, forgiver, provider and so on and so forth–a belief in a God is necessary in the full functioning of the psyche. When we refer to believing in any thing that is greater than us, may it be a god or an ideal (higher knowledge) we mean spirituality as the substance. 

The spiritual functions or aspect of the person must be present, in endless balance with his/her physical, mental, emotional, social aspects of his/her self for a human person to reach what Abraham Maslow calls transcendence, a peck of the self actualization (self-realization in Rogerian term, and Individuation in Jungian terminology) level in his Pyramid of Needs. Thus, God as a false-truth, it is both a necessary good (because it helps an individual in his functioning as an organism) and a necessary evil (because it is an opium to the mind of the believer, or rather a trick of the mind). 

Conclusion

Clearly, there is such thing as absolute and relative truth as I have discussed. What is absolute is anything that is universally accepted, such as the forces in the universe like gravity, motion, inertia; and also the different phenomenon like the trees, animals, and humans. What we may consider truth may not be truth for others. A God for instance, because not everyone believes in a God. Hence, it is a false-truth. Man and woman ought to believe in something so as to fill his/her spiritual needs.

Watch Video Here.