The feelings and thoughts of people can be explained in reference to
something else (a code; an ideology; a belief; a method); or they can
be explained inherently, by looking at essences, by feeling the
feelings themselves. The first results in assaying of one logic from
perspective of another logic; the second results in understanding that
is intrinsic. Combining mind and heart is a way to fathom things at a
far more complete level.
The error that keeps creeping into psychology, despite the actions of
Rogers's and May's and Fromm's of the world, is that of projecting the
method used to understand the mind, onto the mind, and then judging the
mind for its difference from that method rather than understanding it
according to its own methods. Allow me to explain what I'm talking
about. The scientific method is a path toward understanding things; a
path that requires a particular kind of logic. In studying things other
than mind, it is fine; but when one approaches the mind FROM THE
POSITION OF the scientific method, he is easily subject to this error:
Comparing the mind's processes to the process (scientific method) he
uses in studying the mind; and judging them when they are inevitably
found to be run by a different logic, the way one would judge
other-than-scientific approach within the laboratory.
Which leads of course not to exploration but to judgment. Anything that
is run by a logic that either is not of the scientific method or that
the scientific method cannot be found to understand, becomes an
"issue." The logic of science gets interjected into the mind, squa****ng
its own processes in the process. Instead of explaining, the
rationalist explains away, claiming anything wrong that does not run by
scientific method, whatever its own inherent methods may be. False
judgments take place of explanations, and belief - whether or not
true - of phenomena supposedly being caused at one or another level
of development or occurring according to its own form of logic is
replaced by judgments of their value and virtue and validity.
Compassion goes; so does imagination. And the result is projection of
human perfection as someone with the mentality unsuited to human
existence (and the physical and emotional qualities that are
commensurate with that mentality), and vicious attack on anything that
is more full of life - or rarefied, or inspired, or passionate, or
indeed attuned to another logic which precedes and surpasses that of
the rationalist.
What logic, for example, motivates a flower? Is a flower linear? How
could it be? A flower is the following things: Individual (with none
like the other); intricate; multifaceted; dedicated both to being her
best - and perpetuation of species. What logic? The logic of
consummation - of being her best, as fruition, fulfillment and
justification of the species; which being her best is necessary both to
consummate and to lead to the future - which motivates the
self-demanding and delicate nature. The logic also of continuity: Of
attunement to what will make possible the ongoing good of the line -
which motivates the proactive mentality and desire to nurture the
coming and inspire the yet-to-come. The logic? A multiple-level logic,
combining the CONSUMMATION with CONTINUITY. The attainment of the
species, and a link to the times to come. That's no "issue." That's how
the thing is made - rightly so - and instead of dissecting it becomes
requisite to look at what's in front of one's eyes and see the actual
logic by which it runs.
Which is quite different from assaying things from the position of (and
in reference to) the mindset running the discipline. Understanding
human feelings in their essence is quite different from assaying them
in reference to a code or a norm. I've made it my job to experience all
kinds of feelings and mindsets and religions in order that I understand
them from within, while also assaying them from without in order that I
can see their external effects. I call this the integrative
perspective: Combining mind and heart; observation and experience;
feeling how something is experienced and knowing how it is seen from
without.
It is only through integrative process that anything close to
understanding of human experience (indeed ANY human's experience) can
possibly be achieved. The merely subjective perspective lacks an
overarching viewpoint or an understanding of external effects and is
always accused of not considering the full range of consequences. The
merely objective perspective is lacking in internal awareness and
therefore results in dryness and cruelty - the state of affairs
arrived at by mere rationalism, against which the people reared in
rationalist mindsets through history have revolted consistently and
always will. For reason that its basic coldness and lack of compassion
denies people the right to experience and emotion and all that makes
living worthwhile as a human being. But more im****tantly in reference
to the logical mind, for reason likewise that I have previously stated:
That it admits and perpetuates, in name of logic, a grave logical
error.
The error, as I have said, of assaying one set of processes in
reference to a method involving another set of processes. The error of
vivisection that kills rather than studies and of judgment that
explains away rather than explains. And the more people involve
themselves in the error of rationalism, the more they will see people
in their societies turn against them, because what is accomplished in
name of logic is a grave logical error: An error of presenting mental
processes in reference to a logic that is used to study them, and
explaining them away and indeed prosecuting them in case they do - as
they always will - run by a different logic.
This is not an aberration. This has been a consistent condition through
history of the Western civilization. The European "Enlightenment"
was followed by Romanticism; the American Unitarianism was followed by
Transcendentalism; "Victorianism" was followed by Edwardian era,
Surrealism and 1920s; behaviorism was followed by humanism; and 1950s
were followed by 1960s. There is an inevitable and causal link. To
present what runs by one logic in reference to another, and then to
judge rather than study and explain away rather than explain, is to
commit a grave logical error. The arrogance of attempting to impose one
set of logic (materialistic, psychoanalytic or theological) on what is
run by another set of logic, as a result of processes far more informed
and long-lasting than ones that the rational comprehension fathoms, is
matched by the arrogance of those who rightly do (and always will, for
as long as this error is perpetrated) revolt against such a thing.
Furthermore, the idea behind rationalism - that through logical
progress what is served is benefit of humanity - is undermined by the
fundamental coldness of rationalistic approach, and people start
wondering if humanity is actually served by such methods and such
beliefs; if people involved in it are actually seeking to serve; or if
this is just another racket that feeds in order to choke. And what we
get is a multigenerational death spiral, in which each consequent set
embraces the error of rationalism and breeds rebels.
This will go on, for as long as this error is made, by anyone,
anywhere. Fortunately there is a solution, and I call it integrative
cognition that combines mind and heart.
Combine mind and heart - and you have the complete picture, created
through combination of the forms of cognition known to the human being
and thus having complete perspective that allows understanding both
internal and external. And through this synthesis is achieved a
perspective that is complete.
For the latter, it becomes necessary at many times to step out of
logical framework created by canon or by education or by theology -
to free one's mind, so to speak - in order that processes of
one's mind not be function of orthodoxy but rather of clarity and
observation. It becomes necessary to become brilliant axiomatically, as
function of the mind's own processes; the process that Eric Berne
described as "what one needs to do before he can say hello." It
becomes necessary to put aside what entraps the mind, in order to see
things in a truly objective manner. With mind free, and with heart
open, is achieved a synthesis of the two forms of cognition that are
requisite for understanding.
There was a woman on the Net who said that she lusted after the
criminal element. One person - operating from the standpoint of one or
another supposed norm (one of course out of millions developed through
history) - said that the fact she lusted after scum meant that she was
scum. He defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: One that
claims that criminals are scum (while heartless, malicious, abusive
bullies like him are not). Someone else - operating from a
psychological self-esteem paradigm, in which all bad things are
supposedly a result of people thinking poorly of themselves and if they
feel better about themselves they will magically become the citizens
they want them to be - said that her problem was low self-esteem. He,
once again, defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: That
of self-esteem psychology, in which all is about self-esteem and
feelings are functional to it. But none bothered to look at how her
feelings actually were experienced. What made the criminal element
attractive to her? Was it some *****c fascination, with people who have
discarded all bonds and are indulging in the forbidden? Was it some
kind of freedom from things she either could not identify or ones she
could? Did she herself feel like a criminal? To claim it her being
scum, or to claim it low self-esteem, did not explain how it felt
inside. And to see psychologists, who are supposed to understand such
things, time and again rejecting compassion and falling into the trap
of projecting one or another form of mechanistic thinking or fallacious
judgment, is to see a problem endemic to the normative or
mindset-projecting approach, and that can only be overcome, not by only
externally observing feelings, but by internally feeling them.
To reiterate: A feeling is not known unless it is felt. It does not
exist by reference to a norm or an ideology; but in its own right and
according to its own logic. And projecting one or another form of logic
on mind, and judging it when it is seen to be run by a different logic,
is not science but bigotry. Indeed it is a betrayal of scientific
spirit; whether it comes under name of rationality or self-esteem or
anything else. Examining the mind and being the mind are two different
things; and the logic of the second need not legitimately accord with
the first. Indeed it may have a logic whose intricacy blows your mind;
and attacking that is a hideous error.
A corollary persistent error in assaying people is that of continually
doing so in reference to a norm. A cat is seen to be perfect not by
being of a norm, but by being the best she can be as a fruition of her
own potential. But a human being is seen to be perfect when he or she
fulfills one or another normative function. Which means that people's
minds are expropriated and put in service of one or another construct.
But what it means most of all is that any true perfection - perfection
as attainment of one's possibility - is destroyed, while a cask is
imposed at the top to shove people under a crux and a hex.
An error that is just another manifestation of a still bigger error, to
which humanity has been prone for centuries: Of assuming all people to
be the same and treating them likewise. That is a projection, once
again, of one or another mindset upon something that runs by its own.
Not only does that result in destruction of liberty, but it results
furthermore in degradation of the world and all people in it. The
categorical imperative involved is that of creating gray and lifeless
society. And the solution to that is this:
I DO THE NEXT PERSON NO FAVORS BY TREATING THEM THE WAY I WANT TO BE
TREATED.
I DO THE NEXT PERSON FAVOR BY TREATING THEM THE WAY THEY WANT TO BE
TREATED.
And in this I honor the next person's individuality and preserve it,
rather than squa****ng them to make room for projection upon them of my
own needs and preferences. And that is the categorical imperative I
seek to serve: A world where each is a self-determining individual and
relates to others on that basis; who in turn relate to him in the same
way.
A world where individuality is a reality for all, as is freedom of mind
and spirit. Which in turn produces ideas, work and creations that
benefit the next person and ultimately benefit everyone.
Where reality consists of the genuine experience and understanding of
all aspects of human experience. Not from perspective of a norm or from
perspective of a method or from perspective of a model, but from
perspective of themselves.
Where self-interest and other-interest are arranged correctly, with
self-interest being free to shape the person's mind and heart and
personality - and other-interest being used to accomplish tasks such
as philanthropy and education that truly benefit other people (rather
than other-interest being used to bludgeon people into similitude, as
it is now, and self-interest being used, as it is now, to prevent
action addressing common good).
Where all things that are supposed to be impractical, from beauty to
excellence to fairness to meaningful freedom, are made part of the
practical reality of the world through the mechanism of human mind and
will, as they value such things rightly, directing the action of people
to make these things a reality.
Where pursuit of excellence is rightly regarded a virtue, as is the
interest in the good of the next person. Both of which qualities -
the first through the fact of one's having standards being open to
all kinds of criticism and self-doubt; the second of which through the
basic compassion ladening one with all kinds of garbage - have been
ridiculously defined as low self-esteem (hence illness) when these are
some of the best qualities that a person can have.
Self-esteem, in itself, is a quality that does not correlate with good
but with bad in people. A person whose standards are high, being
vulnerable to criticism and demanding a lot of herself, will find
self-esteem harder to come by than someone whose standards are low. A
person who experiences many different paths and whose mind is open will
find it harder to fit under one or another conception of what is
appropriate human existence. A person who seeks the good of one's
fellow man, or who's open to many forms of thought and emotion, will
find self-esteem likewise harder to come by than someone who is not
worried by such things. Which means that self-esteem correlates with
qualities that are not virtues but flaws, and that to take that as
measure of human mind is as inadequate as it is to take scientific
rationality, or social norm, or ideology, as measure of it.
Which means the following: That it is only intrinsically that things
can be known in the way they are experienced.
That the perspective of the mind and the perspective of the heart must
both be utilized.
That it is through this integrative synthesis that is arrived a
complete understanding.
And that any perspective that lacks such an approach is doomed to
failure and massive wrong.
Ilya Shambat.
|
