The Problems of Psychology
Jan. 8th, 2010 06:15 amWe have in the midst of psychology . . . indeed, at the very center of its revolutions . . . an observation of disorder in the human mind. In contrast, we can only presume that there is some form of understanding, be it fallacious or not, of what constitutes order in a thing's being in the first place. Failing that, there could not be observation of disorder. It is not merely that I presuppose psychology has failed to fully and completely address the very issues that would allow for its own existence . . . it is that I can not admit with any degree of honesty that I see any kind of objective significance to its existence . . . that I perceive in it glaring assumptions with regards to the very nature of humanity . . . and that I fail, on every conceivable level to comprehend the meaningfulness of it beyond providing yet another way of attempting to define aspects of our being exceeding any sort of empirical tangibility whatsoever.
It is, therefore, my duty to provide a discourse of conflicting nature; because we persist in a world of opposites, and as long as one paradigm continues unabated, there must necessarily be an antithesis to such a perspective that must attempt to prove itself. While psychology has in recent centuries become such a standard that it encompasses the entire globe and all living languages with its vile, twisted, and presumptuous perceptions of reality, it does not need to continue without a meaningful attempt at disassembling.
The best method by which we can proceed, I gather, is by first attempting to understand by any means the meaning of Order and the meaning of Disorder within the constraints of being, or with regards to ontology. Because I believe it can be wholly agreed upon as mere axiom, we would have no mind if we were not being, and have no being if we had no mind. It follows that Order and Disorder in the psychological sense owe themselves entirely to ontology, or more specifically, to an underlying assumption that there is a standard, scalar, or average mode or form of being that allows for any kind of definitive attribution of the degree of Order or Disorder to occur. This, of course, is ludicrous by its very nature – I must as a human being operate under a great deal of assumptions with regards to the rest of my experiential world, up to and including the assumption that I am not the only thing being – and because of this, I have no choice but to accept that even though there appears to be observable phenomena produced by what appears to be other things being, I certainly have no way of knowing what constitutes the very being, or mental state, of those other things being. The architect knows how he must operate in a world of physical laws and physical phenomena to produce any kind of lasting structure – the psychologist can only observe phenomena that are the result of things being, the result of the beings of things being, but can never perceive the being of a thing's being itself. It is not unlike shadows on the wall, and any individual dipping into the realms of philosophy will immediately comprehend reference.
Thus it would appear that psychology, by its very nature, can not treat the condition – it appears that, instead, it can only treat the symptoms of the condition (of a thing's being) if it can treat at all.
It is, therefore, my duty to provide a discourse of conflicting nature; because we persist in a world of opposites, and as long as one paradigm continues unabated, there must necessarily be an antithesis to such a perspective that must attempt to prove itself. While psychology has in recent centuries become such a standard that it encompasses the entire globe and all living languages with its vile, twisted, and presumptuous perceptions of reality, it does not need to continue without a meaningful attempt at disassembling.
The best method by which we can proceed, I gather, is by first attempting to understand by any means the meaning of Order and the meaning of Disorder within the constraints of being, or with regards to ontology. Because I believe it can be wholly agreed upon as mere axiom, we would have no mind if we were not being, and have no being if we had no mind. It follows that Order and Disorder in the psychological sense owe themselves entirely to ontology, or more specifically, to an underlying assumption that there is a standard, scalar, or average mode or form of being that allows for any kind of definitive attribution of the degree of Order or Disorder to occur. This, of course, is ludicrous by its very nature – I must as a human being operate under a great deal of assumptions with regards to the rest of my experiential world, up to and including the assumption that I am not the only thing being – and because of this, I have no choice but to accept that even though there appears to be observable phenomena produced by what appears to be other things being, I certainly have no way of knowing what constitutes the very being, or mental state, of those other things being. The architect knows how he must operate in a world of physical laws and physical phenomena to produce any kind of lasting structure – the psychologist can only observe phenomena that are the result of things being, the result of the beings of things being, but can never perceive the being of a thing's being itself. It is not unlike shadows on the wall, and any individual dipping into the realms of philosophy will immediately comprehend reference.
Thus it would appear that psychology, by its very nature, can not treat the condition – it appears that, instead, it can only treat the symptoms of the condition (of a thing's being) if it can treat at all.