Significant Concepts for the Synthesis of Theory include continua and thresholds, generalization-discrimination, flipover (from the large to small and vice-versa...incl. flake-off stuff...ie fly wipe away; fly-swim-walk mediums-space is not a vacuum), the gestalt of synthesis (ie, adding emergent properties), statistics and the normal distribution curve.
A mathematical connection may indeed exist between theory and reality. For instance: The chi square statistic shows the correlation between the expected and the observed outcomes. Genotypes predict the expected morphologies while phenotypes manifest the observed!
Accretion and dissolution are the joining together and unjoining of materials for specific purposes or activities. Could these assist in the movement over the continuüm of size? There may be interlocking shapes, like a jigsaw puzzle on the Planck scale, allowing the traversing of such size scales.
Flipover is a threshold effect of the continuüm of size. Once something gets big or small enough, it discretely jumps to the next "dimension" or "scale" (for lack of a more descriptive term). Imagine what we'll find once we get a handle on the boundaries of this universe and get a good sense of the scale of expanse and distances involved. Then consider that our largest imaginable distance is nothing more than the "Planck Length" of the next largest manifestation in existence. And the same should work going smaller. Once we "crack the code" of the Planck Length, we will find that a whole lot of stuff can fit in there!
Energy and motion is thought to be high and chaotic on the Planck scale. I suspect that they are quite majestic and grand on the next largest scale -- the one which sees our universe as a Planck scale. Relative movement is probably very slow, although the speeds involved -- as we measure them -- are probably incredibly high.
One basic premise of syntheory is that human behavior must also follow the same physical laws that the stars and planets do. It is from this simple assumption that I came to the idea that phenomenological consciousness can be viewed as a weather front of some sort - ie, the exact place where air currents, pressure and temperature variations, etc, all meet to create weather. Or as the base of a flame, where the line between material and chemical reaction lies. Consciousness can then be seen as where memory meets awareness. The "here and now" beginning of new memcon creation.
STM is critical for new memcon formation. It holds information in the ready while the conscious entity decides where to attach it. Furthermore, if there is enough gravity around a particular subject-object, then it will attach also -- without conscious intervention, as in classical conditioning. If STM is impaired or damaged, it may become more difficult to add new memories to one's memcons. As a consequence, information "rehearsal" becomes more necessary.
Eric Berne's PAC is interesting, in that the ego states correspond to the developmental stages (though Berne followed the Freudian tradition more closely, considering it as CPA in development). For example, the C forms first, then the P and finally A. Yet people are first Cs, then As and then hopefully, Ps. Freud's hydraulic and developmental
Humanology is the gestalt of the synthesis of all of the past and present theories of human psychology, arts and spirituality. It is the scientific study of humanity. Well, almost scientifically. I don't know of any scientific way (yet) to explore the arts and spirituality. Perhaps we'll indeed need to use Pepper (1942)'s other two hypotheses - animism and mysticism!
A long time ago, I noticed that all of the existing theories in psychology had at least some external validity. Since each of them is concerned with the same subject matter (human thought, feeling and behavior), it should be possible to build a way to cross the boundaries from one theory to another with the help of the standard, normal, bell-shaped curve. What I had in mind was sort of a "z-score" for the specific contents of each theory.
The number three is all over the place. Freud's Es, Ich and Überich (id, ego and superego), Berne's Child-Parent-Adult, Skinner's reinforcement, punishment and extinction, MacLean's triune brain layers,
Most, if not all paradigms have been built upon analogies, and in this respect the scheme of interpretation I'm introducing here will be no different. Reflecting on the paradigms of the past, we see mostly animism, personification, organic, hydrolic, developmental, mechanical and information processing analogies.
For instance, in ancient times "the gods" were responsible for all existence. These gods were bestowed with human characteristics such as a physical form, emotions, intentions and alliances amongst each other. In this way, the people were able to comprehend what happened in their world.
Later, by Newton's time, the mechanical analogy hit the scene. (It persisted into the 1900s with the arrival of classical conditioning and behaviorism.) The physical world was practically defined by ideas such as the normal state of a heavenly body is rest. If put into motion, something will tend to continue in motion. For every action or force transmited, there's an equal and opposite force which occurs.
Sigmund Freud introduced a developmental hydrolic analogy of human behavior, in which biological drives would build up and create psychic energy, which then seeks release and reduction through behavior. When direct behavioral cathexis was impractical or impossible, then energy found release through sublimation, or churned away at the mental phenomenology of the person through obsession, repression, etc.
Pavlov, Watson and Skinner were among the pioneers of the modern mechanical analogy of behavior. They envisioned behavior causation practically in linear terms, genetically and environmentally speaking. Action is seen as a sort of "learned reflex reaction", linked in spacetime to what came before and after the antecedent event. Push, pull. Stimuli in, behaviors out. Pavlov showed us that when the right events are associated in space and time, they tend to bind to each other. Skinner points out that when something good happens to us after we behave, that behavior will increase in its liklihood to occur again.
The Earth... as we know it, emerged out of gasses, liquids and solids which began in "highly aroused energetic states" (very hot or molten). Sitting out in space all those years in otherwise nearly "absolute zero" temperature, has allowed its outer edge to cool off enough to precipitate an atmosphere and a, as yet relatively thin, terrestrial crust. The planet's heat source in the core and mantle is still somwhat plastic and convective today. Over time as the surface cooled, the convective currents slid beneath this cooled outer edge. The core's inner heat and pressure then began driving the tectonic processes, therby acting upon the newly formed crust. I suspect that as the Earth cools even more, the crust will thicken and earthquakes will happen less often, but will be more violent when they do occur. (Having a higher Richter scale value.)
Our planet didn't cool off to this point precisely circular, either, but rather just a little off. This was possibly due to the differential density in the extremely local clump of material, or perhaps from the moon being ejected by a massive hypothesized impact long ago -- which could have then perhaps given us our season-causing axial tilt, too. With stars and the gas giants as maybe with the rocky planets, the equator rotates slightly faster than do the poles. Maybe that effect was strong enough for a molten Earth over time to create the non-perfect spherical shape of the planet we call home.
The "accelerating expansion" of the universe could be just the inchworm lurching forward in curved space. If the front edge of the mass is falling, it would then be subject to the acceleration equation -- the "second per second" bit. This could explain why the further galaxies, etc, are moving away from us faster than are the closer ones. However, that's not quite the reality scenario.
The increase in the speed of recession of galaxies away from each other is linear! For example, Galaxy A is 10 lightyears away and is receeding at a speed of 750 miles per second. Galaxy B on the other hand, is 20 lightyears away and receeding at a speed of about 1500 miles per second. If the galaxies were effected by the accelaration effect on a falling object as we observe on Earth, then Galaxy B would be travelling much faster, since it would have been falling much longer than Galaxy A! (Then again, maybe the acceleration of a falling object effect is different or much smaller with the huge distances out in "the void" of space, and we just don't have the technical ability to precisely measure it yet.)
And what about the light from quasars and galaxies, etc? These electro-magnetic waves inform us, through spectrography, of the chemical make-up and directional motion of the emitting structures. Well, if galaxies and quasars are acing like neurons or atoms, perhaps they are some sort of giant network operating on the same principles as fiber optics. Considering the time light takes to travel to effect its destination, it could be acting as a timing mechanism or catalyst of some sort, associated with a "higher" purpose of the universe.
The sky/atmosphere, the ground, the ocean, we people, plants and other organics are just another type of surface burn for this planet. From the cooling off of earthly material, to the crawling around of the lowliest little life form, we're all working to change the mass we come into contact with into energy for ourselves to continue on in our lifespans. In this way, we're using it up, or rather, transforming it. We're consuming the planet's raw energy repositories and using them to power our continued existance. Keep in mind, now, something like 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct!
Giving much thought to E = mc² led me to conceive of this back and forth transmutation as an existence continuüm. For lack of a graphic, follow these words: Imagine a circle with a large round dot in the "12 o'clock" position. Outside the circle at the 12 o'clock position is the word "Matter"; outside at the six o'clock position, the word "Energy". At the 3 and 9 o'clock positions are arrows pointing in an anticlockwise direction.
Traversing the circle anticlockwise brings one along the continuüm of brightness -- the increasing presence of energy. Just before one reaches the 12 o'clock position, one is totally saturated with energy, such that: Most Energy + 1 = Matter, as in the theoretical Big Bang phenomenon.
Traversing the circle clockwise, the energy presence gets darker and darker until one again approaches the 12 o'clock poition. Now, Least Energy - 1 = Matter, as in the Black Hole phenomenon. This represents a continuüm which turns back on itself, producing a discontinuous change. (However, I still need to develop this concept more; the clockwise transmutation to a black hole is not up to my theoretical standards yet.)
Relative movement on the largest scales is slow; relative movement in the smallest spaces is fast.
People who practice psychotherapy on others ought to acknowledge the importance of "doing analysis" on one's self, too. Otherwise, the big lessons you do learn will come at the expense of the client's well being and your conscience and blood pressure. If a mental health professional arrogantly believes that "analysis" is personally un-necessary, I might suspect there's some unhealthy narcissism afoot, or perhaps even the use of a defense mechanism, such as denial! I have one simple sentiment for all fledgling therapists, analysts, etc: Get some therapy or get out! And I have my doubts about the efficacy of that weeny little training analysis that some get/got as part of their degree program.
So far, it is not a legal requirement to obtain psychotherapy in order to practice psychotherapy. I'd like to see that change. (Imagine having a driving instructor who never drove an actual car!) Just about anything which would decrease the number of "professional therapists" out there would be welcome in my opinion.
As you read Robertiello & Schoenewolf (1987) or Elkind (1992), imagine that you were the professional being discussed. How would you react in your mind as the problem(s) within the therapeutic dyad became clear to you? Would you kick yourself for not seeing it coming? Would you get angry with the client and blame him/r for your professional difficulties? Would you just give up and enter early retirement?
You'll have to ask yourself, "How did I let this happen? I was so sure I was right." We can see how easy it is to just believe in one's conclusions and follow through with them. After all, you never had a problem doing that with other patients before. But as Pepper (1942, p. 4) points out, "Belief is the naïve attitude, while doubt is an acquisition won through long and hard experience."
Let's now consider an inappropriate, forced termination. Assume that we have a difficult patient, meaning that the behavior emmited is very much unlike that previously seen in other patients of similar diagnosis. (In other words, it's more of a challenge to assess and predict accurately.) Let's say that the therapist is working within the theoretical paradigm of Gestalt Therapy. Let us further assume that we have a therapist who is a "seasoned professional" with many years experience and is very confident in his/r clinical judgement, ie Falvey (1992).
Well, after nine months of work it is time to terminate the therapy, right? Many practitioners will tell you that. The patient has, ostensibly, been brought through all of the prescribed procedures and it is now time to go. But then a problem arises in this increasingly monocentric dyad. When confronted with ending, the client is startled and doesn't want to stop. In fact, s/he feels like s/he's just then getting to the real stuff, and tells the therapist that.
Well, the professional quickly denies the accuracy of the patient's self-perception, dismissing it as an innocent confusion between treatment goals and life goals (ie, Ticho, 1972). Without an explanation of the reasoning involved, s/he nonetheless continues to terminate the therapy with a firm but gentle hand. This wrests an immense amount of power away from the client -- something that's been worked on and nurtured for a long time. When someone has a hard-won, newly achieved frame of perception and then has it stepped on it because the professional won't even consider the possibility of having made a mistake, well.... ("The lion springs only once", after all. That's my translation of a quote from Freud, 1937/1950, by the way. I would like to add that the lion can also pounce upon and maul the patient to death!)
A psychotherapist ought to be an open-minded individual capable of persuading another person to also be more open-minded. When this is so, the patient is more likely to be less fearful, and attempt to face his/r apprehension of unknown experiences. Yet there are still some "professionals" out there who are rather egocentric, bossy or even coercive in their personal styles. The paradigm of Gestalt Therapy is especially well suited for this type of personality. (Have you ever seen films of Fritz Perls working with a client? Now there's a pushy therapist if I ever saw one!)
When you are trained to be a psychotherapist, counselor, psychiatrist, etc, you will likely settle down into your own style of working with someone. You will have differing amounts of success -- particularly as an intern and when just starting out on your own. You would do well to keep this passage from Pepper (1942) in mind as you career into the future:
"A dogmatist often begins as a reasonable man; but, having struck an attitude, he resists the search for new grounds, and even when these are presented he refuses to change his attitude accordingly." (p. 13)
Getting back to our example, the professional later learns that the client's therapy fell apart after termination. Within a few months, the presenting problem remanefested itself with a vengeance. (A follow-up? Who cares what happens after they leave? You got your money. You got your professional ego stroked. Of course they're on their way to a happier life -- that's what you intended!)
Ah, but then the therapist finally does what should have been done long ago. Thinking back on the treatment, the therapist wonders whether or not s/he should have taken a childhood history in this case. Maybe the client had been severely abused as a child, and this kept the person from asserting his/rself against the premature termination by the authority figure. After all, if clients don't get all loud and violently upset, then they must agree with the unilateral decisions being made, right? This is the kind of "fit" between the client's problems and the therapist's practice that Elkind (1992) describes.
The therapeutic paradigm of Gestalt Therapy is only concerned with the here and now. Information intake for the therapy should begin at the time of life the client steps in to the office...or?
Now I don't really mean to pick on Gestalt Therapy all that much. It just depends on the personality, compassion and open-mindedness of the individual therapist. Although there are many excellent professionals working in that paradigm, Gestalt Therapy does lend itself beautifully to the example of a therapeutic impasse leading to disaster.
The entire realm of the website "http://www.syntheory.com" is
copyright © 2000-Current Year
by Ken Windish. All rights reserved.
© © © Detailed Copyright Information Here © © ©
General permission is granted to copy and disseminate the contents of this webpage for fair and reasonable uses within the world of academia, provided that the source is properly cited and credited. Duplications for uses other than academic, must be granted through written permission from the copyright owner.
