New Page 1

<body> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><font size="5">Philosophy, Irrationality and Ideology</font></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">An Anthropological Synthesis</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">By Hugh Lewis</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1982</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <font FACE="Bookman Old Style" SIZE="4"><sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Copyright © 2001 by Hugh M. Lewis<br> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(Portions of this text may be printed and copied for personal use in research or education, and for use in the class-room only)</p> </sup></font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> This is another</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">E-publication by</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><a HREF="http://www.omniprise.net/Publishing.htm">Lewis Micro-Publishing</a></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">For further information regarding Lewis Publishing</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Please contact:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> <a HREF="mailto:omniprise@earthlink.net">Lewis Publications</a></p> <p ALIGN="center"> </p> <p ALIGN="center">Introduction</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is reality? All of these confusing names. Psychological anthropology, social psychology, symbolic anthropology, interpretative anthropology, dialectical anthropology, trans cultural and cross cultural psychiatry, cultural psychiatry, cultural anthropology, social anthropology, sociobiology, psychobiology, physical anthropology, the cognitivists, the behaviorists, the structuralists, the positivists, the scientists, the humanists, the idealists, the materialists, and on and on and on adfinitum. Why all of the name calling?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">And why all of the a-theoretical compartmentalization, theoretical divisiveness, cognitive separatism, and competitive conceptual agonism? There has emerged a new "sub-discipline" called cognitive pathology and epistemopathology. It works from the premises that all of this confusing disharmony is not really conceptually healthy. I shall elaborate upon this topic later. It infects not only our "social sciences" but other cognitive fields as well. And then to ice the cake, in the realm of academia all of these diverse strands are so deftly tied together into a confusing knot of "order" called the academic textbook, the grand comprehensive design--the classic academic "bible" that is so full of pictures, so boring to read and so superficial in unity, leaving the "average" student knowing a lot about nothing and nothing about a lot.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">My disillusionment with philosophy, psychology, and art was all of this confounding divisiveness of theory. It seems to be infecting also my overview of anthropology and sociology. It is as Buckminster Fuller has said. Nature did not intentionally divide itself up into departments of physics, chemistry, biology or sociology and in time we humans have learned the inadequacy of these fundamental arbitrary divisions and so we continually introduce more names to fill the gaps. And as it is with the physical side of reality, so it is much worse with the metaphysical side. And yet as humans we seem to need to impose upon our reality the arbitrary analytic divisions and the artificial conceptual organizations of our alternative symbol systems in order to adequately structure it in the most acceptably adaptable manner, by which we can focus our attention, energy and efforts to assist our inevitable specialization in a formal civilization which so demands such specialization for survival. Let me rephrase my original question, "Are human beings "naturally" made to be such specialists as much as our predominating cultural norms of "civilization" seem to want us to be?"</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I suppose names are necessary. It seems we cannot get enough of them. But we must recognize the limitations of the name and the danger of the differences and ignore similarities or we focus upon generalities and blur specifics. Names tend to be deified, to acquire an absolute and unquestionable appearance--a facade of "a-meaningful" meaning, and then we reify names to symbolic valuations far beyond realistic bounds.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I wish to proffer a set of personal ideas--what I consider to be a philosophical outline of "generalities" that have been floating around and formulating themselves in my head for some time now. I believe they are crucial philosophical premises for a mutual if not unitarian foundation for the central thesis of this paper--namely mental illness, psychology and anthropology in interrelationship. I have been continuously toying with this "inputs". I will briefly describe these summarily within a speculative philosophical and tentative theoretical framework, and then I will attempt to apply these in a more specific fashion for the principle problem of this paper, which will hopefully explain itself and solve itself through its descriptive definition.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe there is <u>only</u> one reality, and that therefore there might only be <u>one true cognitive map</u> of that reality no matter how many alternative symbol systems and schemes of organization we choose to interpret it in. No matter what names we choose to use in carving up reality, whatever peculiar distinctions or inferences we wish to emphasize, ultimately we must be brought back to the beginning precept--we are inevitably dealing with one and the same reality. This might seem absolutist, but I wish at the outset to qualify it rather as being absolutely <u>relativistic</u> in the conception of "truth". The problem of this truth I will return to at the end of this discussion--suffice it to make this initial distinction between <u>truth</u> and <u>reality</u> as a necessary point of entry into what otherwise I believe to be a closed "self contained" system of philosophical conceptioning which is inherently circular and cyclical in nature.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Believing in only one reality, it is appropriate to proffer a tentative and simplistic definition of that reality, which can be subsequently modified and elaborated and scrutinized in detail and refinement in the remainder of this preliminary discourse. Definition of reality, then, is the primary problem of this philosophical concatenation. Yet already I have implicitly defined reality in its singularity, which I can re-explain by describing reality in its singularity, which I can re-explain by describing reality as being <u>universal</u>, and our map of that reality is concomitant <u>comprehensive</u>. This definition poses a basic paradox in the definition of reality. The way we define reality is dependent upon the way we come to know and understand reality. To understand universality our knowledge must be comprehensive. Ultimately reality and our map of that reality though essentially different, are at the same time one and the same thing. Restated the definition of reality poses this essential dilemma--reality is a comprehensive conception of the universal which also has an inextricably <u>human meaning</u>. We cannot separate reality from our epistemological knowing of that reality in our definition. This human quality about reality poses a special problem in the definition of reality, one which I call the <u>universal human dilemma</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Reality and human existence are inseparable in the definition of reality. The human cannot directly conceive of the totality of reality in and of itself, as separate from human existence. We can never ever stop completely outside of the trees to see the whole forest. We can <u>never</u> have a <u>completely objective</u> perspective of reality, we are ourselves trees in the forest. We cannot ever be completely objective in our evaluation of our existence or of our reality. We can never transcend our own subjectivity sense that a botanist seek to know or our reality in the scientific sense that a botanist seek to know a tree. Here is the heart of our fundamental dilemma of understanding.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The universal human dilemma is that in order to define reality, one must draw a <u>line</u> (an empirically nonexistent abstract ideational conception--as demonstrated by "Zeno's arrow") by which reality can be divided into two parts, and these two parts are then contrasted and compared and it is in the primary <u>conscious analytic</u> division and subsequent <u>synthetic</u> relationship between the two parts by which reality gains uniquely human meaning and definition. The dilemma is that once we dissect reality by drawing the line we destroy the synergistic quality and ontological character which gives human existence meaning. Our reality thus becomes falsely separated from our existence and we alienate ourselves from our reality in a pseudo objectivity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is important to emphasize the importance of <u>arbitrariness</u> of our analytic knowledge, that the first line drawn, after which many more can be subsequently made accordingly, is principally arbitrary. The cosmic egg of reality may be initially divided in whichever manner we choose, and subsequent sub-divisions depend upon the analytic logic we choose to employ, but are determined in part by previous and initial divisions.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is impossible to over emphasize the importance of the first analytic division in determining the character of the conceptual system, and the fact that it is an <u>independent</u> and <u>arbitrary act of will</u>. It is the ignorance of the crucial influence of willpower which is the undoing of the human sciences and which undermines every tautological edifice of scientific theoretization of human behavior. The element of prediction which is the <u>cause</u> of control in our inter-subjective physical reality becomes the <u>effect </u>of control in our objective human reality. The "science" of economics in our country is basically a study of capitalism. It is thought to be a workable truth after the fact of its uncontested functional reality within our own system. The science of economics in the USSR is a study of communism, because communism in that country is made a reality uncontested by any alternative within. The "truth" of both of these alternative "sciences of economics" was not existent a-priori in theory before their functional realization and human demonstration in the same way as the motion of the planets about the sun might be postulated to be. The truths were arbitrarily formulated a-posteriori to the fact of their <u>willful</u> demonstration. The same is so with Freudian psychoanalytic theory and experimental psychology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In the human sciences, truth becomes a system of defense built around an arbitrarily constructed system of rationalization, rather than the heart of understanding upon which rational theory is constructed. While fault may be found everywhere, the blame falls most heavily upon the shoulders of the philosopher. The cause of our modern conceptual dilemma is rooted in the long western tradition of the philosophical interpretation. For it is the responsibility of the philosopher to provide clarity and comprehensivity of understanding that precludes such confusion. I will say briefly that if we look closely enough at the philosophical origins of our scientific and humanological traditions, we will see the first errors of judgment that has led to the contemporary debacle--as the tempo of change accelerates beyond natural human capabilities to deal with change, as language and knowledge grows in complexity beyond natural human levels of self expression and identity, as the rift between what is thought and what is done increases beyond the optional human channel capacity to bridge the gap with comprehensive intelligibility of language, as we face the fate of over specialization--we are witnessing the eventual debacle of powerful historical-cultural forces beyond our weak human capacities to control.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Descartes is a prime mover. He laid the primarily paranoid foundations for scientific comprehension in his first postulates about the absolute uncertainty of reality and of the obsessive necessity for absolute certainty about reality. It is in this pure rationalist absolutism that may be found the modern craving for absolute answers to very relative problems in human behavior. It is in neglect of arbitrariness of human willpower, in the fundamental criterion of imaginative possibility and recognition of <u>relative degrees</u> of <u>probability</u> that may be found the seeds of conceptual pathology afflicting not only modern philosophy but the various studies of human behavior, as off-springs of philosophical tradition, as well. As Kuhn demonstrates, relativity of interpretation infects even scientific truth, especially the human sciences. The need for absolute certainty is not only an unreasonable one, it is unrealistic and irrational as well. We see the absolute nature of relativity demonstrated as a fundamental axiom even in such certain sciences as physics, in which Einstein relatively and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle demonstrates the lack of absolute certainty even of our most basic material universe. It is much more the case in the human sciences.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The danger is that the need for certainty often turns philosophical inquiry into closed systems of belief--unfalsifiable and logically unassailable when the basic premise are unquestionably believed--and this danger must be recognized. There can be no absolute certainty in the relative human condition. It is important to tolerate uncertainty as it is to accept <u>possibilistic</u> speculation. It is only by <u>probabilistic</u> intuition against a reference of empirical relationships that some relative degree of probable of certainty can be attained. The problem of<u> </u>probability affects philosophy just as much as it complicates physics. The need for certainty turns an open, inquiring mind into a closed, dogmatic system of rationalization. It is the need for certainty which will lead to nuclear holocaust.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is no such thing as final proof in philosophy without willful commitment to faith. To try to prove anything through "pure logic" without any intersubjective criterion is fruitless folly. Rather than try to prove "truth", "perfection", "reality", "existence", "divinity", or "self", it is enough to simply acknowledge by a willful act that such things can only be inferred possibilities because they are definite conceptual realities. It is enough to adequately define each in context to the other, to accept or reject those things which serve no purpose or hinder full realization. While absolute proof is untenable in philosophy and also is disproof. So often seemingly valid theories are unacceptable from a scientific standpoint because they are so impregnably rationalized and sterilized and conceptually abortive as to be neither provable nor falsifiable by intersubjective criterion. After this inescapable weakness of philosophy is acknowledged and accepted as unavoidably inevitable, then the only risk we run is turning philosophy into "plain common sense" instead of the gibberish nonsense that results from the ignorance of this weakness. We can see after all there really is a crucial place for common sense in philosophical inquiry.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While we cannot be certain that we are certain, without commitment to belief in faith, an act of will, we can choose alternatively to remain uncertain that we are uncertain, and this is the best that philosophy need to do. Commitment to belief is what is so stultifying and self limiting in philosophy--such commitment may be found virtually in every extant philosophy. We cannot be believing and avoid dichotomization of our thoughts. It is enough that philosophy proceed along unbelieving, non-believing, skeptical and speculative lines of inquiry in the quest for El Dorado.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Even before I have made my first arbitrary analytic division of reality, I have said something crucially important about the definition of reality in as much as it relates integrally and ultimately inseparable to its "human meaning"--that in its "inseparable quality of humanness" reality is <u>relative </u>(primarily to the human will to believe). There is nothing absolute in the human definition of reality except that reality is <u>absolutely relative</u>. In the act of analytic division (which I prefer to call dichotomization) the meaning of the whole of reality is achieved through human interrelationship between the parts. The implication of this is that our understanding of the meaning of reality, though willfully independent and analytically arbitrary, nevertheless is not fundamentally unconditional, but is rather conditionally defined by the imposition of certain "subjective" human qualities--both metaphysical and epistemological--which in a sense provide the peculiar <u>structure</u> to the interrelationships and enable inter-subjective <u>communication by symbolization</u>. This is an admission some analytically indefinable though qualitatively describable <u>prerequisite determination </u>of reality--or at least the possibility of an "absolute character structure" by which <u>objectivity</u> is realized. So will and predetermination though analytically dichotomized, are synthetically integrated in the understanding of reality. This is the only dichotomization which is a-priori. I will describe these pre-determining qualities as <u>metaphysical truth</u> and as <u>epistemological self</u>, and if one is considered thetic, then the other is to be considered antithetic, but that their human synthesis is reality. Other people may choose to describe these pre-determined fundamentals otherwise. I need to qualify my initial philosophical premises of the definition of reality with elaboration of these two presuppositions, before I make my initial arbitrary analytic dichotomization of reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Before I describe these two presuppositions, I must note the inescapable problem their pre-conditional existence poses for the human being. They are the origins of the inescapable human condition termed "antinomality"--a source of cogitative ambivalence, emotional anxiety, behavioral frustration--a permanent human state of unresolvable uncertainty about reality and existence, and the source of every essentially reducible human problem. Suffice it is to say that this term is borrowed from the a-priori antinomies of Kant and this whole issue is the basic philosophical thesis of this paper and will be discussed in conclusion--the inexorable paradox that truth and self, though different in conception, are in human reality one and the same thing. Truth and Self are the irreducible though synthetically assimiliable <u>antinomies</u> of reality, which is an exclusively human affair. The bearing this has on the central topic of this paper, namely psycho pathology is enormous.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The essential quality of the concept of metaphysical truth is the contextual <u>continuity</u> of the dimensions of spatial infinity and temporal eternity--the singular <u>integrity</u> of a space/time continuum which may be expressed in realistic terms as the here and now. This essential quality is one of boundlessness. Because these concepts are impossible to assimilate with logical coherence, they are directly inconceivable and are only directly intuitively understood by the questions such as "What came before the Big Bang of the physical universe?" Or else we can ask "If atomic particles are actually composed of subatomic particles, then what might compose subatomic particles?" or "if mind or consciousness is to be considered the highest manifestation of a biological entity, might there yet exist some higher "spiritual" level of metaphysical reality or quintessential "intellectual" form and function?" Please note that these questions will never be adequately answered.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Truth is a single unity which integrates and is dichotomized into two dimensions--temporal and spatial--ultimately this unity is truth in its absolute form. Truth provides unity of our presence along these two dimensions. The two dimensions are interchangeable, time as a constant of energy can be translated into space as a constant spatial form. Truth can be translated in relative terms of space time. Though in its absolute form unknowable, its presence can be inferred by the relativity of space time. It is enough to acknowledge the existence of reality to "prove" the pre-existence of truth. Truth is <u>unity</u> of the here and now in reality--the really "real" of the <u>present</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Any person who says that his philosophy is the absolute truth is a liar. The absolute truth exists a-priori only as an imaginable possibility but not as an existent reality. In reality there are only relative <u>approximations</u> of truth as <u>probability</u>. While it is necessary for philosophy to seek after truth in the absolute sense, in reality it is only ever finer degrees of understanding that is ever attainable. And yet to stop questing for absolute truth is the same as believing absolutely in one's knowledge of that truth, closing philosophy into a system of circular rationalization and to render it self negating--fixing its conception to static coordinates in time and space. Here it is the heart of the human paradox of metaphysical truth--it achieves expression in only the most limited physical terms of the "here and now" and that while philosophy must search for ever more knowledge of absolute truth, it can never attain truth absolutely nor ever stop questing. There is an uneasy yet automatic relation between <u>belief</u> in truth and <u>proof</u> in reality. We cannot know truth without commitment to our belief in our knowledge. The central problem of philosophy is the ignorance of the role of belief in our acquisition of truth. There is an unpreventable human predisposition for scientifically minded philosophers to seek out some "realistic evidence" to prove our knowledge of truth and at the same time to implicitly deny the role of faith. Truth cannot be finally proven in reality. The most evident manifestation of this is the need for absolute certainty in our philosophical knowledge--empirical rationality--a need for <u>continuous empirical consistency</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In reality the concept of metaphysical and the concept of epistemological self are interdependent and to some degree are interchangeable , such that it makes sense to speak of the metaphysical self and epistemological truth. To speak of one is to imply the other and also to imply the other reverse sense of the same term. Generally, the metaphysical problem is "what we know to be reality" while the epistemological problem is "how we know reality".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is ultimately the self which brings sense to reality, integrating our past and future into our immediate present. Truth is self, and self is truth. Self gives <u>coherence</u> to understanding of reality. The paradox of reality is that it is only by searching for the self that we may find truth, and it is only in the search for truth that the self may be found. Truth and self may never be known directly or independently of each other, but only indirectly and interdependently through each other and then only <u>transcendently</u> by the knowledge of reality in relative terms of consistent continuity and coherent <u>causality.</p> </u> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The concept of the epistemology self is experienced in terms of relative human reality as the <u>dynamic continuum</u>--as continuous change analyzed into static terms of cause and effect. Instead of the metaphysical concept of unity the important epistemological concept of the self is <u>motility</u>. Motility occurs in two fundamental directions--toward simplicity and toward complexity, and is represented variously as entropy and anti-entropy and of the life concepts of birth and death and as ontological abstraction and synergy. While the metaphysical truth may be expressed as continuous consistency or consistent continuity, the epistemological self may be experienced as coherent causality or causal coherence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The self brings together in the mind the past and future. The past exists in the mind only as a memory. The future exists in the mind only as a possibility. The present, here and now, is the marriage of past experience with future speculations. The reality of the present is not the same as the infinite unrealities of the past or as the infinite unrealities of the future. Anything that is imaginable is possible. This is the valuable relationship between imagination and reality. We cannot imagine the impossible, but we can guess about the improbable.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Reality is continuously changing. These changes are the result of the quest for self and truth. Our reality must change regardless whether we will it or not--it is only by the search for truth that we can fancy our wills changing reality. Cause and effect is only a human tendency of attribution. The self is growing as reality is changing. The growth of the self is the direct result of the search for truth and determines the extent of our wills in changing reality. There is no limit to the growth of the self or the changing of reality, just as absolute truth shall never be known. As the self grows and becomes more complicated so too does reality grow and becomes more complicated. There is dynamic interaction between the self and reality. New ideas create new realities, new realities in turn lead to new ideas. The reality of Ptolemy was much more confined and limited than was the reality of Einstein. The reality of today is extremely more complex than even the reality of yesterday. New inventions, new technologies, new industrial tools, new theories, transform reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Reality is evolving from the simple to the complex. This evolution can be seen in the stars, it can be felt in the lives of men, it can be witnessed in the unfolding history of humanity. This movement to complexity is best reflected in our understanding of ourselves and of our world. The basic atomism of Democritus has through the evolution of scientific physics become a super complex explanation of a host of subatomic particles and discrete forces. This movement to complexity is experienced in our psychological, sociological, and philosophical explanations of ourselves and of our world. This movement to complexity is without termination. There exists no longer adequate simple answers to the problems and questions that affect our lives. Once universal answers will inevitably become limited particulars in our newly emerging world. He course of emergence of reality, beyond the general trending toward complexity cannot be predicted because its chief element of unpredictability rests on human willpower and conscious determination. The movement to complexity is the thesis of individual and collective consciousness. This is the synthetic trending which affects our world in newly emergent forms. This synthetic process occurs counter to the natural entropic tendencies which pervades the whole universe. This is the movement to simplicity--death to a state of non-being, non-existence. In every thesis are found the seeds of antithesis--in our nuclear weapons of self destruction and human extinction.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Rather than becoming more and more predictable by science--ultimately our reality is being made more and more unpredictable and uncontrollable by the relentless complication scientific explanation and application entails. Our lives are made simpler yet vastly more complex because of science--which has made likewise proportionately vital our need for simplistic reduction--if not to be achieved through conscious philosophical inquiry and conscientious religious acceptance then to occur anyways through a science and technology that grows more and more out of human control. The ultimate problem we must soon face is whether to let our science control us or we control our science.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Reality has become more complex than any single person can possibly imagine. It is the purpose of philosophy to proffer and discover a simplified conceptual model of that complexity to enable an abridged yet comprehensive version that is accessible to the understanding of any normally intelligent human being. This philosophy has failed dismally to do. It has been kept aloft in the clouds and astray in unintelligible syllogism, with a plethora of impossible speculations, making sense out of utter nonsense. There is no one more to blame for the failure of philosophy than the philosophers themselves. The task of philosophy is to simply define reality. How wide of this mark have philosophers so often strayed. Whose to blame the critical layman who has had sense enough not to follow the philosopher into the fog of confusion? People who look to philosophers for simple answers to their complex problems inevitably become disillusioned and disappointed about the practical value of philosophy. Rather than simplify the world it seems philosophy has almost deliberately taken the opposite route of making reality too difficult to understand. This need for simplicity of conception and realism is the central reason that philosophy must remain rooted to a "scientific" basis of explanation. No philosophy can venture far from such a basis without destroying itself in confusion and irrationality. There is no hope and little room for a geometric-Cartesian system of rationality. Such chains of seemingly impeccable logic inevitably end in cul-de-sacs of illogical conclusions amiss of reality and with a residual feeling of cognitive misunderstanding. Neither is there hope for a consistent ethics without acknowledging the part will power and belief play in the formulation of such systems. Nor is there room for so much argument, statement and counter example in a field so tied by necessity to simplicity. If philosophers cannot recognize their own long ignored mistakes in their unquestioned conceptual systems, then there is no hope for the resurrection of philosophy as the proper leader of the evolutionary liberation of humanity. The more complex our reality becomes, the simpler our philosophy of understanding that reality needs to be.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Ultimately the self and truth, has prerequisite ideal fictions to the philosophical problem of the definition of the meaning of reality, are one and the same thing--the integrity of reality itself. The only difference lies in the innate, analytical-synthetical a-priori structuring of the human mind (the epistemological self) which <u>habitually</u> dichotomizes reality into separate and opposing forms and then reunites reality into a new integrity on a transcendent more abstract level.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The problem of dichotomization is basically the problem of the need for absolute truth which must be known absolutely certainly. The need for absolute certainty is an inescapable condition of our human condition--an inherent predisposition which must always plague our minds. It must be realized that no truth can be absolutely certain, but can only be known relatively so. Existence and reality is a relative affair. Only a leap of faith-the will to believe-can give complacency to the searching mind. Nevertheless we can have <u>relative</u> certainty in our knowledge of truth, which means knowledge of what is <u>probable</u> based on past experience and intuitive ideas of what is <u>possible</u> based on future speculation. Philosophy and the search for truth cannot be based on the blind faith in absolute certainty--it is enough that our leap of faith be founded on the relativity of probability and the speculation of possibility without complete and final certainty. This is the only manner in which we may avoid fatal dichotomization of reality and keep our quest for truth actively alive.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Meaning is valuative, not definitive; it is relative, not absolute. Meaning is made absolute only by an act of willpower. Meaning in itself is noumenal, truth or self, synergistic, emergent, qualitative and ontological--it is mind independent of body without reductionist atomism or quantitative materialism. Why cannot mind ever be effectively reduced to biological explanation? Why cannot meaning ever be definitively and mathematically quantified and categorized--because these qualities are in the final analysis composed of irreducible cognitive valuations derived from the intrinsic meaning of the mind. They are synthetical entities as opposed to analytical things and as such they are intrinsically indefinite, indeterminate, and directly "unknowable" in the scientific sense. Meaning is inherently intuitive in nature and finds expression through creativity--emergent conception of reality--of previously nonexistent entities. It is alive, not dead.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p ALIGN="center">Chapter 1</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I wish to qualify my initial metaphysical premise with an epistemological presupposition the veracity of which I will leave open to proof. It is enough to proclaim my belief in it--that it is essential to this outline. It has to do with the nature of the human mind, and is an <u>innate universal</u> characteristic. It is the need and capacity of the mind to draw such analytical lines by which to conceive the meaning of reality. This is related to theoretical construct of Claude Levi Strauss--the structural construct of binary opposition--and also to the Hegelian conception of the dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. I will define it simply as the tendency of the mind to analyze reality in terms of dualities and the predisposition to dichotomize reality. It is especially apparent in philosophy, but I find it to be nearly universally recurrent throughout our theoretical conceptual systems. To give a few examples of common dichotomies: mind/body, analytic/synthetic, physical/metaphysical, subjective/objective, material/spiritual, rational/empirical, cognitive/behavioral.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Unlike Levi Strauss, I do not believe this to be an "unconscious" deep structure of the mind, but rather think it is quite <u>conscious</u> a process, being primarily an incomplete <u>a-posteriori</u> tendency which is a habitual, acquired and learned predisposition. It is incomplete in the sense that there is a secondary process of <u>integration </u>which complements and completes the total conscious process of the mind. The root of this incomplete process is in the epistemological analytic/synthetic dichotomy which in reality must be reviewed as the analytic/synthetic integrity. One consequence of this tendency towards dichotomization is the fundamental philosophical mind/body dichotomy which prevents the necessary unification of philosophy and other dependent fields of understanding. I believe rather there is really a mind/brain integrity and one plausible "biological" reductionist explanation for the analytic/synthetic process which I will call the structural dialectic is the lateralization of brain function between left and right hemispheres.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The structural dialectic of the mind is the reason for the hierarchical nature of the organization of knowledge from empirically rooted precepts to more abstract and transcendent levels of conceptuality. This is the source of the causal coherence of the mind expressed in alternative direction of simplification and complication--either simplifying fact and complicating theory or complicating fact and simplifying theory. This hierarchical organization of the mind is the resultant structure of the underlying concept of the epistemological self, and is the substructure of reality. It has been more fully elaborated in Ayn Rand's book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". This hierarchical structure of the mind has important implications for the theoretical unification of psychology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe this rather simple <u>structural dialectic</u> of the <u>conscious mind</u> may adequately supplant some of the innate Kantian antimonies of space and time and cause and effect, as realistic expressions of the a-priori fictions of truth and self respectively, given in the sense as relative absolutes, may be effectively reinterpreted within this structural dialectic as being in reality a dynamic continuum of interrelationship between two ideal fictions delineated and defined by our arbitrary line drawing, expresses more realistically within the framework of a <u>dynamic continuum</u> of <u>contextual relativity</u> or <u>relative contextuality</u>. Synthetic continuity of reality is emphasized rather than analytic differentiation and discontinuity. This may reasonably supplant Freud's essentially scientifically unfalsifiable and untestable notion of the "unconscious" which is directly untenable in any empirical fashion. The key difference is that within the new framework of contextuality many things subsumed under the vague notion of "unconscious"--in lieu of an adequate yet impossible reductionist biological explanation of brain function determining the form of the mind can instead be directly assailable to empirical and rational investigation and redefined rather than remain hidden beneath a shroud of darkness.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This dynamic continuum of contextual relativity is symbolically interpreted in the</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Structural-dialectical sense as being the <u>structural continuum</u> of <u>human reality</u>, with the <u>synthetic meaning</u> of reality being realized by <u>symbolic interpretation</u> or <u>interpretative </u>symbolism.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Every initial conscious analytic dichotomization must be followed by a subsequent synthetic integration in order to achieve <u>symbolic realism</u>. While I have necessarily presumed an a-priori dichotomization and integration of reality (metaphysical truth/epistemological self) I have yet to make my initial a-posteriori analytic division (and subsequent synthetic reintegration).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I propose my first analytic division to be the subjective/objective (i.e. inter-subjective) dichotomization of reality. In relation to this division I wish to point up a fallacy in Hume's original empiricism. Hume lead philosophy into a dead end that it has never been able to escape. Hume's philosophy may be loosely described as being absolutely relativistic--so much so as to characterize human experience as being absolutely individually independent and essentially uncommunicable. A tree in the forest falls, but if we have not seen it fall or heard it fall, then we cannot really know it has fallen and therefore it really hasn't fallen. Hume was the ultimate solipsist. Hume is logically impeccable. Indeed his empirical philosophy is the ultimate tautology. It is only that Hume did not carry his argument far enough. Even the relativity of reality cannot be seen in absolute terms, rather it is enough to say that the tree has <u>probably </u>fallen<u> </u>and that the "bundles of perception" be firmly enough rooted in reality, in order to have the experience be objectively communicable. Objective <u>communication </u>depends on <u>probabilistic </u>approximations of empirical reality and not on absolutes. We may not know empirical reality in any absolute sense but we can and must make probabilistic versions of reality, and this relativity has proven practical enough in science.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Subjective reality is the primary "independent" reality. It is the thetical part and is idiothetic. It is a special case reality. It may be further subdivided into empirical and non-empirical realities. Non-empirical reality is phenomenological, consisting of all human experiences which are ultimately empirically unverifiable--including cognitions, conceptions, dreams, intuitions, hallucinations, imaginings, memories, sensual experiences, emotional feelings, past, future belief, willpower, synergy, perfection, ideals. It is the independent and exclusive reality. It is open ended and unlimited. Empirical reality is the second case dependent, inclusive and closed antithetical reality. It is Hume's reality of dystal stimulation which in its essence is a hypothetical construct of the mind and is empirically verifiable. Though dichotomized, empirical and non-empirical subjective realities together forms an integrity if complementarily called <u>subjectivity</u>. It is the private reality of the self as opposed to the public reality of the other. Subjective reality may be defined then as all that is imaginatively possible and all that proves demonstrably probable. This possibility and probability is enough openness and certainty upon which the empirical tradition of science has been founded.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The objective (inter-subjective) reality is the secondary dependent and antithetic reality of the subjective first class. It is more inclusive. It is the reality of symbolism, communication, "realism". It is nomothetic as opposed to idiothetic. Actually the subjective and objective realities are complementary and interdependent, together forming the integrity of universal human reality. Objective reality may also be subdivided into physical and metaphysical realms. The physical realm is that which is" touchable", empirically tenable, intersubjectively quantifiable and measurable. The metaphysical realm is the conceptual, the rationally questionable, and qualitatively describable and communicable. Physical reality includes the empirical basis for the traditional scientific disciplines and related interstitial fields of physics, chemistry, biology (including the biology of man-psychobiology genetics, socio-biology, and physical anthropology). Metaphysical reality includes all formal conceptual-theoretical models and systems of conceptual organization and interpretation, including taxonomies, lexicons terminologies. Precise definition is somewhat sticky business and indefinite in metaphysical reality. The subdivision and delineation of the metaphysical realm is what the remainder of this outline is concerned with.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I wish to interpret the subjective/objective dichotomization of reality in terms of structural dialectics regarding the synthetic integration of reality as a dynamic continuum. The synthetic integrity of the subjective domain is <u>idiothetic</u> in character and it is symbolically interpreted in <u>idiographic</u> fashion--which I prefer to call the <u>verbality</u> of reality, as no other word order in any language better conveys the dynamic character of the continuum than the action expression of the verb--verbality is <u>self expression</u> if the really real. Verbality is the spontaneous language of motility--the language of the self found in purified forms of art and music.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">On the other hand, the objective domain of reality achieves synthetic integrity by symbolic interpretation as a <u>nomotheitc </u>construct and its language is essentially <u>nomographic</u>--which I prefer to call the <u>nominality</u> of reality, as no other word order in any language better conveys the contextual relativity of objectivity then the noun or name, which exists as a symbol of a static ideational construct of the present in time and space. Nominality is the responsive language of unity--the language of relationship--of communication with the other.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Together, the synthetic integration of the subjective and objective domains might be interpreted symbolically as being <u>holothetic</u> in structure, and it is expressed essentially in <u>holographic</u> symbolism--which is symbolic realism or realistic symbolism. It is the mentalistic functioning of the mind; intellection, the meaning of reality. What is reality? Reality is holothetic in its human meaning; such that any conceptual subsystem which touts any degree of completeness in truth about reality is "totipotent"--holographic in character--a rough, self contained "complete" picture of the "whole" reality. The integrity of reality is in a sense contained in a grain of sand.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The symbolism of nominality may be subdivided further into the physical language of mathematics and the metaphysical language of description. Mathematics is the language of the number--it is quantitative in character. The other language is descriptive; the language of the adjective and verb--in short the language of the word as metaphor as opposed to the number as metanym. It is more inclusive in that even numbers are words with meanings. It is essentially qualitative in character.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The true language of the physical "sciences" is mathematics in which there is an automatic preclusive criterion to meaning a fundamental and irreducible <u>one-to-one</u> correspondence of terms from the external consistency of actuality to the internal coherence of factuality. It would be nice if the necessity of mathematical correspondence theory of language of the physical sciences existed also in the language of the human sciences, but if and when it does, it does so a-posteriori to the fact of arbitrary human application. Physical language is the language of exclusion; metaphysical language is the language of inclusion. If simple extension of scientific language to essentially nonscientific fields of understanding were a necessity dictated not by contrived human standards but rather by objectively measurable physical reality, then it would be possible, as Descartes hopefully imagined, to turn the precision of the logic of mathematics and geometry upon the nature of human understanding, knowledge, language and ultimately philosophical systems of comprehension and theoretical systems of conceptualization, amenable to innately absolute, intrinsically unquestionable, a-priori laws of rationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This is exactly what is attempted in areas of economics, political science, religious science, scientific psychology, social science, social and structural anthropology, the philosophy of logic and logical and empirical positivism, etc. Every field of human understanding tends to be <u>over scientized</u> through exclusive dependence upon the independently exclusive language of mathematics. The inherent weakness of such an effort is the implicit denial of the irreducible relativity of human willpower in the consignment of meaning to words. There is no word uttered that lacks completely even the remotest possibility of subjective connotation, of emotional affect, of intrinsic and inclusive descriptive valuation, no matter how abstract that utterance is from the reality of daily interaction. Just as no word is uttered without some relative degree of value attached to that word, there is no such thing as a "science" of human behavior that is <u>value free</u>. Indeed attempts are systematically and regularly made to formulate just such a value free, mathematically precise understanding of human behavior, but the end result will always be only a very narrow range of understanding founded on only a very limited and overly restrictive and exclusive criterion of validity. The end result is a sterile and inhuman machination, without the beauty and transcendent aesthetic integrity that comes automatically with human emotional attachment and qualitative subjectivity. Qualitative subjectivity, just like quantitative objectivity, is necessarily automatic and preclusive criterion of validity in the human "sciences". If such subjectivity is openly accepted at face value it poses no problem whatsoever, but if it is denied it turns rationality upon itself into a closed system of defensive rationalization and becomes anathema to natural human value orientation. (While in the hard sciences we may look to the absolute ideal of cause and effect as in the Kantian notion of innate causality, in the empiricism of the human sciences the best we can hope for is the correlational approach in determining relative degrees of probability along a continuous dimension of affect rather than the strict experimental approach dominant in the physical sciences. How we divide this dimension and determine causality is wholly an arbitrary function. It is a problem of deciding which came first--the hen or the egg--when in reality we must look at the whole relationship as a dynamic process of continuity through time and space--while our attention to the understanding if the relationship is undivided by the necessity of predetermined causality. This is a recurrent theme throughout the understanding of human behavior.)</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I wish to elucidate the subdivision of the metaphysical realm of reality. I do not profess scientific truth, I am only speculating an alternative perspectives. Yet it is on the nature of <u>truth criterion</u> which I will base my subsequent analytic subdivision. The subdivisions of the metaphysical realm consists of four <u>paradigms </u>of reality. These paradigms are <u>philosophy, art, science, </u>and <u>humanism. </u>They are presented in respective order for reasons that will be elaborated later. These four paradigms share the same fundamental truth criterion is "<u>The willpower to believe in the relative truth if objective criterion for openness and communication"</u>. This criterion provides the philosophical integrity and unity between these four paradigms. In philosophy the objective criterion for openness and communication is the <u>relative certainty of probability</u> and the <u>possibility </u>of <u>speculation</u>. In art the objective criterion for openness and communication is affective self expression and creative conceptual realization. In science the objective criterion for openness and communication is scientific methodology itself--inter-subjective confirmation and falsification of sensual data. In humanism the objective criterion for openness and communication is ideological toleration in the widest context possible and understanding of universal human nature. This fourth paradigm I will discuss as the central thesis of the second part of this paper. Even though each paradigm is self contained in its truth criterion and presents a unified though incomplete version of reality, each in its alternative interpretation being essentially different in form and function from the other, all four are interrelated and interdependent and altogether present a unified comprehension of reality. There is a philosophy of art and science and humanism, there is an art of philosophy, science and humanism, there is a science of philosophy, art and humanism and there is a humanism of philosophy, art and science. This is the holothetic principle of reality. No one paradigm can adequately and completely substitute any of the other paradigms, and only when all are taken together do they form a complete totality of reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Where do I begin? Where I decide to start I believe to be irrelevant. It is primarily arbitrary, so long as I end where I want to be. So I will begin with the understanding of "will". No other species on earth can say "I will" like humanity can. Willpower is the starting point for belief in any systems of conceptioning. It is an act of will that decides whether one will choose to believe in the truth of God, of Buddha, of communism, in rationalism, in existentialism, in nihilism, in scientific methodology or in atheism. It is willpower which determines truth and determines that truth will always and forever be <u>relative</u> to the will to believe. If there existed such a thing as absolute truth in reality, then there wouldn't be so many people who believe so many different and often opposing truths. Absolute truth is like God, perfection and paradise--end products of wishful and vicarious imaginations. Even absolute truth is of necessity only relative.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">But then how can I account for the synergistic evolution of truth in the scientific system. It is not the discovery or creation of truth that we are witnessing in the advance of science. It is rather increased complication of our reality, increased simplification of our explanation prediction and control, and these increases have been founded upon only one essential element--<u>open communication</u> between people. There is a dynamic interaction between science and reality. It is not that our science has changed, but it is rather that our science has transformed our reality. It is because of the relative criterion of belief in truth in the paradigm of scientific methodology, including every philosophical perspective such a paradigm entails--whether Popper, Putnam, Kuhn. Lakatos, Easley or the logical empiricists--is founded upon inter-subjective or "objective" communication that it has been so successful in transforming and enlarging our relative reality. It is this same criterion of inter-subjective communication which can be applied as the appropriate criterion for relative truth in philosophy, science, art and humanism. It is because of the will to believe in the relative truths encountered within these different systems of conceptioning have not been founded upon <u>open communication</u> that there have been so many different competing philosophies, arts and ideologies. I am not "scientizing" philosophy, art or humanism in the traditional sense of the physical "weltanschauung" paradigm. Rather I have expanded the scientific paradigm to be based solely upon a new criterion for truth--the <u>openness of communication</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is important is <u>openness</u> and <u>communication</u> and that these provide just as important a truth criterion in philosophy, art, and humanism as they are in science. This criterion operates equally well in all these systems of conceptioning. It is when relative truth is not open and is not communicated that the will to believe transforms truth into untruth and deceit. Once any philosophy, art, science or humanism, as maintained, actualized, manifested, reflected and professed by its individual adherents, sports a will to believe that is no longer open or that cannot be communicated sensibly or logically to any normal person on earth, than it no longer has valid criterion as a "science" in the more general sense of the relative objective truth. I mean by openness first honesty--which is a very difficult thing to define because like truth it is so relative. It connotes to me the will to openness of meaning to others and the will never to believe in truth in the "absolute sense" (i.e. not to be self deceptive). Contrary to opinion, one can be open and utilize a will to believe at the same time. A set of beliefs does not automatically close the individual's mind. I mean by communication the criterion of interrelationship, inter-subjectivity at the conceptual level.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The exact nature of openness and the objectivity of communication varies in each general system if conceptioning. It is apparent that these criteria are as equally valid in each respective and different system of conceptioning and that while the different systems of conceptioning may be interrelated and inter-dynamic in function, no criteria of one system may be adequately substituted for the criterion of any other system. All the criterion system serve the same basic functions in description, explanation, prediction and control on the respective area than another.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is also apparent that I am not taking an atomistic or reductionist approach and that I am dealing with much more than just the interrelationships between the formal paradigm of natural science and the less formal paradigm of the human sciences. I am attempting to tie together philosophy, art, science and humanism in the hope that I may eventually arrive at the same definitive conclusion about the interrelationship between the natural and human sciences. I feel that these four systems of conceptioning are each a fundamental part of the whole conceptual egg I prefer to call reality or alternatively existence. Each system, though all interacting interdependently, serves a unique and different area and function in the nature of this egg and none can completely replace any other . They are all necessary. The important problem is not just to understand each system of conceptioning, but even more importantly to attempt to understand the interdependent relationships between all four systems. What ties them all together is <u>the will to believe in the relative truth of objective criterion of open communication</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">As an artist I believe there is much more truth to life and living than is purported implicitly within the narrow and extremely materialist paradigm of "science". Not all of the fundamental philosophical criterion which strictly applies to the natural sciences--objective methods of observation, controlled experimentation, validation, falsification, explanative theory construction and empirical prediction and control--readily cross over unmodified into the "human" realm of scientific investigation, without conscious <u>alteration</u> to fit <u>altered criterion</u> of <u>understanding</u> and <u>truth</u>. While it is most important to strive for the absolute standard of "scientific objectivity" in the natural sciences, it is not only inappropriate but wrong to deny the <u>importance</u> and <u>value</u> of <u>relative arbitrariness</u> of "human subjectivity" in the human sciences.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The ideal of parsimony which seems so appropriate in the natural sciences, does not automatically preclude understanding within the behavioral sciences. Problems arise, especially academia, when the <u>fundamental philosophical differences in truth criterion</u> between the two paradigms of science and humanism are lost sight of ad the strict positivist paradigm is over extended with only slight alteration in substitution of the somewhat looser criterion of human behavioral truth. Absent is the absolute character of scientific law in the study of human behavior. Abundant is the subjectivity and relativity of arbitrary interpretation and consignment of meaning. As an artist, I believe it is wrong to so strictly model the study of humanity upon the scientific model of understanding physical nature. Perhaps the scientist may one day borrow from the artist the ideal of aesthetic integrity as a substitute for the notion of natural parsimony in the quest for theoretical understanding of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Even more I must dispute the idea that the ultimate aim of prediction and control so stressed in the physical sciences is so important or primary within the human sciences, rather than simply being content with the quest for knowledge and understanding of human nature for its own intrinsic value. Just like art, such understanding is a human end in itself, a pursuit of pleasure, rather than being propagandized or subjugated as a means to some other motivation--political, economic or religious. While useful and appropriate under limited contexts, prediction and control of behavior must not be allowed to become a part of the same obsessive-compulsive social paranoia which has created and massed produced the multi-megatron MARV'd warheads of the triton class SLBM. The projected image of strict prediction and control by extreme behaviorism is too close to home in space and time to be anything but deadly frightening.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This is not to say that prediction and control have no place whatsoever in the humanistic paradigm, or for that matter all of the scientific methodological criterion can and has been in modified form made to fit well into the expanded human model of science. But we must be made aware of the modification from one fundamental criterion to the other. Nor is it to imply that no human field of study may be easily and arbitrarily systematized into a strict "pure science". Look closely at religious scientology, political science, the sciences of economics, sociology or logical positivism. One must be wary of the pitfalls of any such approach to the understanding of humanity. What is gained in the similitude of simplicity is lost in the import of valuable meaning.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While with the natural sciences the standards of objective criterion are a prime necessity, in the behavioral "sciences" such standards are rather arbitrarily <u>self </u>imposed rather than dictated by any form of natural a-priori determinism. The important word is <u>arbitrary</u>. This is the key concept which distinguishes strict natural sciences from the somewhat looser human sciences. After considering the press of environmental circumstances, the subtle subterfuge and over powering under currents of ulterior motivations, the hapless fate of fortune, the human being remains ultimately, to however diminished a degree, an <u>end product </u>of <u>self made willpower</u>. A human being still has ultimate control over destiny, even only if by suicide, no matter how slighted by other influences. It is this arbitrariness of the human willpower which allows the personality to be so unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is the lack of will which transforms a human being into a machine like automaton, allowing subsequent behavior to become so controllable and predictable.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I choose to concentrate on the humanistic paradigm. I choose to subdivide this into the anthropological (or, preferably, humanological) as a fictional humanistic reality, and into the ideological (or, alternatively, religious) field as a factual humanistic ideality. The transcendent symbolic reality of the humanistic paradigm, based as it is, on the fundamental human truth criterion of universal human nature and ideological <u>toleration</u> in the widest context possible (i.e., the whole of humanity) may be very curtly summed up by the statement, "To know me is to love me". The humanistic integration of anthropology and ideology is an all important crowning injunction on the philosophical definition of human reality. I will attempt to demonstrate what I feel to be the transcendent symbolic reality of both fields of anthropology and ideology by their respective subsequent subdivisions and then I will attempt to interpret how these transcendent symbolic realities of the <u>real</u> as <u>means</u> and the <u>ideal</u> as <u>ends</u> are synthesized together by defining the meaning of humanism.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I prefer to subdivide the field of anthropology into the sub-disciplines of psychology and sociology. After investigating psychology and sociology I personally became disenchanted and disillusioned with their public mystique of power and aura of officious authority over "truth". Both fields are too simply too culture bound and overly wrought with techniques of scientific reductionism for either or both to serve adequately as a broad basis for human understanding of human "nature". In short the philosophical premises on which these fields are founded are too narrow and ill defined to yield a complete understanding of humanity. Perhaps in part because of its marginal structure, the "second class" field of anthropology has transcended to some degree, though not without fault, these limitations. The philosophical premises of anthropology are adequate to serve as the basis for a relative complete understanding of "universal human nature". It is a sorry fate that anthropology must remain a background, peripheral, relatively unpopular and little understood field of inquiry, yet perhaps this humble virtue is in the long run its salvation. Anthropology is adequate and deserving as a field of transcendence over its sub-disciplines of psychology and sociology. The philosophical premises of the field of anthropology are much more general and openly inclusive than the premises of either psychology or sociology, which anthropology seems to adequately incorporate as sub-disciplines.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">As sub-divisions of anthropology, psychology and sociology are philosophically distinct and different yet they are interrelated in meaning within the anthropological field. In the definition and descriptive breakdown of these two subdivisions there are parallel dichotomies between each subdivision and subsequent transcendent integrities by which the symbolic reality of anthropology may be defined. I will break down the following definitions of psychology and sociology into the parallel dichotomic concepts and will elaborate the transcendent synthetic concepts by which the field of anthropology gains humanistic meaning.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anthropology is a synthesis of independent thetic psychological understanding and independent antithetical sociological understanding.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Psychology is/an anthropological sub-discipline, of the <u>particularistic</u> human understanding, of the <u>self</u> by the <u>idiothetic description</u> of <u>personality</u> in formal <u>stylizations </u>of <u>motivational meanings</u> of functional <u>sources</u> of <u>power</u>, <u>achievement</u> and <u>affiliation</u> and in <u>individualistic directional repertories</u> of <u>intelligence</u>, and <u>psycho-pathology</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Sociology is/an anthropological sub-discipline of the <u>universalistic</u> human understanding of the <u>other</u> by the <u>nomothetic definition</u> of <u>culture</u> in formal <u>configurations</u> of <u>relational significations</u> of <u>functional structures</u>, of <u>politics, economics</u> and <u>society</u> and in <u>collectivistic contextual models</u> of <u>civilization</u> and <u>socio-pathology</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anthropology is/an the <u>generalistic</u> human understanding of the <u>ego rationality</u> by the <u>holothetic interpretation</u> of <u>normality</u> in formal <u>patterns</u> of <u>behavioral symbolizations</u> of functional <u>systems</u> of status, security and <u>sociability</u> and <u>organismic conditional</u> <u>processes</u> of rat<u>ional creativity </u>and <u>behavioral irrationality.</u></p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Particularistic </u>human understanding. This is the understanding of unique human individuality of how and why all people are different and distinct. The scope is on the total spectrum of possible individual variations, determining so to speak the horizons and boundaries and limitations of possible human variation and differentiation. The emphasis is on the differences. This understanding is characteristically psychological, and in relationship to the humanistic paradigm it is thetical, independent and exclusive. On the other hand, <u>universalistic</u> human understanding is sociological in character an is therefore dependent, anti-thetical and inclusive of particularistic human understanding. In a sense one must understand the differences before one can understand the similarities. Its focus is understanding of the communities of human nature which make all humans similar and related, these human characteristics which are common to all humans and by which all humans achieve a common definition. The particularistic and universalistic ways of understanding are derived from the complication/simplification aspect the concept of epistemological self, and form the basic analytic dichotomy of anthropological understanding--that of universal human nature/unique human individuality. Anthropological understanding is the symbolic synthetic transcendence of this fundamental dichotomy, and in this respect may be said to be <u>generalistic</u> in character. While psychological understanding can elaborate on the empirical individuality of humanity, and sociological understanding, by assigning the individual a number, can derive a tautological and mathematical comprehension of the social nature of man the indifferent insect, the number, the statistic, the social animal, the problem of anthropology as a bridge between these two different analytic understandings is that it has neither the empirical consistency available to psychology nor the tautological coherence available to sociology. To become more empirically realistic, anthropology must sacrifice the predictive the parsimony of tautological rationality. To become more tautological, anthropology must sacrifice the predictive teleological applicability to reality. The only alternative left for anthropology is to what it in fact already is and in essence always has been, and that is the study of <u>generalization</u> about humanity. Though never tautologically perfect nor always empirically applicable, well constructed generalizations, founded not upon prejudice but upon understanding, have nonetheless a utility power and a theoretical unity which effectively and realistically transcends either particularization or universalization. An imperfect generalization is better than none at all when we must have some understanding from which to work, and the more self aware anthropology becomes as a field of generalization, perhaps the more generative it will become of ever better generalization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Self/other/ego reality</u>. The object of the <u>self</u> is the key symbol of the humanistic interpretation of psychology. It is derived a-posteriori directly from the a-priori concept of the epistemological self. Cogito Ergo Sum. There are two defining qualities if the a-posteriori self, that of <u>identity</u> and of <u>individuality.</u> Identity is derived from awareness if possible alternatives of how one can but isn't and individuality is derived from awareness of the choices one makes in the face of possible alternatives--identity as alternative self and individuality as chosen self. It is the consciousness of individual identity. The self concept is unique, ontological synergistic, organismic. It is also a thetic, exclusive and independent concept.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The concept of the <u>other</u> is antithetical, inclusive and dependent as an extension of the concept of the self. It is the key symbol of sociological understanding. The experience of the group is an indispensable extension of the self. While the self is to be seen as the source of spontaneity, the other may be viewed as reciprocal responsiveness. The human being is of necessity a social animal--it is the group that man gains his social identity. One person alone is a hopeless situation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Ego reality</u> is the synthetical transcendent symbol of the self/other dichotomy, defining the interrelationship between self and other as the heart of the basic dyad of humanity. In psychological terms it may be stated as the self-ego dyad in which the ego is the self defined in terms of the other. In inclusive sociological terms it may be stated as the ego other dyad, with the ego being the other defined in terms of the self. This concept is derived in part from the psychoanalytic conception of the ego as being the realistic integrator between the id and superego. In a sense ego is reality, while concepts of self are real fictions, to be understood only in terms of the ego reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Idiothetic description/nomothetic definition/holothetic interpretation. Idiothetic description</u> represents an alternative methodology and rationale than is usual in the general field of psychology, for understanding personality in idiographic terms of information about what an individual tends to do, not in direct contrast with what others tend to do, as in the case in differential psychology, but in direct contrast to that person's own identity--what that person tends not to do but could do. It is a rationale based squarely on the notion that the kind of person one is determined by the kind of person one is not but could be and is only incidentally and if at all, reflected in the kind of person someone else is. It is concerned exclusively with personality <u>development</u>, change and consistency rather than with comparison of the substance of individual's personalities. Comparison of attributes with the other concept is secondary and is actually a sociological approach, even though it is called differential psychology. Actually much of psychology looks at human behavior exclusively in a nomothetic framework, including behaviorists and scientific psychologists, and these are, at least as far as this philosophical outline is concerned, actually working under a sociological discipline. Again this concept of idiothetic description is thetical, independent and exclusive. It is derived directly from the idiographic concept of the self--the view that behavior is self determined. It is <u>descriptive</u> in as much as personality attributes characterizing the self are only ultimately describable as qualitative tendencies or pre-dispositions, as valuative nonentities rather than as real existents.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">On the other hand, <u>nomothetic definition</u> is a sociological, antithetical concept, dependent and inclusive of idiothetic description. It is derived from comparison and differentiation of the other concept between individuals. It is the statistical reification of the other as real fiction, focusing on inter-human interaction, interdependencies, and interrelationships with the aim at discarding differences and discovering similarities of character traits. It is definition of the roles, titles, foundations of the structural interstices which makes society cohesive.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Holothetic interpretation</u> is the synthetical transcendent concept. I have coined this word to fit this purpose of integration of two otherwise complementary yet analytically separate approaches to human understanding. It is my own formulation derived from the concept of holographic representation--four dimensional reproduction of reality in visual and sonal mediums. Peculiar properties of holograms are the interference patterns, the ability for any small portion of the plate to reproduce almost fully, with reduced sharpness and perspective, the whole picture and the potential tremendous storage capacity of information--a one centimeter cube to have superimposed multiple images throughout its thickness and at divergent angles, virtually a whole set of encyclopedias of information. I propose this to be yet another linking concept in the mind/body dichotomy. It is the bio-holographic model of brain function as proffered originally by Paul Greguess. It focuses on neuronal interconnections and chemical structure as replicating the form and function of holography, interference patterns existing throughout portions of the brain, explaining mental consciousness, the ability of such a small mass of brain tissue to reproduce perceptually with such four dimensional realism and integration so much information, and tremendous storage capacity, and also might help to explain the ability of the brain t retain mental integrity and generalize to some extent brain function inspite of brain damage. I propose to over extend this biological analogy one sociobiological step further with the concept of holothetic interpretation of ego reality. In sociobiological terms it might be a link between the unique human individuality/universal human nature dichotomy or alternately may serve as a model for integrating the culture and personality dichotomy between replication of uniformity and organization of diversity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Vaguely I will describe holothetic interpretations of ego reality as being the ability of the human ego to function sociologically as a fragment of a hologram, to some distinguished degree replicating with some degree of consistency the whole culture, being universally adaptable to any behavioral mode as it is, and with the ability of a person to give an ethnographer a relatively complete or whole rendition of his culture, while at the same time retaining complete individuality in stylization and integrity in cutting up the spectrum of all possible behavior patterns. While each person of a culture is distinct and different, each person retains simultaneously to some extent the gross characteristics peculiar and consistent to that culture.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Personality/culture/normality</u>. The psychological symbol of <u>personality</u> might be described as the real fiction underlying all psychology. For all the lip service paid to personology there is yet to be defined an adequately realistic model of the basic attributes of personality which can be applied to any and every person. Personality is the integrity of self (individuality and identity) on an abstract theoretical idiothetic plane involving definition of personality in terms of attributes, characteristics, and idiosyncratic behavior patterns. Even though it is a thetical, independent and exclusive <u>fiction</u>, it is nonetheless also a reality--the summation of self in pan human terminology. No matter how difficult it proves to get a firm grasp of "personality"--no matter how slippery the concept--it is nonetheless an existent in human reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The sociological symbol of <u>culture</u> is similar to personality, being equally difficult if not impossible to adequately define--though it is antithetical, dependent and inclusive of the concept of personality. It is akin to Ruth Benedict's concept of cultural configuration. It is the characteristic contiguity and continuity of the consistency of a culture. It might be characterized as the Modal personality approach or the basic personality structure of a culture.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The synthetical symbol of <u>normality</u> or "normal identity" as defined by the anthropological understanding if the ego reality holothetic interpretation is the real fictionality of integration in relationship between personality and culture. It might be called normal integrity between personality and culture. It is the normative concept of appropriate personal behavior in context to cultural standards, programs, morals or of cultural behavior patterns and organization in personalistic terms of convictions, values, beliefs. It is the personification of culture and the enculturation of personality. It is the reality of integration between culture and personality. I am implying a statistical average--and I mean just that and more than that. By abnormal I mean simply <u>deviation</u> from the "norm" not pathology, but either sub-normality or super normality. I am implying a range of personality co-variation within a continuum of culturally channeled behavior patterns. Normality is the "ordinary". It is a holothetic fictional reality in that there is no real such thing as a really "normal" entity, though some may approximate normality to the nth degree, or situation, and that all things are assessed personally and culturally in terms of normality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Formal <u>styles/configurations/patterns</u>. Individuals approximate styles, tendencies toward some individual idiosyncratic ideal. Groups of individuals come together to assimilate and approximate cultural configurations. Styles are thetical, exclusive and independent. Configurations are dependent upon styles, inclusive of styles and anti-thetical to styles. Between stylization and configuration holothetic "interference" patterns emerge. Humans in reality approximate and recapitulate patterns, gestalts, which are recognizable. Being recognizable, styles, configurations and patterns are formal abstract ideational entities, which nonetheless predetermine structure and function of personality, culture and normality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Motivational meanings/relational signs/behavioral symbols</u>. Motivational meanings are the psychological conceptions of self determination. It is thetical in the sense of being initiative and spontaneous. It is independent and exclusive to self. Motivational meanings are based on self awareness or self consciousness of individual needs. I propose a <u>need hierarchy</u> similar to Abraham Maslow's need hierarchy, but also instead as a linking concept between the mind/body dichotomy. It is a biological analogy to the epistemological hierarchical organization of knowledge from empirical percepts to abstract generalities, and it is also related to the classic Freudian psycho sexual divisions of human personality development--the oral, anal, phallic, and genital components and phases of human personality. Rather than being determined primarily in early childhood, this need hierarchy is continuously developing and motivationally active throughout the course of life. The oral phase is reinterpreted as stemming from the biological needs of urination and defecation, the phallic needs arise from ever present psycho sexual-psycho social needs of biological procreation. The genital needs are the meta-needs of sensory stimulation, perception, either sensory deprivation or sensory overload, and cognition, including the needs of self expression and self determination-decision making-the normative needs.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Relational signs</u> exist in the social environment as cues and directional modifiers and channelizers of psychological motivations. They are the vehicles of relation, communication and expression by which motivational meanings achieve context and meaning relative to the culture. Motivational meanings become <u>significant</u> only when they can be effectively attached to some relational sign. Relational signs are antithetical to, dependent upon and inclusive of motivational meanings.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Behavioral symbols</u> are the synthetic integrity of motivation, meanings and relational signs. They are the symbolization which not only induces and explains behavior, but they are symbolizing behavior itself. In the act of inter-subjective communication of motivational meanings the human being becomes a symbolizing creature.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Behavioral symbolism is probably the most conspicuous and pervasive aspect of human understanding. It provides a basis to the theoretical unification of the psychological and sociological schemes and the prevalent intra-disciplinary schisms under the appellation of social behaviorism. Behavioral symbolism is typically divided into three mutually inter-functioning and interdependent categories, but in reality these categories are analytical divisions of a multidimensional continuum of behavioral symbolization varying between the extremes of passive "liminality" of the unconscious reality and full blown physical expression in activity. This behavioral continuum is summed up by the words "Vachasa, Manasa, Kayena"--in thought, in speech, in deeds, The three analytical categories if this continuum are the cognitive, the emotive, and the connative. The behavior within each category influences and finds expression in each of the other three categories. All behaviors may be analyzed in terms of any one of these categories. Any one category can be applied to all behaviors. The important point is that in behavioral reality all three categories lie within a single multi-dimensional continuum, and to invoke any single category exclusively in ex-understanding human behavior to the ignorance of any other category is to separate theoretical explanation from the reality that is sought to be explained.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The <u>cognitive </u>behavioral category might be interpreted as lying on the continuum closer to the psychological motivational meaning end, with the tendency for explanation to the psychological in character, this independent, exclusive and iniatively thetical, but it must be remembered that it is in actuality within the anthropological behavioral symbolization mode of interpretation and as such is actually transcendent of the limitations of exclusively psychological explanation. Likewise, on the opposite extreme of the behavioral continuum the connative category can be thought of in context dependent and inclusive sociological terminology, as being antithetical to the cognitive category. Also the emotional category might be viewed as the transcendent synthetical anthropological category, as being in essence the integration between the underlying mind/body dichotomy implied by the two extremes. Behavioral symbolization is in essence the understanding of symbolically invoked <u>emotionality</u> as the basis of human behavioral expression. The behavioral continuum can be seen as a bridge between the self determined independent variable of spontaneity and the other determined dependent variable of responsiveness. The behavioral continuum is multi-dimensional in the sense that it expresses continuing mutual interaction between (a) the three "personality systems" of the psychological category, (b) the three behavioral "effects" of the emotive anthropological category and (c) the three past, present, and future environments of the sociological connative category. This is the dynamic continuum of relative contextuality which is the basis for theoretical unification of the human "sciences".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The cognitive category has been interpreted variously as the ideological super structure of Marxist dialectical dogmatism, or in social behaviorism as the language-cognitive process, and as the problem of antinomality, or as the problem of metaphysical ambivalence. It is also constructed as the supernatural realm.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The emotive category has been described as the sociologic-symbolic structure of human organization in dialectical materialism and in structural anthropology, as the emotional-motivational processes by social behaviorism, and by Geertz as the problem about suffering. It is also the human realm as mediator between the supernatural and natural.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The connative category includes the materialistic base of human social organization in Marxism,, as the sensori-motor processes in social behaviorism, and by Geertz as the ethical problem about evil. It is the natural realm.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is important to emphasize the importance of the openness and the holistic multi-dimensionality of the behavioral continuum. The hierarchical structure of epistemological knowledge is replicated in each of these dimensional categories. Behavior is one category achieves simultaneous expression in each of the other categories. Perhaps this might serve as the basis to Jung's concept of synchronicity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Functional sources/structures/systems</u>. Formal stylizations of motivational meanings are causally related to functional sources, likewise formal configurations of relational significations are causally related to functional structures, and finally functional sources and structures are integrated into <u>functional systems</u> of interaction causally related to formal patternings of behavioral symbolization. Sources are psychological, independent, exclusive and thetic. Structures are sociological, dependent, inclusive and antithetical. Systems are synthetic, transcendent and integrative. Just as form seems to determine function, so also does form follow function, in a cyclical interrelationship (the hen <u>and </u>the egg <u>system</u>).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Power/politics/status</u>. On <u>fundamental</u> source is thetic, independent exclusive psychological power motivation, which is defined as the impact and influence of the self upon the other, or in holothetic terms as the self directed ego. The fundamental functional structure of this power motivation is political structure (sociologically antithetical, dependent and inclusive), manifest and expressed in one form or another in all cultures. The principle transactional-exchange medium of power and politics is the <u>energy resource</u>. The functional behavioral system formed by the integration of power sources and political structures is the fundamental <u>status system</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Achievement/economics/security</u>. Another fundamental source is psychological achievement motivation, which is defined as the level of control and manipulation of material resources. The principle transactional-exchange medium is the <u>money resource</u>, into which all the material resources can be translated. The functional structure of achievement motivation is <u>economic</u> which is manifest in all cultures in one form or another. The resultant functional system is the fundamental <u>security system</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Affiliation/society/sociability</u>. Affiliation motivation is the third fundamental functional source. It may be defined as the level of interaction and interrelationship between self and other but with the emphasis on the impact of the other upon self, or as the other directed ego. The fundamental functional structure of this source is the <u>social structure</u>--the characteristic manner a culture divides and forms its social relationship. The principle transactional-exchange medium is the <u>time resource</u>. Can you spare the time? Affiliation motivation and social structure integrate to form the fundamental functional systems of sociability.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I wish to demonstrate at this point the complexity of the philosophical problem of comprehensive definition of human reality, which this outline has attained at this "functional" level, which I will call the holothetic multidimensionality of the functional problem. While power, achievement, and affiliation may be seen as exclusively psychological in understanding, and politics, economics and social structures may be understood as inclusively sociological, while sociability, status and security may be considered anthropological, at the same time all three sources, structures and systems can be seen as interaction and interdependent--affiliation may be described in terms of power and achievement, politics is interdependent with economics and social structure. Status is dependent upon security and sociability. The resources of time, energy and money may be translated into one another. These are analytical classifications, and in reality they are all integrated within a single, whole multidimensional system. At the same time the power/politics/status system may be analyzed as being primarily psychological in character, while achievement/economics/security system might be viewed as antithetically sociological, and the affiliation/society/sociability might be characterized as anthropological understanding, at least from a behavioral perspective. These functional system might be summarized as the universal human quest for "God, Gold and Glory". Francis Hsu has included the concept of the three S's (status, security, and sociability) as the basis for a pan cultural definition of normality).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Individualistic directional repertories/collectivistic contextual models/organismic conditional processes</u>. Functional sources are determined by the repertories available to the <u>individual</u>, his abilities and capacities, and they are <u>directional</u> in the sense of being diachronically ordered and of being either self directed or otherwise. Psychological <u>directionality</u> is thetical, independent and exclusive in understanding. Functional structures are likewise determined by <u>models</u> or <u>conformity</u> which are existent or are possible, understanding defining and being defined by the sociological contextuality, antithetical, dependent and inclusive.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Organismic conditional processes</u> increases the complexity of the philosophical problem of defining human reality by one order of magnitude greater than that level expressed by the holothetic multidimensionality of the dynamic continuum of behavioral symbolism. In defining the functional system, our definition is going to be determined by the anthropological understanding of the conditionality of those behavioral systems by the prevailing <u>organismic processes</u>. These organismic processes can be analytically divided into two conditions, which I will most generally call healthy as a positive organismic process and pathological as negative organismic process. Now health is more than merely an absence of pathology, it entails a qualitatively different process of being, but pathology, in my mind at least, can be viewed in the negative terms of an absence of health. Health and pathology, defined in humanistic terms of psychology, sociology and anthropology, as an alternative organismic processes are to be thought of in terms of the positive conditions of <u>intelligence/civilization/rational creativity</u> and in negative conditions of <u>psycho pathology/socio pathology/general pathology</u>. But more than the negative and positive conditions the conditionality of organismic processes entails the imposition of <u>four</u> prevailing <u>meta types</u>, which might be thought of as the minimum possible requirements for parsimonious construction of theory of human reality. I will call these four meta types oral, anal, phallic and genital, but I wish to avoid the psychoanalytic connotations of these terms. I do not mean to imply the psycho sexual components of personality even though these components may be indirectly related. It is more related to the conception by R. Buckminster Fuller of the tetrahedron as being the minimal-maximal coordinate system employed by nature. In modeling theoretical reality these four meta types serve as the four interrelated vertices of tetrahedron, which are the minimal number of vertices equally interrelatable. I am not claiming any sort of "natural" discovery, I am only asserting the possibility that the conceptual model of the tetrahedron, as the minimal 3-D projection of the equilateral triangle, is the most parsimonious possible in theoretical reconstruction of reality. This model incorporates the triangular interrelationship of the analytic, synthetic and synthesis, which in turn might be used to account for the hierarchical structure of knowledge recurrent throughout this model, extended one dimension more to form an organizational complex of a <u>pyramidal hierarchy</u> as the minimal structure extending in negative and positive directions from a single point of origin, and this pyramidal hierarchy can also be used as the minimal model for describing the cyclical positive and negative spirals in the temporal dimension such as the vicious cycle. Negative-positive feedback loops.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I do not intend to imply that the structure of the tetrahedron is the a-priori necessity dictated by metaphysical truth or epistemological self, that it is the necessary basic structure of either physical or metaphysical reality, but only that I believe that the concept of the tetrahedron is possibly the most useful and parsimonious theoretical model within which the otherwise overwhelming complexity if the philosophical understanding of human reality may be most adequately and optimally represented.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I have found recurrent the utilization of four "meta types" employed for understanding humanity. McClelland used these four types in his description of power motivation, and I believe these four types can be extended to achievement motivation and affiliation motivation as well. These four types are indicative of a more theoretically general meta types that might have been more adequately described by Magorah Maruyama as causal meta types of classificational, random, homeostatic and morphogenetic with corresponding epistemological mindscape types H, I, S, and G. These four types represent theoretically fundamental orientations by which all human personality and culture may be adequately understood. Let me emphasize that these four meta types are in a sense perfect theoretical pre-dispositions--they do not exist in human reality personified by a perfect H, I, S and G. All human share traits of all these meta types, no human is absolutely pure in type. The types are <u>potentially</u> concurrently present in all human beings. I wish to emphasize though that these are arbitrary theoretical classifications, they do not exist in human reality, if they can be found theoretically useful, then that is enough. I am not trying to force their empirical validity, rather I am merely trying to suggest the possibility of their rational utility. They are not even human in the sense of categorizing personality types within them, they are rather categories for the organization of theoretical knowledge which may or may not be applicable to personalities. In a sense they are developmental stages, as each higher stage is theoretically incorporative of the previous stages, and yet they are developmentally diachronic. I wish also to express the holothetic multidimensionality of these four stages, as all are expressible in dimensions of other stages and all are interrelated to form the whole. If these four coordinate system forming a tetrahedron were used as a classificational system of people, then it might be possible to locate the coordinate of a single person's personality anywhere within the space bounded by the tetrahedron and the sum of distances from that point to the surfaces of the tetrahedron would be equal to the height of the tetrahedron.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Oral type I-Epistemological mindscape type H, homogenistic, hierarchical, causal meta type classificational, philosophical metaphysical modality, other-source, self-object, power deriving from support.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anal type II-Epistemological mindscape type I, heterogenistic, individualistic, causal meta type random, artistic metaphysical modality self-source, self-object, autonomy, will, self-control.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Phallic type III-Epistemological mindscape type S, hetereogenistic, interactional, causal meta type homeostatic, scientific metaphysical modality, self-source, other-object, assertive, competitive.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Genital type IV-Epistemological mindscape type G, heterogenistic, interactional, causal meta type morphogenetic, humanistic metaphysical modality, other-source, other-object, genital mutuality, it moves me to serve others.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It may be found that these four types correspond too the need hierarchy I have earlier described, that it is the motivational source of these predispositions, thus giving them some foundation in empirical reality, but it must be emphasized that these types and the corresponding needs are not fixed stages of psycho sexual or psycho social development, but are rather continuous in source and influence and therefore are continuously adaptable and alterable throughout life. These types cut across all personalities, all share attributes of each type, it is just that some typical tendencies are more stressed within the personality <u>matrix</u> than any other typal disposition.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Intelligence/civilization/rational creativity</u>. I have found intelligence defined in many different ways. The ability to solve problems, the ability to learn, to remember, to understand, to form concepts, to think effectively, as academic achievement, as being what intelligence tests measure. The point of the matter is that there really is no physically existing entity that is "intelligence"--it is primarily an arbitrary meaning based upon the definer's point if view. Conventional definitions of intelligence are culture bound. To call a dog more intelligent than a snail, and a chimpanzee more intelligent than a dog, is really to say nothing meaningful at all, but is rather a projection of what some humans believe to be intelligent upon the natural behavior of completely incomparable species, and so also with cultures. Definition of intelligence is in the first place an arbitrary matter, and in the second place it depends entirely upon the cultural prejudices and biases in relation to which it is to be evaluated and interpreted. We live in a time obsessed culture. Amidst so much social complexity and so fast change, time becomes utmost in our valuations of the basic elements in our lives. This is reflected again in our intelligence testing--the rate of learning, the rate of appropriate response--how "fast" or how "slow" a person is. But why must the efficient use of time be construed as a primary indicator of "intelligence"?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In our culture which so reinforces and values so competition, egoism and status seeking, it is no wonder that intelligence has come to be so highly valued as the ultimate "trait" any human being can be endowed with. There is an extremely high correlation between intelligence and verbal competencies. To be shy or to have a speech impediment or to have been raised in a cultural environment of linguistic deprivation is automatically and preclusively to have low "intelligence" as well.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">But how are intelligence and language strongly correlated? It is taking the truth criterion of language in pursuit of the ideal of mathematical correspondence in which a purely logical system of rationalization follows from a purely iconographic representational set of names with assigned absolute meanings. It is creating an arbitrarily imposed "value free" language the mastery of which determines not only intelligence, but virtual social classification as well. Ultimately intelligence measurement cannot be completely separated from the interdependent relationship to value measurement--the so called "ethical quotient". The meaning which gives life to the concept of intelligence cannot be absolutely divorced from its primary dependence on arbitrary value orientation and the virtual openness of qualitative frames of reference. Like language intelligence is dependent on open communication and actual performance. Hidden potentiality is virtually unmeasurable. It stresses differential access to conventionalized and standardized forms of meaning to the neglect of imaginative possibilities of individualized interpretations. The quality of the word is relative to the speaker or the listener. It varies infinitely, though not unintelligibly, from individual to individual, from culture to culture, in relative context to interpretation from varied standpoints.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Our intelligence tests are based on the ability to communicate effectively. If there is poor communication, then there is poor intelligence. There is no way to test or to evaluate in context of social interrelationship possible nonverbal forms of communication. Intelligence tests are constructed of words. Schools run on words. Sciences consist of words. In the beginning was the word. In the end will be the word. Words are the fundamental building blocks of our conceptual (metaphysical) reality. The fundamental truth criterion of tests, theories and civilization is communication. It takes at least two people to make an intelligence test, a language, a science, a state or a species. Open communication, unhindered, and encouraged and virtually unlimited access to mutual understanding as well as general knowledge, is the single most important key to paradise in our Brave New World of so many unresolved social problems. Communication is the most essential premise underlying all truth criterion no matter what field or area of conceptualization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Ultimately intelligence testing can only measure levels of achievement of desirable social competencies to the ignorance of other possible possibilities. In as much as testing is based exclusively upon achievement, in terms of the ability to communicate effectively, intelligence measurement is a valid estimate of environmental factors in development of personality and especially cultural variables. Conventional definitions of intelligence which are basically nomothetical sociological comparisons across groups of different individuals and classifications to assess the individual's potential social "utility" value, are based upon a formal analogy of the computer--the intellectual is supposed to be computer like, with tremendous storage capacity, instantaneous recall, fast and accurate automatic mathematical manipulation of big numbers--or else the "intellectual" amounts to being no more than the complete social animal--with the "gifts" of charisma, "the gift of gab", decisive authority, a neat and beautiful appearance, a dedicated believer--in short the students who are the loudest, who have the most impressive and sophisticated speech patterns, use the biggest words, work the hardest, attract the most attention, know the most trivia, get the most "A's". Ultimately there is no way to measure innate intellectual abilities, as distinguished from acquired competencies.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Definition of intelligence and its measurement of performance of acquired skills is an area that is extremely susceptible to influence by culturally biased valuations and prejudices. Lets take "intelligence" for what it really means. It is a convenient and extremely useful <u>tool</u> for <u>social classification</u> and as such it is one of the most vile manifestations of that internal form of infra-societal racism which separates ethnic groups and lower and upper classes, the "beautiful people" from the "ugly ones". To be given an IQ score on the basis of wholly arbitrarily constructed tests founded upon some other person's valuations amounts to be tattooed with a number upon one's forehead, being irreversibly ranked and classed as to social usefulness--a classification from which it is extremely difficult if not impossible to escape from. It amounts to be classified as to inherent social "superiority" or "inferiority". There is no way to remove from the meaning or intelligence this infrasocial racial connotation of status. Ultimately there is no way of completely separating the meaning of intelligence from social valuation. Intelligence measures become the reality, after the fact of acquisition and demonstration of measurable competencies, only in so much as they are accepted as true and believed in without question.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Intelligence becomes a hindrance or the gateway to achievement only in so much as the individual and his culture allows it to be one. Ultimately intelligence is a function of willpower. Now I am not saying that there is no such thing as "mental retardation" with an organic, physiological, psychological, behavioral or sociological basis in reality, nor that there aren't the occasional child prodigies who are in their own way as abnormal and limited as the retarded. But talents and "gifts" are after the fact of their demonstration, and usually if an individual has not culturally inherited those "gifts" at an early age, then that person is very unlikely to receive such cultural endowment or social investment from anyone else unless he/she willfully and painstakingly gives the gift of intelligence to himself/herself.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">For the normal human being there is a broad range of potential human behaviors by which intelligence can be defined. In general the more complex a culture might be said to be, the broader the possible range of selection of behaviors. In so much as intelligence tests bracket only a very narrow range of the individual behavior into arbitrary and culturally prescribed categories in <u>comparison</u> to many others in his culture--intelligence tests fail to adequately evaluate the individual's full range of potential behaviors.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Defining intelligence is as difficult as it is to define personality. To label a personality as being "unintelligent" amounts to the same thing as calling that personality "worthless". Now it depends upon one's philosophical orientation, but to me there is no such thing as a worthless person. Human beings are ends in themselves, not the means to any other end. Intelligence is as uniquely individual and as culturally diverse as are personalities. Intelligence might be thought of as the summarizing valuation of a personality. In as much as there are no two personalities exactly the same, so too there are no two intelligences exactly the same. Intelligence tests can only measure behavioral similarities, it ignores the diversity. In this sense then I consider intelligence as a wholistic, integrative form of function of the individual, and not just as being one narrow aspect of the total inventory of personality traits. Intelligence is wholly idiographic; different and distinctive to each personality. To divorce the definition of intelligence from that individual frame of reference is to lose the real meaning of that term.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Intelligence is a relative thing--to the individual personality and culture--there is no a-priori absolute rational form of "intelligence in nature or manifest in any human behavior--and there is no valid assessment of intelligence without through understanding of the individual personality and the cultural context. It is all right to speak of the intelligence of a bee or snail or dog, or chimpanzee or of cultural intelligence of each of these species, but it is not right to compare the relative intelligence between a bee, a dog, or a chimp, without imposing arbitrarily and artificially contrived human valuations on the meaning of intelligence. Intelligence is species specific (and individually and culturally specific as well). A dog can be said to have dog like intelligence. The intelligence of a human being can likewise be said to be "human like".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I will risk my definition of the meaning of intelligence, one that I don't think can be substantiated by the usual scientific methodology, and if because of this it must be considered worthless from a scientific point of view, it is no less valuable to me in my attempt to understand human behavior. Just like the human psyche, human intelligence has two components, a conscious one and an "unconscious" one, even though standard tests tend to measure only the conscious, communicated, preeminently verbalizable manifestations of intelligence, in fact the "unconscious"--"unverbalizable" portion of intelligence constitutes at least half if not most aspects of what I believe to be individual intelligence. Intelligence can be manifested as much by fantasy and imagination as through general knowledge. In this sense intelligence represents a complete and ultimately unfathomable range of potentiality of possible human development for acquiring and learning mental capacities and skills, including all possible deviations and variations of human behavior that has ever been evinced in the history of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Manifest, conscious intelligence must have a high correlation with open mindedness. To me it is logically impossible to be considered intelligent and close minded at the same time. Intelligence, understanding and comprehension is a relative function of the relative degree of open mindedness--freedom from prejudices and ignorance. Even more intellectual capacity is a function of the ability for an individual to behave for himself and to make conscious and conscience decisions independent of the will of others. Unconscious intelligence, likewise, must be correlated highly with intuitive capacities, with the state of liminality. It is difficult for me to believe that those "bright" students who are so academically proficient in reading the instructor and in playing with the curriculum can at the same time be considered as more intelligent when they are often more narrow minded in their outlook and lack a mind of their own.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There then is in my mind no realistic way to divorce from intelligence the value connotations upon which its social meaning is derived. I have proffered an idiographic definition of intelligence from an independent and exclusive psychological viewpoint, now I shall also proffer a cultural definition of the intelligence of humanity--as a single biological and behavioral species--and this definition is to be found strongly related to the concept of "ethical quotient". In a cultural definition of intelligence, whether explicitly recognized as such or only tacitly presumed, there is no way to separate out the influence of subjective valuation. What is to be considered from a sociological or cultural standpoint as intelligent or unintelligent is automatically to be considered good or bad, right or wrong, beneficial or malevolent, healthy or pathological, normal or abnormal, rational or insane. There is no separating the meaning of one set of normative concepts from any of the others in the relational contextuality of nomothetic understanding sociology entails. In this sense intelligence can be said to be a function of authoritarianism and conventionalism.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The cultural form of intelligence I think can be boiled down to the idea of the openness of communication, or the capacity for such openness, implying the ability to express oneself effectively, to be honest and trusting and especially important to be aware of and sensitive to the needs, feelings and valuations of others--as opposed to the ignorance and prideful apathy which underlies prejudice, bigotry,, bias and leads to racism and discrimination and fascism and hate and war and death and destruction. I cannot accept the idea that a person cold and insensitive in communication, relation and interaction with the presence of others, or who are otherwise "out of tune" with their own sensitivities and feelings, or who cannot pet a dog or enjoy a sunrise, can be construed in any way as culturally intelligent. Humanism as an ideology, a belief in fundamental human innocence and virtue, in unalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in human justice and equality, is the essential basis of the meaning of human intelligence in a pan cultural context. To the extent that an individual incorporates this fundamental humanism in transcendence of specific cultural biases and prejudices is that individual to be considered intelligent from a pan cultural perspective.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Also strongly related to the idea of human cultural intelligence as a single behavioral species is the evolutionary emergence of technological civilization through rational creativity, communication and social integration. It is to do with the discovery of "truth" in the sense that Mahatma Gandhi meant and with the wisdom of Gandhi to see that underlying all cultural intelligence must be a basic <u>trust in life</u>, in the form of <u>love</u> and that ultimately pacifism is the ultimate political expression of this cultural intelligence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The relativity of intelligence is denied as much as the relativity of language is denied. The beauty of personality is deformed or conformed to fit a standard mold of a highly socialized character stereotype, incorporating only a very narrow range of potential human behavior or personality deviation. As much as the beauty of language becomes lost to dictionary forms, lost in intelligence measurement is the strength of individuality, the subjective and qualitative valuation of personality, the natural inquisitiveness and will to become better and the creativity of Homo Ludens. Even more human cultural intelligence is almost synonymous with creativity. If one is not aware of the crucial role played by creativity in the evolution of human civilization, then there is no use even reading this. Creativity is adapting reality to fit human needs, a measure of human spontaneity and willpower rather than mere responsiveness to environmental or cultural conditions. Creativity is not only one, essentially nonverbal, form of human competence, i.e., innate intelligence, but as an artist I believe it is the highest level of intelligence or genius to which any individual with free will may aspire. It is creativity as much as language which has brought civilization forth from the womb and the cave. Creativity as much as language is what distinguishes "civilized" from "primitive" mentalities of humanity. Creativity is the truth of human genius.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The cultural definition of intelligence is best summarized by the name of <u>civilization</u>. There is the prejudice that civilization is essentially culturally biased, that civilization connotes the western historical tradition of civilization. Civilization is by its very meaning transcultural. The benefits of civilization are readily assimilated into every culture. Televisions, medicine, photographs--these are worldwide phenomenon. Civilization is not a thermo-nuclear warhead or Dachau--these things are anti-civilization. Civilization is much more than just scientific and technological. The symbolic meaning of civilization can best be analyzed in the descriptive terms of the four metaphysical paradigms which I have proffered. These four paradigms, the philosophical, artistic, scientific, and humanistic, are the cornerstones to the metaphysical foundations of civilization--as cultural intelligence. The ordering of these four paradigms is important when we consider the synergistic, synthetic symbolic nature of the meaning of civilization as a developmental continuum of human "culture" in general. All paradigms are interrelated and inter-developmental stages or components of civilization. They are not necessarily sequential from one stage to the next, but they are concurrent, with a shift on emphasis from one stage to the other. The humanistic stage is the culminating maturity level consisting of adequate resolution and harmonization of all stages. All are evidenced in every personality structure--intelligence--and in every cultural configuration-civilization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Having defined personality intelligence and cultural civilization as meaning the positive individualistic directional repertories and as positive conformist contextual models, that these are in essence the psychological and sociological valuations of health, and having implied that creativity and communication is the ultimate expression of intelligence and civilization, I will next proffer a definition of rational creativity or of as being the synthetic anthropological holothetic definition of positive organismic conditional processes--ultimately the anthropological definition of healthy behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Creative rationality </u>or<u> rational creativity</u> might be misconstrued as an impossible combination of opposites. Where creativity seems to entail a temporary suspension of rational thought, a suspended state of unconscious liminality, on the other hand rationality demands full if not heightened consciousness. The root of rationality is the consciousness of communication. Thought and language, though very much interrelated, and lying upon a single dimension of human behavior, are not exactly synonymous. While language deeply influences and helps to determine the structure and form of expression our thought will take, it can at no time ever take the place of thought without inducing closure of rationality and denying the truth criterion of openness. Take for instance nonverbalized forms of thought and expression and experience, especially in the case of imaginative possibilities. While language determines the probable direction and forms of expression of our thoughts, it is a-posteriori to human arbitrariness, not an a-priori predetermined necessity rooted innately in human nature. Verbalized language does not automatically preclude all possible directions our imagination might take. We can indeed privatize our language to a secret and verboten realm of internal truth, and this happens more often than not, within manmade social boundaries and classification systems, but it does so at the sacrifice of openness of communication.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">One problem with a privatized language is that it denies access to those who have not acquired that language competence. Acquisition of that private language is guaranteed access to that closed community and internalized significances of meaning. Privatized language is not founded upon the truth criterion of open communication. Innate human language capacity is rather limited. Social language is a means of transcendence--creating potentially unlimited reservoir of terms and concepts with which to give virtually unlimited expression to our open ended imaginations. Writing as a form of social communication allows transcendence over our own innate limitations, as does our scientifically based understanding and our technological inventions allows us physical mastery over our severe innate physical limitations. Without writing, the evolution of technological civilization would be impossible. Communication of expression creates not only the subjective identity of the person and the external reality outside that person, but ultimately it is the very fabric of that reality. It is the act of relationship between that mind-body dichotomy undermining all philosophy--integrating and synthesizing a unity of identity that is reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I propose the "theory of creativity" as being the key to understanding universal human nature, and in a sense this rational creativity is a metaphysical expression of the physical biological creativity which is the key to the survival and evolution of the human species. It implies anthropological, psychological and sociological adaptability to change, which is considered an essential quality of reality. It is rational creativity which separates humanity from all other biological species, which has enabled the singular anti-entropic evolution of human civilization, which is at the heart of personality intelligence. Understanding rational creativity is essential to understanding the health and pathology of humanity--of the personality and the culture. The "theory of creativity" provides the philosophical and theoretical unity for understanding universal human nature, for unifying the fields of human understanding, namely anthropology, psychology and sociology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Unfortunately what is considered to be culturally "intelligent" human behavior is often times contrary to the meaning I have just given to personality intelligence and civilization, in as much as prejudice and closed mindedness influence such a cultural definition--intelligent behavior is considered to be the epitomization or exemplary reinforcement behavior of the cultural values and pre-established and significant conventions. Now look and see what harm our own "civilized" culture has done to such a meaning. Such a definition would stress the values of human cooperation and individuation, but we find the prevailing values to be primarily competitive. Effective and successful intraspecies competition is erroneously judged on the grounds of social Darwinism--"survival of the fittest"--to be the cultural intelligence of our system. Such competitiveness and need for success and fear of failure, our obsessive-compulsive predilection for competition, precludes and undermines the notions of equality upon which effective cooperative behavior is based. Not one useful or valuable thing has come about through intraspecies competition--only aggression, murder, injustice, inequality. Underlying this obsessive-compulsive social pathology is a Malthusian philosophical orientation based on the idea of limited access to resources and a world view of limited good. The "just world" hypothesis is a conceptual system of rationalization, a cultural ego defense mechanism hiding the reality of the fundamental injustice of this capitalistic system. The cultural behavior misconstrued as intelligent is really very unintelligent.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Civilization is not necessarily determined by the level of complexity a culture has attained, although in a very relative sense these are strongly correlated. Simple "primitive" cultures are to be construed as being more intelligent and civilized than many sophisticated "civilized" societies if they promote peace and equality and a relatively better condition of social welfare than the more complex culture. The Nazi super race might well be construed as one of the most uncivilized and barbarous cultures ever to have existed. Civilization is a metaphysical summation, a symbolic metaphor, not a reality to be measured by any absolute values. Our civilization would be more so and is actually less civilized than we want to believe because we are continuously beset with social afflictions, pollution, poverty, prejudice, ignorance, fanaticism, social pathology, which we have not yet adequately solved. Civilization is a relative thing. It might be generally true that the net world wide summation of civilization has been to increase the level of complexity of our reality quite substantially and possibly quite beyond natural human bounds to cope with such accelerated changes and complexity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Psychopathology/sociopathology/behavior irrationality</u>. I will in the next part of this work elaborate upon the philosophical problem of pathology. Here I will define it as the negative conditionality of otherwise positive health. I am implying a "rational model of pathology as being essentially "irrational". Rational creativity is healthy, generative, life oriented, growing, integrative, creative. Pathology is irrational, regressive, degenerative, death oriented, fear motivated, maladaptive, perseverative, projective, other dependent, destructive. While health may be looked upon as progressive in the sense that it is continually adaptive to constant and inevitable change, pathology is regressive not in the sense of actual temporal retrogression but rather is only seen as regressive from the healthy standpoint of progression--failure to adaptively change and maladapative perseveration and eventual frustration of obsolete behavior patterns. The basic source of health is willpower--it takes two forms--that of creation, birth, eros, life giving, or the negative of destruction, death, thanatos, life taking. The source of pathology is seen as fundamentally a failure of rational creativity or creative rationality, it has a "rational" pathogenesis. The idiothetic psychological definition of psychopathology, as thetical, independent and exclusive is complemented by the antithetical dependent and inclusive nomothetic sociological definition of <u>sociopathology</u>, which has little addressed and ill defined. Anthropological holothetic definition of synthetic general irrationality is the transcendent symbolic synthesis of psychopathology and sociopathology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">"Vachasa, Manasa, Kayena". This is the rational ordering of self determined human behavior. First they is willpower. Thought precedes expression and expression precedes action. All are related and flow into each other upon a gradually graded continuum of rationality ordered human behavior. This problem with our predominating systems of rationalization is that this rational order is reversed, letting our actions determine our expression which in turn determines our thoughts and finally our wills. This is what happens if we allow ourselves to have no self made willpower, but will ourselves to be willed from without by others. This becomes brainwashing, in which our arguments and thoughts become systems of rationalization for essentially irrational behavior. This is what happens when we deny responsibility for our own thoughts, speech and actions, blaming eternal causes, projecting responsibility upon an unreal (i.e. ideal) social ideology, or attributing causality to a whole plethora of mysterious and virtually unaccessible subconscious motivations. It is like putting the cart in front of the horse.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Why is this unnatural reversal of natural ordering of rational human behavior. They are systems of defense. Psychology has always influenced philosophy as much as psychology remains rooted to philosophical tradition. Closed systems of rationalization in defense of an ideology, in support of unrealistic and primarily arbitrary ideals of absolutism, in covert denial of relativity, designed to perseverate indefinitely into the future human behaviors, especially social and cultural patterns, which over time become maladaptive and counter rational in resistance to the inevitability of universal change. But not for everyone is such perseveration maladaptive or disadvantageous. It becomes a system of defense in support of the decisive effects of profit of a privileged few to the gross neglect of the many and the cumulative effect of protection of the security of all to the unwitting and unwilling neglect of their own potential becoming.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The implication of the preceding paragraph is one of a primarily parasitical interhuman relationship in which a few gain selective and privileged advantage to the disadvantage of the many, and a pathological pattern of regressive social behavior in as much as a culture clings ideologically to the past in denial of the inevitability of current change and future possibilities. Even in our own glorified super post industrial service economy of a rising and stabilizing "middle class", there actually exists a predominating and ruthless class structure, a very fundamental authoritarian division between the upper and the lower class, found in any state, between a few haves and many have nots. The situation is not rectified by the existence of a "middle class", it is only glossed over and moderated. A potential source of social disruption, the capitalists have found it wise to detoxify the boundary line between those in authority and the slave class through commercialism, mass media manipulation, advertising, and the material illusion of health, wealth and happiness. It is fundamentally a political problem. The middle class is a neatly contrived name hiding the reality of fundamental state organization by a middle class division of authority and privilege. People are either upper lower class or lower upper class. Middle class is nothing more than a connotation of an artificially induced ideology of the work ethic, work to make more work, of materialism, of ego gratification, social conformism, cultural conventionalism, prejudice, ignorance, racial and social intolerance, alienation, desperation, artificial transience, loneliness, deindividuation depersonalization, dehumanization, authoritarianism, institutionalism, and virtual spiritual and aesthetic impoverishment--in short psychopathology, sociopathology and general pathology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The primary mechanism of transcendence of the class structure, of rising from the bottom, is education. Through education people are able to improve their social status--their inherited cultural investment. Here the connection is one of the close relationship of language to intelligence, not as it is intrinsic to the individual human personality, as a potentially rooted as much in imaginative possibility as in conceptual linguistic reality, but rather the intelligence as it is demonstrated in academic <u>performance</u> (based on an atmosphere of competition and contrasted to learning) of previously acquired skills and the acquisition of competencies, and as it is manifested by artificially and arbitrarily contrived intelligence testing. The argument here is one of the intelligence test as being primarily a means of social classification, and it is closely related with the idea of the educational system as being an artificially superimposed social selection system. The two work together, alongside the conservative "middle class" ideology of innateness, inheritance, naturally acquired competencies and capabilities, the work hard ethic, and of a "just world" majority morality, to create a very subtle process of manipulation and control of thought, expression and behavior to conformity to the conventional ideology. Here is the cumulative Pygmalion effect of a long line of venerable authoritarian gatekeepers upholding and reinforcing the values of their "system", the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, in intellectual and spiritual endowment and investment as well as preferential access to differential resources.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Since the writing of "Crito" there has been in the western tradition of civilization a philosophical seed of misunderstanding and general social pathology in regard to the relation between the individual and the state which has had a profound influence upon our historical heritage. So many people's lives have been victimized and sacrificed unnecessarily, uselessly and unjustly. To say that the state rightly predominates the life of the individual is to make that fundamental top dog predominance of the authoritarian side of human personality the prevailing form and function of human behavior and a political reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Rooted in the organic physiology of the human brain and with the paradox that all normal humans share a universal similarity and at the same time are unique and infinitely variable--in the neuronal connections and firing patterns, molecular inter-dynamics and bioholographical form and function--are the origins of dreams, fantasies, imagination, comprehension, perceptual sensibilities, of art and science, and the mutual integrated understanding of language; the thought process which spark meanings into empty words. This is the common deep structure of universal human nature which ties together all aspects of human behavior. It is not to say that just because humans don't always communicate intelligibly that they can't. It is to believe all humans can possibly and potentially communicate and understand each other and hopefully some day will. Rooted in the inherent inter-subjective nature of communication--as dependent of human perception--in the arbitrary construction of terminologies--iconographic naming of all things perceived and perceptible--is the word and beginning of language and of all imaginable or possible conceptual systems of symbolic integration.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The <u>human reality</u> of <u>verbality</u>. It is deeply related to the expression and communication of human becoming or realization of potentiality. It implies motion, movement, change--dynamic as opposed to static. It is the dynamic interrelationship and interfunctioning between these two realms of organic materially fundamental deep structure of the incommunicable, hence inherently directly unknowable and imperceptible and indescribable, of the "unconscious" and the "metaphysical" conceptual reality of arbitrary forms and systems of conceptualization and communication--the superficial constructs of human imagination--the touchable, talkable, reality of signs and arbitrary symbols, which is the reality of being human, from which is derived meaning in being human and alive--through which self and other gain identity and relationship, through which culture and personality integrate, springing into existence together and inseparable as a dynamic life process.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is to be both individually unique and culturally relative as possible as well as to be as timelessly universal as possible. It is the same dilemma as confronted by all humans in their own search of identity--to share relatedness to all other humans--in some deep structural conception of a universal human nature, while at the same time upon the surface to remain distinctly individual, unique, unrepeatable instance of integrity. It is the same dilemma underlying all the human sciences--to find in the deep relational structure of common meaning--the communicated reality of the conceptual identity of human behavior, while at the same time tolerating and understanding the infinite degree of superficial stylistic variation and deviation in thoughts, willpower, words and deeds.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">A predisposition to causality is rooted in the very structure language takes--from subject to object. It is the verbalization--the relationship between subject and object, which in language is the verb and which becomes downplayed to the overemphasis on names and meanings. Verbs represent a dynamic temporal process of living and spatial interrelationship. They are what creates understanding, bringing to life language, making relationship from the "unconscious" structural reality to the conscious conceptual reality, from the a-priori to the a-posteriori, integrating the universal absolute indirect deep structure with the relative directly discernible surface structure. Verbs make truth happen in language and understanding. Verbs integrate language and life.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Stress in school is primarily on rote memorization--the ritualization of a meaningful thought patterns and the suspension of meaningful relationships--on learning terminologies and their meanings and is only secondarily laid upon comprehension created by "verbality"--understanding what we learn--integrating it into our human reality of paradox. The state is stressed over the individual not only politically but economically, ideologically and educationally as well. Sciences for dying are stressed over the arts of living. Closure precludes openness. The left hemisphere of the brain is stressed over the right, not only in personality development but in cultural evolution as well. There is crucial and pressing necessity to restore equilibrium, harmony and balance to a generally and primarily arbitrarily imbalanced human reality. We need to resurrect the heart and the soul of the primitive human, of the child, of the psychotic, of the artist m in the minds and bodies of all these civilized scientists.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We need restitution of humanitarianism in our institutions. We need to restore the human value and quality of living to our "systems". We need political entities which help the individual human being as much as the individual serves the bodily politic. The beginning of this general re-humanization is in conscientious recognition of the basic fundamentality of the need for open communication--of the unhindered expression of the reality of "verbality" for all of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is to make the humanistic ideology I propose within this philosophical framework any more or less true or certain or believable than any other ideology. I believe the same truth criterion that has applied to all of the metaphysical paradigms, including the scientific paradigm, is applicable to the formulation of a "true" ideology. The truth criterion of ideology is the willpower to believe in the objective truth of openness and communication in the form of ideological toleration and humanism in the widest context possible (i.e., the whole human species).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I will only briefly summarize what I feel to be the important aspects of humanistic ideology. These are the belief in the ideal virtues of <u>rationality, morality </u>and<u> maturity.</p> </u> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Rationality</u> may be summed up as the quest for truth, understanding of self, trust in love and honest belief in life It is to see on a high metaphysical plane of understanding that truth is self is love is life. Before we can know and love others we must know and love ourselves. This knowledge is truth and the ultimate human understanding of this truth is by love, entailing trust which requires honest belief in life. There is a basic affirmation of life in rationality; a fundamental <u>trust</u> in life which entails pacifism (ahimsa) towards all life--violence, hate, prejudice, war, destructiveness and negation undermines this basic trust.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Morality</u> is <u>justice</u>--recognition that all human beings are citizens of the world and the children of the universe before they are obligated to any lesser entity. Justice connotes the morality of equality and the human rights. Death is the greater equalizer. All men die equal. No man is able to take the status, security or sociability he has acquired in his lifetime into death. All humans share and deserve the inalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and these rights must be realized to the fullest extent possible without encroachment or harm to any other person's rights.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><u>Maturity</u> is the attainment of ego balance between independence and responsibility. Independence is relative freedom of the self from the will of the other. Responsibility is reciprocating freedom of the other from the self. Independence and responsibility are balanced to achieve harmonization of human life. Even more maturity is the realization of both self and other in terms of humanistic ideology. In a sense attainment of humanistic ideology is through realization of intelligence and civilization through communicative expression of rational creativity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Ideology does not exist in a vacuum. Human beings cannot honestly entertain within their lives beliefs and behaviors of too many essentially incompatible and contradictory belief and behavior systems. Just because there are many ideologies, moralities, beliefs and behavior systems which are exclusive and incompatible and even antagonistic to the humanistic ideology, and just because humanistic ideals seem irrelevant, inconsequential and unimportant in the day to day struggle for survival and daily suffering which afflicts the majority of humanity, does not make humanistic ideology any less true in its criterion or any less valuable or applicable to the whole of humanity. Just because humanism has had such a rotten deal throughout the history of humanity, it doesn't making striving for these ideals any less inconsequential. The very basis of humanism is that even if there is only the minority of one against the majority of many others, that the ideals of rationality, morality or maturity are no less important. The very basis of humanism has been the protection of the minority of one (self) from the aversive influence of the majority of many (others). Humanism is the only ideology possible that is based upon the prerequisite truth criterion of openness and communication. It is as open as possible--incorporating all of humanity--not exclusive of a single solitary soul; and it depends on humanistic understanding (anthropology). It is a minimal ideology, entailing no excessive ritual or group mythology. It is not necessarily incompatible with any other ideology, except when these are pathological. The ideology of humanism is the only appropriate transcultural context for understanding rationality/irrationality. No other ideology is an adequate substitute for this understanding.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The humanistic paradigm might be summed up then as the realization of humanistic ideological beliefs in the ideal virtues of rationality, morality and maturity by the humanization of humanity by the application of humanistic anthropological understanding of the ego reality by the holothetic interpretation of normality in formal patterns of behavioral symbolizations of functional systems of status, security and sociability and organismic conditional processes of rational creativity and behavioral irrationality. The major obstacle preventing this realization is the closed systems of belief which inhibit full humanistic understanding by reinforcing ignorance, pride and prejudice. In a negative sense anthropology can be said to be the understanding the generalization the belief and behavioral systems of ignorance, pride and prejudice, and the general negative pathological results of these systems. I believe there is a rational model to health and pathology, that these conditions can be explained in terms of this rational model and I believe also that there is an underlying theme of this metaphysical model of rationality, the theme of liminality and antinomality which is the source of willpower to both health and pathology and the source of salvation from general pathology, both psycho pathological and sociopathological. How this universal source is dealt with by both personality and culture determine ultimately the resultant orientation toward pathology and health. To achieve these humanistic ideals, anthropology must work in two general directions (1) the alleviation of suffering by general pathology and (2) the humanistic education of humanity. Essentially these two directions form a single orientation of anthropology--the realization of rational creativity in the forms of humanistic intelligence and humanistic civilization, i.e. the humanization of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In place of names I have only proffered more names. In criticism of circular and closed reasoning, I have pieced together only my own crude closed tautology with circular argumentation and many leaps of faith. This philosophical outline has plausible heuristic potentialities, especially in the extensibilities of its practical applications and the potential of theoretical philosophical unification. It is common sensical, honest, open, practical, eclectic, critical, syncretic and I believe synergistic. I believe the efficacy of this outline, if there is any, may only be demonstrated, its validity proven, after the fact by its heuristic usefulness in helping the reader integrate his/her own conceptual systems. This outline is intended to be a simple and coarse theoretical map, it is not reality itself. It only suggests one more possible way of looking at the philosophical problem of human reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It must be reiterated that this work is essentially a philosophical outline, not anthropological. I have not tried to prevent all possible perspectives, encompassed by this outline, it only hints at the proposed nature of these perspectives. I have concentrated on the anthropological subdivision of the humanistic paradigm of the metaphysical realm of objective reality. My original intention was to build a system in which virtually any and every conceptual system possible can find an appropriate classificatory position and a general contextual explanation. There is a scientific understanding and application of anthropology which fits the scientific paradigm rather than the humanistic one. The biological fields of anthropology, physical anthropology and medical anthropology are "scientific" in the conventional sense. There is an art to anthropological communication and application and a philosophical premises to anthropology. Actually this outline addresses directly this philosophical premises rather than directly the humanistic paradigm of anthropology. There is a practical everyday reality of applied and felt anthropology which is more aptly described within the subjective subdivisions and the physical objective realm, and which is out of context in the metaphysical realm.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It might be said that the four metaphysical paradigms and the underlying causal meta types constitute a whole, an integrated understanding of the cosmic egg of the universal human dilemma, but in a sense it might be said that there is yet a higher, quintessential and all embracing paradigm--and this might be thought of as the whole outline in and of itself. I will call the underlying causal meta type of this fifth quintessential paradigm the <u>holothetic organismic system</u>. It is the harmonization of the four meta types and integration of the four paradigms into a single synergistic system. It is the acknowledgment that there are not final absolute answers in reality, that all meta types and paradigms coexist within the same single network and are equally useful though incomplete in explaining reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Furthermore this is an attempt to present a unique insight into the general and many varied specific problems of humanity not as distinct and unrelated but as a potentially whole and single problem, as a philosophical and theoretical unity, a problem with a single whole solution. In order to achieve such unity I must deal necessarily with generalizations that are vague, ambiguous and often inconsistent. Yet it is to start with generalizations as a necessary departure point for it is this most vague generalizations which underlie the prejudices of modern humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While previous philosophies have been founded upon the unjustifiable necessity for certainty and absolute truth, this philosophy is founded upon the inescapable reality of relative uncertainty, on the openendedness of possibility and in the communicative necessity for probability for belief and behavior. Furthermore it is based upon the art of speculative intuition rather than on any science or syllogistic logic. It is based upon the acceptance rather than ignorance of the role belief , faith, psychological motivation, rationalization, willpower, choice, imagination and creativity play in the formulation of any philosophical system. Furthermore, rather than attempt to produce a finite, closed system of conceptioning, its aim is the unending questioning of an infinite, open and unlimited reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Is it possible to formulate, organize and create a conceptual system and a system of conceptualization which is completely comprehensive, incorporating in an orderly and systematically understandable fashion all great philosophies, the humanities, the great sciences, the arts, such that there is no rational reason for conflict between, for example cognitive and behavioral psychology, between rationalist and empiricist philosophical doctrines, between capitalism and communism, within which any and every problem afflicting humanity might have a rational basis for mutual understanding and for solution? Is there even a name which exists to describe such a comprehensive system of thought? Would this grand scheme generate a whole new perspective of human reality, generate a whole new operational methodology? Does it not require a whole new outlook, attitude, discipline and reorganization of behavior and being?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">My attempt here has been to view the whole. How I cut into my conceptual egg has been wholly arbitrary, yet I have based it upon a specific set of criterion--namely objective criterion of openness and communication --in every area that I have found to be both essentially different and arbitrary.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What's in a name? A rose by any other name still smell as sweet. Nature did not divide reality into different departments--zoology, botany, chemistry, physics--or behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, humanist psychology or third force psychology or Freudian psychoanalysis--or capitalism, communism or socialism--or Buddhism, Catholicism, Puritanism, Hinduism--or geometry, trigonometry, or democracy or totalitarianism--or yet any other theoretical system of conceptioning. These divisions have all been arbitrary--man made and once made has become to reunite them back into a coherent whole. It is the story of Humpty Dumpty.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">A name is a conceptual tool of communication--that is all. It is useful only in as much as its objectivity defined in some mutually understood manner--communism does not mean the same thing to everyone. Lets avoid the mistake of trying to turn our conceptual tools into ends in themselves, of trying to make the relative meaning and truth of our words and names into absolute and final truth, substituting metaphysical reality for physical reality. The result of such substitution is only a closed mind, illogical confusion, and counter intuitive logic. But isn't that the problem of our human world. This is what happens when we try to turn words into numbers and transform all of our systems of conceptioning into mathematics. But it also happens when we try and interpret the whole of reality only from one system--as completely and only scientific, trying to make everything, including ideas, reducible to objective little physical, mechanically-causally related, entities. But this happens also with humanism, philosophy and arts.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I said earlier I was not taking a reductionist approach to my reasoning, but I did not say that a reductionist approach is unimportant in understanding. Suffice it to say that such reductionism is inherent in the problem of defining reality itself--to the problems of communication, objectivity and openness. There are many aspects of reductionism. It is primarily an explanatory tool of philosophy. I believe that all philosophical problems, which tend to influence many other problems in life in other systems, can be reduced down to the mind-body problem which ultimately represents an insuperable dilemma in understanding reality. It has gone by many names: real vs. ideal, material vs. spiritual, phenomenal vs. noumenal, physical vs. metaphysical, subjective vs. objective. The important thing is to note that it is not so much the problem itself but the way in which we attempt to deal with this fundamental reductionist problem which is of most importance.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We usually dichotomize the essential problem instead of attempting to integrate the two sides in our judgment. The dichotomization occurs when we desire to substitute the name for meaning and when we try to resolve the dilemma of the intrinsic duality of reality by denying one whole half of it to become committed by an act of will to seeing exclusively only from one side. It is through an act of will that we deny to ourselves that such a dilemma exists and will always exist. But once we accept the inevitability of our essential dilemma then it becomes no longer an insuperable barrier but it becomes rather a means of explaining and understanding reality in the form of a simplifying paradox. Dichotomization is an arbitrary act of becoming committed to one side or the other to the neglect of the other possible perspectives. It means arbitrarily closing your system of conceptioning upon itself and to no longer have valid truth criterion. It is trying to slice the conceptual egg into the big end and the little end with a dull knife rather than trying to dismantle and reconstruct it by its individual component system of conceptioning.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What I do consider to be the essential relationship between the natural sciences and the so called "social sciences"? I will maintain that while they both function on the same essential criterion of relative truth of objective criterion for openness and communication, the intrinsic nature of these two sets of criterion are themselves fundamentally different, and this poses an insuperable barrier between the two systems. The difference is that while science deals with entities existent in the physical universe that are exclusively mechanical and material--that we may observe "objectively" a fly, a rock, or even a neuron--in anthropology the problem is that we must observe ourselves just as objectively as if we were observing a rock. But this is an impossible task. We hold a mirror to our own face and our subjectivity and willpower inevitably get in the way of our interpretation of our own beauty. A social science is good only to the extent that a human may be transformed into a rock or a mechanical machine which may be easily explained, predicted and controlled. The trouble is the explanation, prediction and control of that "I will" power, and to predict and control human nature in light of it. It is the problem of being able to look into ourselves objectively. Indeed a pure social science is possible, for man the ant, but it forms essentially a very limited system of conceptioning with poor explanatory, predictive and controlling capacities. Humans are predictable, explainable, controllable, only to the extent that they allow themselves to be predicted, explained or controlled.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Under the criterion of universal human nature and individuality understanding of anthropology becomes quite a different matter. It is a study of ourselves and others not divorced of our willpower--of our ability to influence and determine our destiny, however diminished.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Our historical heritage, of the universality of humanity, it is the same maturational process as the inherent unfolding of the particularity of the individual. If it can be divided into a sequential process of developmental stages, it is best a dialectical process of emergent symbolism. There is the pre-historical epoch, ethically pre-conventional, the natural, romantic, aesthetic human, the thesis of emergence of expression essence and potentiality. Then there is the historical epoch, the anti-thetical difficulty of communication, the morally conventional, man the adolescent ant, suffering growth pains and severe emotionally traumatic changes from the essential being of man the emergent nascent creature. There is a final post historical stage, reached sooner by some than others, some never completing the pilgrimage, the human being, the religious, sentient philanthropist , without frustration, without hostility. This is the human being, the creator of human civilization. I believe we are historically at the end of the second transitional stage and are on the verge of making the final passage and becoming the final human synthesis--a mature humanity. We are at the climatic end of a long, arduous gradually accelerating period of historical transition,, which was characterized by change, instability, trauma. We are entering a new epoch characterized by timelessness, stability, and fulfillment. We have a choice, to be progressive, and to make the final passage to paradise, or else to be regressive and to suffer inevitable extinction.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The initial presumption is that underlying all of the problems faced by humanity there is a theoretical unity which when comprehensively understood describes a single problem which I shall term the universal human dilemma. This dilemma has its origins in what it means to be human --defining that sum of peculiar qualities which is unique to each individual personality, and yet it is the same for all human beings. This universal human dilemma pervades and influences every facet of human existence. It is like an egg, the nature of which it is the function of philosophy to describe.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Philosophy is the starting point to the understanding and solution of the human problem. The aim of philosophy is theoretical comprehensivity of human understanding. It is a pure intellectual exercise of problem formulating and problem solving as it relates to this conceptual egg of the universal human dilemma. Philosophy has been degraded as a pedantic exercise for obscure academicians and scholars. Being thus aloof in the clouds, its relevance to contemporary and everyday problems has not been recognized nor adequately exploited in a teleological and utilitarian fashion. The efficacy of philosophy has yet to be adequately demonstrated. Its functional value to humanity has yet to be proven. The importance of rational philosophy in serving as a guide to <u>rational</u> human behavior must be resurrected as the keystone of all human endeavor. The importance and value of philosophy can hardly be overstated. Why is this so?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Every human being is potentially a rational creature capable of rational behavior. Whether one admits it or not, every human acts at least tacitly within the framework of some grand conceptual schema, from which are derived operational plans, day to day decisions, expectations, value, judgments. In order to be a rational actor eliciting rational behavior, a human must at least have a tacit awareness and fundamental comprehension of that conceptual basis. Without even a hint of its nature a human is doomed to a sea of irrationality--a person whose behavior and existence is determined in effect by a myriad host of uncontrollable factors--luck, risk, chance, fortune and fate. If a person does not strive energetically to lead his life according to some objectivity defined scheme of rationality, then that individual's reasoning abilities and rationality in short intellectual competencies become the slave of unquestioned sycophancy to external influences. The individual's behavior leads his rationality rather than the other way around. In such a case of inverted dependency and determinacy the net result is irrational psychological rationalization as a defense mechanism against a weak and insecure ego.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The end product is a general outlook on life and a tacitly regarded philosophy which is closed to new possibilities, unreceptive to new viewpoints and attitudes. The closed mind leads to inconsistent behavior patterns between thought and action and is self-justifying and self contained in rationalization. The result is a water tight, leak proof, air tight theoretical balloon by which everything under the sun becomes easily and simply explainable and rationalizable on the basis of a few limited and limiting set of implicit premises and presumptions.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">If an individual desires happiness in existence; if an individual wants to find that happiness through efforts of self improvement, then we must have a rational philosophical basis for such an enterprise. If on the other hand, as is usually the case, a person is unwilling to improve his lifestyle then it is the much easier and simpler yet less rewarding path through life to relegate thoughts and actions to simple minded conformity to the thought and behaviors of conventional others--to relinquish philosophical enterprise to the leaders of the groups to which the conformist adheres and to allow his life to be dominated by the security of the group and his own interior world relegated to an unknown realm of fear, insecurity, improvidence and distorted misshapen illusion.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is most important in understanding philosophy to recognize that it is foremost an intellectual enterprise in better judgment--in arbitrary decision making, in the will to intellectual power, in question formulating and reasoning of logical and consistent answers, in explorative speculation and imaginative creation. The key element is that it is an enterprise in <u>arbitrariness</u> of <u>willpower</u> by which it transcends the purely logical fields of knowledge such as mathematics. Laws, rules and conclusions derived in philosophy are never absolute,, but are purely a human matter of free choice. As such philosophy can never be detached from its human component--having both human weaknesses of never being able to escape human relativity and consequent subjectivity, no matter what its qualifying and specifying amendments, as well as the human strengths of intuition, descriptive exploration, creativity and rationality. As long as philosophy is taken in this human perspective of question asking and answering, philosophy can never go wrong. It is when laws and rules that are <u>arbitrarily</u> formulated become transformed into unquestioned articles of absolute faith and a self containing system of belief, that philosophy loses its human qualities of strengths and weaknesses, sacrificing openness for improvement through modification and amendment for the sake of logical coherence and apparent cognitive certainty which is ideally absolute but unrealistic and useless as a guide for human behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It should be noted that it is precisely this leap of faith that saves the arbitrary nature of many philosophical systems and traditions from open self contradiction and self refutation, providing logical coherence to otherwise illogical and inconsistent thoughts.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This also accounts for the fact that philosophy is so much dependent upon the individual for the widely embracing plethora of unique and differing conceptual systems which we have inherited culturally. The crux of philosophy is that it is an enterprise for describing and cutting into that egg of the universal human dilemma. The pie of life may be dissected and cut into many pieces, into an infinite variety of ways. Some systems achieve a greater degree of comprehensivity than do others. The important point is to recognize that there will never be nor can be a universal and completely comprehensive--well integrated philosophy, but that weakness and room for improvement are provided by the shear variety of alternative philosophic explanations.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Thus the beginning of the understanding of the universal human dilemma starts with an understanding of the inherent strengths and limitations of philosophic enterprise. Philosophy is primarily a speculative enterprise. Any decision making enterprise contains a certain varying degree of uncertainty. Philosophy is no exception. It is the quest for conceptual certainty which distinguishes philosophy from science. It must be understood at the outset that no matter how firmly we may believe in a specific philosophical viewpoint or belong to a general cognitive orientation, that we can never be absolutely certain of the validity of that system in context to reality. It will always contain some degree of uncertainty and inconsistency subject to the vicissitudes of human strengths and weaknesses. While philosophy seeks to minimize that degree of relative uncertainty, ultimately the only real gauge available to any human for that judgment of certainty is that person's own better judgment--the crown of his individual integrity. The need for absolute certainty, the unquestioning leap of faith often encountered which invariably ties individual philosophies together into a believable collective reality of the group myth, is indicative of an essentially paranoid philosophic orientation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is very little and very narrow psychic order or unity in this fragmented and fragmentary modern existence. The problem is basically philosophical--one of a lack of philosophical enlightenment which ought to provide solutions and directions in our common quest for human civilization. The primary and most fundamental purpose of philosophy is to provide just such a unifying foundation upon which to base our understanding. The problem has been that such a foundation is yet lacking--instead there have been proffered many poor substitutes--esoteric theories causing more confusion than shedding rational enlightenment. A disparate collection of often contradictory essays each with its own unique point of departure and style of literary construction utilizing exclusive and differing terminology and assigned meanings. It is philosophy which must silence the noisy arguments between sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economist, educators and politicians.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In this second part I wish to elaborate upon the transcultural philosophical significance of the negativistic organismic conditionality of psycho pathology/socio pathology/general irrationality--with the intention of determining and demonstrating the transcendental valuations of the anthropological synthesis of <u>general irrationality</u>. The "problem" of the universal human dilemma is the philosophical elucidation of the anthropological synthesis of general irrationality as a substitute for the prevailing but ill defined psychiatric model of mental health/mental illness.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is the central problem posed by the mental health/mental disorder of psychiatry, the definition of which goes beyond mere rhetoric? It is the problem of defining rationality and irrationality, which is in part contingent upon the related anthropological problem of defining normality/abnormality. What is an acceptable definition of rationality? Rationality has been defined as merely goal directed behavior, but some behavior patterns might be considered as ends in themselves rather than as means to some other, often far off or far out end, or behavior which is just for the sake of behavior, without any functional cause or effect, might still be considered if not rational than at least not completely irrational. I will define rationality as <u>explainable</u> human behavior which is <u>ordered</u> in some arbitrary manner. Irrationality is <u>unexplainable</u> human behavior which is <u>disordered</u>. The problem with "mental illness" is that there is a core group of "problems" represented as diagnostic categories and labels which are irrational--they are disordered and unexplainable in any rational fashion. Being irrational, these problems are not rationally understandable nor explainable, and are left in need of rational solution. These inexplicable "mental" disorders are such that any single causal explanation for them, whether biochemical, psychoanalytic or behavioral, it is grossly inadequate while any comprehensive overview presents only a plethora of controversial confusion. We literally employ the rationally unexplainable label of irrational "mental" disorder as a substitute for any rational explanation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Like normality, rationality is a relative concept. Behavior which is apparently irrational to the majority of humanity might seem perfectly rational to the "mentally ill" minority. A paranoid schizophrenic might no even doubt or question the rationality of his own delusions of persecution. Likewise rationality is culturally relative as well as individually relative. Ruth Benedict has aptly demonstrated this fact in her book "Patterns of Culture". The problem of irrationality is as much a problem of which rational explanation is acceptable, if any, and from whose point of view we are to regard rationality and irrationality. This is the central problem of metal illness. The problem of mental health is whose rational order are we going to impose upon the word--the psychiatric order or maybe some other alternative.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Definition of rationality/ irrationality is contingent upon definition of normality/abnormality and these are likewise relative concepts. In the explicit psychiatric definition of psychological abnormality we are necessarily working with some tacit presumption of an ill defined normative conception of reality--what this conception of normality is we are never quite certain, and often it seems it would be better to remain presumptuously ignorant of the meaning of normality, as then we can remain secure in our feelings of certainty about our knowledge of what constitutes abnormality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Consideration of abnormality automatically presumes some at least implied understanding of the meaning of normality, as a more general positive concept of which abnormality is its antithetical negative. The normality/abnormality dichotomy belies a relationship between two conceptual models or modes of conceptioning that cannot logically be sundered one from the other. We think of one in terms of the other. We can have no accurate understanding of what behavior pattern is "abnormal" without at least some tacit a-priori understanding of what is normal behavior. The inadequacy of our psychological, psychiatric, psychoanalytic, sociological and anthropological systems of defining abnormality stems from an inadequate definition of what indeed is normality in the first place. Too often we have only an unquestioned, vaguely intuitive comprehension of the meaning of normality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Psychiatry claims to be scientific and science is necessarily a value free enterprise. If the behavioral sciences are to claim this scientific objectivity then they must also be rid of values. Astronomy did not say that Ptolemic theory was less valuable than Copernican theory, it has only demonstrated objectivity that heliocentrism is more objectifiably tenable than geocentrism, and in spite of the fact of space shuttles, moon walks, and Viking explorers, it is only because one model fit better the empirically observable phenomenon that in time it became the preferred system of interpretation. Our "civilization" has arisen with value free science as a cornerstone of its foundation, and even if it is somewhat ethnocentric, the scientific standpoint is at least an open system of conceptioning. As long as scientists are just observers and theory builders, as long as they keep their science neutral, whatever its field of inquiry, then it can be free of the problems and dilemmas caused by human values, but once the scientist becomes a technologist, seeking to intervene in natural "order"--to predict and to control, then he must inevitably make value judgments. From a purely scientific standpoint the normality/abnormality dichotomy is only irrelevant. But can psychiatry be a science?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I personally have lived too close to psychic disorder to have any doubt about its reality. When a person feels it under his skin rather than read about it from some book, then you realize the value of being normal. I believe that Ruth Benedict made a mistake in her description of the Dobu Islanders and of the Kwakiutl Indians by applying western psychoanalytic jargon to the description of their cultural configurations. She relieved the individual the burden of "abnormality" by transferring these same labels unmodified to whole cultures, in essence making psycho pathology into a whole "socio pathology". In essence she freed the individual responsibility for sickness by describing the whole culture as sick. I believe here she confuses science with ethics, mixing up scientifically observable phenomena with the world of values.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I would like to put forward the possibility that indeed whole cultural entities and indeed whole civilization may from either a scientific of a humanistic standpoint earn the label of "socio pathological". Dobuan islanders were normal individuals trapped in a diseased culture, only the sickest were exonerated. We do not have to look very far to find very stark examples of such possibilities--the Jewish holocaust, the Jonestown mass suicide, the not too infrequent genocide that goes by the name of warfare, the inescapable threat of global nuclear holocaust. Who will say that militarism is not a disease of human behavior and that warfare, as common as it is, a symptom of "socio pathological" abnormality and irrationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The confusion is not so much science with ethics. It is rather confusion between the name and the reality--a common problem with descriptive "sciences" whose language is not mathematically reducible or quantifiable. These "sciences" cannot escape this name calling and the human confusion of values it generates. The qualitative evaluative aspects can never be completely divorced--the language of the science remains culture bound no matter how civilized its intentions or realistic its empirical observation. Behavioral sciences are not only to study the behavior in thought, word and deed, as a static and analytically reducible phenomenon, but they are caught up in the behavioral processes themselves. The problem is not so much to feign pseudo-scientific objectivity and to deny subjectivity--but it is rather how to incorporate the subjectivity in an objective fashion.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">More and more our "scientific technological civilization" is <u>becoming</u> the <u>world wide order </u>of modern contemporary cultures, as weaker smaller scale traditions of order are becoming absorbed, assimilated or disintegrated in cultural identity--lost in the mainstream. The problem becomes not so much as one of absolute categories of normality/abnormality and rationality/irrationality, but rather one of relative adjustments and adaptations to newly emerging ill defined "norms".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Pure science does not need to ask what is normal or abnormal, but those who claim to be scientists, whatever their field of specialization, even though they do not need to ask or answer this question as scientists, nonetheless do need to ask it as human beings. Human beings are not perfect scientists--I regret the day when we can make such a claim. Being imperfect human beings we do not need to answer such normative questions with the honesty to admit that our answer will never be perfect.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Whatever the roots of the normal/abnormal dichotomy in the human dilemma, it nonetheless is but one of many dichotomies humanity must resolve and these dichotomies are but multifaceted aspects of a deeper lying philosophical paradox of human existence that is ultimately inescapable and unresolvable. This paradox is reflected by the more general problem between absolutism of human understanding and human relativism. I believe it stems ultimately from the paradox of what it means to be human--to be at one and the same time both a unique wholly separate and different instance of individuality relative in space and time--an essentially unrepeatable experience of existence--and to share a common social identity with all of humanity--no matter how distant or different the cultures--to share with all human beings in this ideal fiction that goes by the name of what it means to be a human being. To be altogether different and absolutely ideally similar at one and the same time can be quite a discomforting situation for those who are too logically scientific--who would like to impose controllable order and repetitiously predictable certainty upon a naturally disordered and unpredictable nature.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This human paradox is at once our hope and salvation as well as the root of all our evils. It is the hope for a world above and beyond that world of 1984, liberation from the unfreedom of a uni-dimensional overly restrictive big brother control and salvation from the brave new world order where behavioral and physical sciences conspire against humanism to render the replication of uniformity ideal a reality. There is no end to the number and types of people who would if they could impose fanatically their own willpower, standards and ideals upon the rest of humanity with the earnest and well meaning "rationality" of good intentions of order. Personally I prefer the disheveled world of controversial alternative interpretations and competing systems of belief and behavior which can nevertheless coexist peacefully and even cooperate symbiotically.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I will begin my philosophical analysis of the anthropological understanding of irrationality by making a psychiatric disclaimer of the anthropological anti-psychiatry movement by asserting that I believe the diagnostic categories prevalent in psychiatric understanding are generally sound and empirically valid. Is the psycho therapeutic process any less valuable than shamanistic cures? The evidence would almost unanimously indicate that the reverse is true. In the anti-psychiatric criticism of and movement away from psychiatric principles, the opponents are making a dishonest self denial and a self treasonable mistake. They invariably use the psychiatric principles are generally translatable across cultural boundaries and find empirical validation in virtually any and every culture.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Nonetheless I also believe that the psychiatic model of "mental illness" is itself based upon a fundamentally erroneous presumptions--"mental illness" is indeed a psychiatric group--myth stemming directly from the conservative psychoanalytic ideology by which to usurp human rights, enslave humanity, and dehumanize civilization. The pervasiveness and cross cultural effectiveness of this "mental illness" model is a posteriori to its doctrinal enforcement. It is fundamentally a pseudo scientific model in being derived directly from a bio-medical conception of "brain syndromes" determining "mental diseases". It is hypocritical in self denial of subjective valuation in the determination of "mental illness". The sad fact of the matter is that the mental health/mental illness dichotomy is an extremely culture bound conception and that before it can have true cross cultural significance it must shed itself of its cultural limitations.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Although only one of several such classificatory systems, I believe the <u>DSM lll</u> to be an adequate representative of the tour de force of the psychiatric movement. If there exists such a phenomenon of pan cultural "mental illness", then any culture bound diagnostic text of mental disorder must at least embody the essential elements which can be extricated and redefined free of cultural embellishments. If its limitations can be recognized such a device as the <u>DSM lll</u> ought to nevertheless remain an invaluable instrument for the understanding and categorization and treatment of mental disease, illness, disorder, pathology, irrationality, or insanity. I do not wish to have possible intrinsic limitations confused with the extrinsic human limitations of misuse and potential abuse of such a manual in delineating the letter of the law in the wrong set of hands. It is incalculably invaluable for determining the bottom line, clearing the air of the confusion over the meanings and interpretations of particular categories of disorder--by defining explicitly providing a sound test against which fact can be ascertained from the fog of fiction arising from the slanderous misapplication, the loosening of labels and categories to include virtually any and every behavior of anyone--which seems to be so abundant and frequently recurrent in day to day life.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The main difficulty I have in interpreting the <u>DSM lll </u>is my actual lack of criticism concerning its empirical validity or utility. I believe it to be fundamentally unassailable when in the right hands, except perhaps to a really skilled and experienced psychiatric diagnostician who's been around a little while. I honestly have to admit that I personally do not have enough professional experience to give the manual a fair evaluation. In the hands of a responsible and competent psychiatrist such a manual can be a humane instrument of treatment and alleviation of much unnecessary suffering.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">First I wish to eliminate from consideration what I call "rational" mental disorders--those categories which seem to have some degree of reasonable etiological explanation as to causal factors. Included in this group of "disorders" are: some of the "Disorders Usually First Evident In Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence", Organic Mental Disorders, Substance Abuse Disorders, Adjustment Disorders, Factitious Disorders and Personality Disorders. I believe most if not all of the specific disorders subsumed under these titles have a reasonable explanation lying somewhere close to the extremes of either organic (nature) or developmental-environmental (nurture). These are the fairly well defined extremes. I am more concerned with the mid-range of "gray area" disorders which do not have clear cut causal explanations and which might more aptly fall under the title of "irrational" mental disorders--these include: Schizophrenic Disorder, Paranoid Disorders, Psychosexual Disorders, Disorders of Impulse Control, Affective Disorders, Anxiety Disorders and Somatoform Disorders. Some categories seem to be mutually inclusive, while other appear to be mutually exclusive, and this possibly be indicative of preeminently psycho pathological genesis or of secondary complications of socio pathological genesis. A survey of all the categories seems to give a generalizable cross section of most possible forms of mental illness, but such differential cross sectioning I believe does not adequately explain the process of disorder in either developmental idiographic description or in contextual nomothetic definition. <u>I have not the personal experience but I believe it would fairly difficult to fit any of the different categories unreservedly to any "random" single individual or to an "random" group of people to determine the overall comparative, differential statistical significance of the classification with consistency?</p> </u> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There exist some anomalous categories--Disorders not Elsewhere Classifiable--which I believe to be especially indicative of the weaknesses of the manual. These are the catch all and residual categories which compensate for the possible lack of overall empirical consistency. Perhaps the mechanistic spirit which pervades the whole text is my main dissatisfaction with such a publication--it is difficult for me to accept the fact that lives have been made and broken by the such of such a "shop" manual, as if the psychiatrist was some kind of "mental" mechanic working on some kind of mechanistically explainable "mental" machine rather than on a human being. Without full time, continuous observation in the original context for the specified periods of time, how can a diagnostician or a board of examiners determine with reliable certainty the total behavioral patterning of any given supposedly "disordered" individual on the basis of a few hours of interviewing time or in the artificial setting of a mental ward? Are one or even a limited set of recurrent episodes adequate for assessing the "irrationality" of an individual--or for prescribing preventive or therapeutic treatment?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">One of my criticisms of the use of this device is my belief that psychiatrists can never be absolutely certain when "toying" with the rationality of any individual. The irrational mental disorders of the gray area actually follow pretty erratic--idiosyncratic directions of patterning, and these directions are not adequately generalizable across individuals or across cultures as such exclusive and exact labeling might lead one to believe. The goal of finding an individual who fits consistently any single or compatible set of categories for the requisite time period is actually fairly difficult and comparatively rarely achieved. I have personally experienced an individual with an irrational behavior pattern (even though he was the last person to admit his irrationality) which seemed to cover virtually the complete range of gray area disorders, but it was only by living at close quarters for an extended period of time that the "disordered" nature of his behavior became manifest. He seemed to follow a cyclical pattern. He might have easily passed as a reasonably normal though somewhat "different" individual to any unpresuming casual observer, despite the severity of his irrationality. How many irrational people go undiagnosed or slip through life unnoticed or apathetically ignored? I believe individuals manifest stylizations of irrational behavior patterns which are as unique as their fingerprint or their signatures. Is it not also possible that culture may define acceptable and appropriate patterns of mental disorder, or culturally approved forms of expression of symptoms of mental disorder processes, and is oblivious to many cultural anomalies of irrationality? It is counter intuitive to me to fit human behavior into a static set of disparate and only minimally interrelated categories--rather it seems more reasonable to regard disordered behavior as existing dynamically within a causal and expressive and contextual continuum in which tendencies toward or away from absolute categories are actually more prevalent than static model types. The core group of "irrational" categories are bolstered and inadequately woven together with marginal, in between, residual and catch all categories into which can be forced to fit the individual anomalies who tend to defy "absolute" description. What are the threshold values beneath which mild disorders might go through life undiagnosed and only severe exaggerations receive perhaps unfairly an undue amount of exclusive psychiatric attention?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I have made elsewhere this claim that in defining at least cultural abnormality such an instrument as the <u>DSM lll</u> also indirectly outlines a "negative" definition of cultural normality, and in the case of this text the clue to normative judgment is revealed in Axis IV and V of the multiaxial evaluation system the manual employs. These are the subjective psychiatric evaluations of psycho social stressors and the highest level of adaptive functioning of an individual. While to some extent generalizable, I believe that psycho social stress is primarily subjectively experienced and varies considerably between individuals. What might be extremely stressful for another, and that to some extent the degree of stress a person may cope with is determined by previously disposing factors such as culturally defined contexts or acquired coping or defense mechanisms which might not be so "objectively" observed or evaluated. Besides these minor quibbles though, I believe the stress levels and ratings are generally applicable and accurate and are a commendable example of the compilers organizational skill.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">On the other hand, the norm of the highest level of adaptive functioning, including the areas of social relationship, occupational functioning and the use of leisure time, while they actually correspond surprisingly well with my own formulation of anthropological normality--Francis Hsu's three S's--sociability, status and security--it is in the "objective" assessment and prescribed ordering of these categories that subjective evaluation enters into the diagnostic picture. Social relations are to be given greater significance, while use of leisure time is considered last and only in lieu of unimpaired social relations only when there is considerable lack of occupational functioning. To some extent, as far as writing this paper is an object of personal, rather than social or "functional" fulfillment, it would be considered within context of these cultural norms use of leisure time--but I have had to forego many social relationships over a considerable period of time, and though written in context of school, this paper has become much more of a personal effort than is academically functional. Perhaps this is an indication that I have, if not some kind of disorder, then at least a predisposition to some kind of "irrationality". I have found it to be pretty much the case that the real division of our culture is work and play, and that whether we try to fill up our leisure time with others or by ourselves is a choice we have to make--rarely can any one have the best of both worlds, and even more we had better not get our work and play ethics confused--to try to make play our work or work our play. Why is there so little originality among socialites?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Furthermore in the rating scale, it becomes evident that a person values must be social relations and occupational functioning first and foremost, while leisure time activities are second rate--even negligible. You have a choice of being a good worker (a garbage man or a university president) a student or a housewife. But what about a starving self employed artist or musician or writer? The rating becomes how much money do you earn and how hard is the work you do? I am an artist who inspite of my "full time" commitments in terms of money, time and energy and just because I have not earned much money, my ultra conservative neighbor still only perceives my activities as being demeaning leisure time hobbies. "Are you still doing your little hobbies?" You have another choice between being a highly sociable individual (how many friends--superficial and how good--in depth) or else being considered "impaired". Does it matter who your so called friends are--whether the love is genuine or hypocritical? What about availability, opportunity, shyness or social disillusionment? A Chinese individual born into a large extended family might be considered more socially healthy than an only poor wasp child of divorced parents or whose father died.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The three categories are anthropologically wise, but the stress of which are to be considered more important and the qualitative evaluations are culturally biased. I have a book entitled "Leisure: A Bias of Culture" by Joseph Pieper, which might refute this cultural orientation of values. Why must Parkinson's Law continue to enslave Homo Ludens to the work/play ethic?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The rating scale is another matter. A person is doing good if he is only slightly impaired, but to be really mentally healthy he must be better than average without any impairment at all--while the ideal is the unusual "superior". I believe this to be particularly revealing of cultural values and an underlying ambivalence--one I prefer to call the apollonian "superman" myth. The ambivalence is trying to be a good worker with team spirit and a modest unpresuming profile, while at the same time feeling the compulsion to be a superstar, a veritable dynamo with inexhaustible energy (what kind of food does he eat?), with more than the average amount of time (70 minute hours, 25 hour days, 8 day weeks, etc. etc.) who is machine like in efficiency swift and accurate without errors) who always has a new dynamic idea (where does he get these ideas) who is preferably a male (not a homosexual) and maybe money is an important factor also. True to Christian form we must be Godlike (God is a white male), we must somehow be something better or "more" than what we are now, and yet we can never upset the natural chain of order with our secret fantasies. Somehow being just simply ourselves (merely human) is never quite good enough. But human beings are impaired (imperfect) and only Gods are superior (unimpaired). Of course God does not defecate, but that there is always a human to clean it up. He is so blessed, talented, gifted or maybe just rich.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The composite ideal of this apollonian superman myth of our culture is an emotionally moderate, stable, temperate (flat) who can skate through life relatively unaffected by the turmoil and strife and stress, a highly motivated high achiever who has high intelligence and who is highly "rational" (very well ordered, almost like an automaton) but who nonetheless does not work too much, but who is always clean cut and beautiful (a true socialite) whose teeth are white when he smiles and who has no acne--a person unbeset with any anxiety and who does his duty with self justified impunity. This is the "norm" as ideal. The reality is quite a different picture. Personally I am wary of such personality types whom I meet that fit such descriptions. In all their superhuman superiority I sometimes wonder whether they don't pay too great a personal human price. I can even be moved to pity them if they weren't so self righteous. I see a potentially dangerous super egoist at work--a virtual sociopath fulfilling his Godsend role without doubt, uncertainty, without question or remorse. I see them as being cold and insensitive and out of tune with their own inner feelings and with the feelings of others. They invariable "appear" highly successful but for all their touted success I wonder whether they are really any happier or healthier than a more average person beset with disorder, anxiety, impairment and lower class status.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I could diagnose myself--I have had high stress levels throughput my life; I have relative poor adaptive functioning; I am out of work and I have no friends and I have plenty of leisure time; I have had a developmental disorder and even mild avoidance personality disorder with schizoid tendencies; I have an affective range I might label as being cyclothymic with occasional major episodes--I have been suicidal; I have had paranoid delusion from time to time and have stammered incoherently; I have been an alcoholic, have smoked my share of marijuana and am a veritable caffeine addict. Inspite of these disorders I consider myself an adaptive and rational and ordered as any "beautiful" person, and I would not for one minute trade places or shoes with any superstar. I am happier and better adjusted than I have been at any time in my whole life, and I have achieved things other people only dream about. It reminds me of what Carl Jung has said about the meaning of life: that the paradox of life is that only through suffering do we glean the real meaning of life--that when we experience both great highs and great lows that the true value of life awakens within ourselves. It is too bad that those many, majority of secure, stable, culture bound, narrow minded socialites are to afraid to death to take the risk to live a little bit before they die--but then whose to play God, after all, it is all relative, isn't it? Long live the moral majority.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is not so much what the <u>DSM lll</u> includes that I criticize so much, it has done an admirable job and has an authoritative air of all inclusiveness and explicit exactitude. It is more that I doubt it for the important inclusio0ns it fails to make. I will leave my crucial questions unanswered. Is it over inclusive or over exclusive? Is it written too explicitly or is it worded so loosely that it might leave the critical diagnostician with residual doubt as to the validity of classifying a human being?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">My main conclusion is that while there may be indeed be proportionately few several "mentally" disordered individuals in any given cultural context, the manual is written such that I also believe that very few individual from any cultural context would escape completely "untouched" the close scrutiny of a proficient diagnostician. It would seem desirable that this were not so, but I don't believe it. The overall verdict for the majority of "average" human beings is indeed "poor"--if one were to base one's criteria exclusively upon this manual. According to this text, the fate of humanity is to be consigned either to the tragic comedy of disorder of disorder, the boredom of health or else to the uncertain banality of mediocrity. The categories explain rather well the rules to the "mental illness" game, but what happens to the occasional anomalous exception who just does not fit well any label of any category. Should he/she be <u>made</u> to fit, reinforced back into "order" when we cannot rationally explain their seeming irrationality or cannot organize their "disorder" into our preconceived system. I myself might be a good candidate for such reordering, but I believe myself to have better than average rationality and to be relatively happy inspite of all my misery, and yet I also think that if someone was really out to get me, he could do it with this manual. My main criticism is the "<u>residuality</u>" of the classification system--the malingering ghosts of the past who might at any moment burst unexpectedly upon the stage to overwhelm one in a sea of "irrationality" like a great tsunami. In the confusion of past and present leaving one in doubt about one's own integrity, the integrity of anyone else, and a tremendous fear of the future. No human being is immune to the label of "irrationality". With the potential threat of such a device as the DSM lll, can there really be any complete guarantee of personal freedom. Once branded by reality or tattooed by culture, can any human being ever be free of humanity's name calling?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It might appear to the insightful reader that the alternative rationality/irrationality model which I proffer in place of the mental health/mental illness dichotomy is nothing more than a revivalist theme of the bygone "age of enlightenment" of the 1880's--the exhumation of an archaic artifice--an obsolete anachronism of the passé "white man's burden" by which we can rationalize a new brand of western imperialism and justify a new form of human slavery. In a sense this is true, but with one crucial modification--I do not wish to liberate humanity from their modern forms of bondage merely to fetter them once again by some exotic merely different technique of , but I believe that rational enlightenment is just not the "white man's burden" but it should be the responsibility of every human being to seek world civilization through rational means, to achieve a permanent and relatively stable condition of personal and cultural freedom.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Furthermore when the doctrine of the city on the hill and the city of God failed to create a utopia by the definition and romantic realization of the fiction of universal human nature, this rationality/irrationality doctrine seeks an alternative transcultural goal--a relatively pacifistic all inclusive, multidimensional, pan cultural continuum--the city of the world of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The quest for the fiction of universal human nature is doomed to failure--it is an absolutist form of thought which can never be empirically substantiated and which requires only a leap of faith by which it can be forced to life. The ulterior motivation of this quest is the definition of a model by which all human beings can be made to conform, hopefully naturally, but if necessary, by force. It is to affect a literal replication of uniformity where in reality uniformity is a myth and only difference prevail. The problem of uniformity becomes whose version of God are we going to elect and enforce upon humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This quest is the heart and soul of even extreme cultural relativists who still hold on to the hope of someday somehow perhaps serendipitously "discovering" an empirically valid model of universal human nature. I hold that this is in reality, in factuality, in actuality, an impossible and ill founded quest for El Dorado--it is a myth, a fiction, a fantasy. I am an absolute relativist, but beyond simply dashing the hopes of many well intentioned philanthropists, I proffer instead what I believe to be a more realistic alternative which combines both virtues of theoretical reductionist simplicity if the replication of uniformity ideal with the empirical viability of the organization of diversity reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">At the source of the blind quest for universal human nature is the ever menacing reification of the name. Such a quest, from a philosophical basis, is essentially no different from any other nomothetic, sociological classificatory system by which we can group and differentiate and compare human beings and ignore the similarities--whether the scheme is racism, ethnicism, cross culturalism, differential psychology, mental health/mental illness, right/wrong, good/bad, extrovert/introvert, primitive/civilized. While such classificatory systems be may necessary for the ordering of rational behavior and rational organization of belief systems, any and every such system is an <u>abstraction </u>of reality and not reality in itself. The problem is to acknowledge both the truth value of such classification systems and the limitations and then to carry the analytical process one step further to intellectual closure by synthesizing a transcendent definition of the meaning of reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The rationality/irrationality model, though not absolutely perfect a model of human reality, is nonetheless the most probable, relatively possible, approximate, generally realistic, empirical valid, model possible--because it is founded on truth criterion of relativism, it is the most applicable tranculturally to include all human beings.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It has been effectively demonstrated that there are certain empirical-theoretical limitations which cannot be adequately surmounted. These are the <u>biological horizon</u>, the <u>personality horizon</u> and the <u>cultural horizon</u>. These horizons present formidable boundaries to the theoretical construction of the "universal human nature" model.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It has been assumed safe to base empirical validity of the concept of universal human nature upon the structural, bio-chemical, bio-medical, level of "natural order". Very few "scientists" have seriously questioned this presumption, and indeed it would seem to be necessary in order to retain a sense of scientific order in understanding human nature. In the area of mental illness the emphasis is on the brain disease and generally upon the physical side of the mind/brain dichotomy. Even Freud and Hull held firmly to this belief inspite of their considerable methodological and theoretical divergence? Social Darwinism, physical anthropology, medical anthropology, psycho biology, socio biology, behaviorism, psycho analysis, the sociologists and functionalists , all have held firmly to this most basic tenet. It is rather paradoxical that the refutation of this presumption should come from the bio-chemists themselves. The ethnologists studies man the animal. The physical anthropologist studies man the primate. The social scientist studies man the insect and man the ant. The psychologist studies man the rat. As scientists all study man the statistical average and man the number, and as biologists they all study man the genome--the gamete. The crucial question to answer becomes how much of human behavior patterning, if any can be reduced down to a problem of genealogy, heredity, genotype, instinct, innate anatomical structure and physiological function, to sensory perception and sensori motor coordination and behavioral modification. How much of human nature is natural?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The stereotypical biological human being can at least be said to have deep structural-physiological and anatomical <u>similarities</u>. This deep universal structure can indeed be safely presumed to exist, but perhaps not quite deep enough--in itself biological structural universality is only a very superficial concept. While it can be said that biological structure imposes upon human behavior certain horizons as to possible potentialities--that there is a biological and genetic component of all behavior, this component is not exclusive to other considerable factors but rather is all inclusive. Structural similarities end at surface appearance. Upon closer scrutiny only differentiation and variation emerges. Individuals have brains enormously different in number, size and arrangement of neurons as well as in gross features. Structure is not static, but dynamic--incorporating changes in evolutionary modification. It is indeed difficult not to attribute some form of rationality to the wondrous intricacy and amazing diversity manifest in all life forms--to say that the evolution of the human mind was not a goal directed event but arose spontaneously only by the principle of chance and random selection. Indeed, from a biological standpoint a human is a human is a human, but that is about all it can say in regard to universal human nature. Individuals can be said to vary enormously even at the level of bio-chemical composition. What is biologically normal and adaptive for one individual is not necessarily biologically suitable for another. The total gene pool of humanity can be said to be absolutely finite, but beyond this statement there exists only virtual infinity of possible genetic recombinations, of chance mutations and transformations. Beyond the very fundamental level of biological structural similarity, the similarities cease and the variations multiply.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The population of the human species can be said to be finite at any one moment, and yet there are only guesstimates at actual population size. To consider the implications of the sheer magnitude of this inexact and growing number is mind boggling. About the only stereotypical thing we can say about human nature is that there is a potentially infinite possibility of diversity and variation within broadest biological parameters and that continual adaptive change happens mostly unpredictably--that human beings are born and die and in the interim propagate their own kind.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We can subdivide the total human race by whichever system we choose as suitable to our needs--by race, by nation-state, as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, by ethnic group or culture area, by tribe, by clan, by family lineage or individuality--and yet when any of these static divisions are considered in the dynamic process of change they soon become quite inaccurate--even at the impossibly complex yet empirically most valid individual level. There is no such thing as an absolute human universal which applies absolutely without exception or variation to all human beings--which when taken beyond superficial analysis there doesn't emerge anomalous exceptions--"in-betweens" which fit no category perfectly.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It can be said that at the biological level--the functional-structural level--there exists a biological horizon within which all of humanity can be outlined and defined and beyond which it is not possible to stray. Even this horizon is the broadest extent possible, incorporating within it all possible diversity and variation, and itself is continuously evolving. Individuality begins at the bio-chemical level, and multiplies exponentially in complexity the higher up the scale we go. If we add to this already complex inventory of bio-chemical-physiological variation, all of the vast myriad of chance environmental influences which might either directly or indirectly affect the phenotypical expression and modification of the genotypical nature of humanity, and then add on top of this the vast array of cultural influences and interrelationships possible, in lieu of all this complexity of the problem of universal human nature it is amazing that there are as many similarities between humans as are manifest. Variation and differentiation at the pan human biological level increases exponentially as we ascend the ladder of complexity to the pan human supra cultural level of consideration. This simple argument of the biological, personality and cultural complexity of humanity is enough to demolish any hope of discovering a stereotypical universal human nature. Even the concept of consistent individual identity becomes quite questionable in light of consideration of random day to day, year to year, influences as each and every one of us continually changes mostly in unpredictable directions and in time become virtually altogether different from what we once were.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Besides the biological horizon is the problem of determining and defining those presumably few personally attributes which are ultimately necessary and sufficient to describe the personality of any given individual. In essence the personality horizon presents a level of empirical complexity which cannot be theoretically transcended without sacrificing empirical validity. Individual personality is complex--the influences and interactions--that personality tends to defy adequate theoretical generalization. The comparison of individuals out of context to these individual differences and complexities tends to present a superficial and distorted view of reality. Essentially we cannot generalize across individuals with the theoretical certitude we need in order to construct a model of universal personality. The same thing applies at the cultural horizon. Cultures are like personalities to the extent that one cannot theoretically generalize beyond culture bounds--cross culturally--without losing empirical consistency in explanation. Each cultural configuration presents a unique set of behavioral patternings which are a virtual infinitude of explainable influences. These patterns are unique to any given culture and the essential differences between cultural patternings cannot be consistently compared cross culturally without destroying the prerequisite cultural context. Personality differences do not cross cultural boundaries. We must define norms in any behavioral situation--these norms are similar only within the same cultural context. Cultural norms do not generalize cross culturally.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Shweder's main conclusions are that different situational factors affect different people differently--individual variations in one context do not necessarily predict individual variations in another context. Individual differences in behavior are dependent upon context and are not generalizable across comparable contexts. Evidence for cultural integration in inconclusive and inadequate. Early childhood training does not have predictable consequences on adult behavior. Contextual comparability is inversely related to cultural variation--individual differences are inapplicable for understanding cultural differences. External "objectively" defined contexts do not determine absolutely the adaptive accommodation of a human being to the environment. Unless a lot is known about an individual's objective, choices, beliefs, values and culture, most universal generalizations have little predictive power. "Motivational integration of culture" is probably wrong as an empirical generalization. Common motivations are not required to account for cultural integration. Individuals within cultures vary much more between themselves than between cultures. Cultural integration can be adequately reinterpreted as personality and cultural congruence. "Personification" of culture is not empirically necessary but only coincidental. Human behavior is not easily describable within the context of "universal human nature"--in terms of a universal scheme of forces or entities of a limited number of kinds and governed by a limited number of forces. A good scientific theory is supposedly both parsimonious and empirically valid (i.e. predictive power). The paradox of social science theory is that empirical validity (predictive success) tends to be inversely related to parsimony and vice versa. The choice is either predictability or explanability, and from a scientific standpoint neither is adequate without the other. My question is how much must psychiatric theory be scientific?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">When we ask of how much of human nature is biological, we can answer all and none. When we ask how much of human nature is individually determined and unique to the personality we can answer all and none. When we ask how much of human nature is culturally determined and characteristic of the culture we can answer all and none. When we ask whether biology, personality and culture are in the integrity of the human being one and the same, we can answer yes and no. The paradox of universal human nature is that all humans are similar and dissimilar biologically, in personality, and in culture. This is the universal human dilemma.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe it is important to compare different individuals to identity differences and similarities (hopefully to be able to compare comprehensively all individuals), likewise I believe it is equally important to compare cultures (hopefully all cultures), for it is only by these comparisons that similarities and differences can be identified. Such comparisons are necessary for the establishment of individual and cultural identity, providing contextual frames of reference by which we can seek to explain individual and cultural behavior patterns. But we must recognize the intrinsic limitations of such comparisons--the biological, personal and cultural horizons, and the extrinsic limitations of application--the explanation of appropriate behavior within and without appropriate context.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We can compare individuals. Indeed we must differentiate between individuals to gain some sense of social identity, but we cannot use our comparisons to explain, evaluate or judge an individual's behavior. An individual's behavior patterns are in context primarily to his own individual relativity--preferences and rationality. Any cross person comparison (IQ test) can tell us differences about individual's contexts, and these comparisons are necessary to help understand social congruence but they do not provide an adequate model for explaining or understanding an individual's behavior patterns. We can compare these individual contexts within a wider cultural context, but we cannot compare individual's contexts cross culturally. We can compare cultural contexts one with another, but we cannot use the context of one to understand the context of another. Our comparisons are not adequate in explaining the cultural configuration of any one culture. Biologically we can compare between individuals or groups of individuals , but we cannot use the biological mode derived from one individual or group to adequately explain the biological behaviors of another individual or group. The explanations would not be adequate because they would oversimplify the empirical reality. Explanations of behavior are context dependent. Such explanations would be out of context for valid understanding.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Given these three horizons to the understanding of universal human nature, what can we construct with what few remnants by which to understand human behavior? Any theoretical construct of human "nature" cannot be adequately removed from relative contextuality without damaging its empirical validity--i.e. absolute universals of human nature, though theoretically possible, are empirically highly improbable. We have left over only imperfect generalizations--models of probabilities which ever more closely approximate understanding of human behavior patternings. I propose an alternative to the replication of uniformity ideal which has been implied by the quest for absolute understanding of universal human nature, and this alternative is the organization of diversity of the <u>human behavioral continuum</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There exists in reality a continuum of all possible variations of human behavioral stylizations, configurations and patternings. This continuum is bounded by the biological, personality and cultural horizons, but is theoretically open ended in the sense that within its bounds there are possible an infinite variety of potential behavioral combinations at the biological, personal and cultural levels. If given access, any person or culture can carve up this continuum in their own unique style or pattern. People and cultures all tend to prescribe to a limited portion of the continuum which might be regarded as the normal range. <u>All people and cultures carve up and utilize different portions of this continuum differently</u>. Some utilize more extensively and some more restrictively portions of the continuum. The <u>continuum is virtually one</u> and the <u>same for all people </u>and <u>cultures. </u>Now in<u> </u>context to this continuum we can compare individuals and cultures at the appropriate biological, personal or cultural levels, as to which similar and different portions of the continuum are utilized, but this is the closest we can come too the formulation of an ideal of universal human nature. This continuum is in a sense a universal continuum--pan human and pan cultural. No single functionally or structurally integrated, organismic culture (world culture) has yet arisen which utilizes all portions of the continuum.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I conceive of a human behavioral continuum, as a replacement for the concept of universal human nature, incorporating the widest possible biological horizon, the intermediate probable cultural horizon and the definitively peculiar and singular personal horizon. All cultures and all individuals divide up and utilize this continuum in distinctive and unique ways and even though the potential for any person or culture to utilize any portion of this spectrum (any human being can behave any way that is biologically possible) is theoretically unbounded, it is nonetheless determined primarily by the biological horizon, secondly by the cultural horizon and thirdly, but not least, the personality horizon. Furthermore I conceive of this continuum as being <u>dynamic</u>, changing in time--and mostly increasing in the direction of complexity. The reality of this continuum is that it is growing upon the biologically extensive horizon and upon the personally and culturally intensive horizon--in complexity and sophistication. This continuum is the contextual frame of reference, as opposed to the absolute reference to universal human nature, by which we seek to understand and explain all human behavior patterning.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The problem of the universal human dilemma is light of the universal human behavioral continuum is whether there might be some "natural" rational order if human behavior patterning which might serve as a pan human basis of understanding rationality/irrationality. There are two sides to this singular problem. The first is the problem of determining how much human behavior might be reducible to a biological, structural-functional physical-physiological explanation--how much does bio chemistry, genetic heredity, genotype, instinct, and innate physical structures of body and brain determine human behavior as opposed to phenotypical (cultural heritage and context) explanations, and whether this "natural" rationality is in some sense qualitatively different and distinct from "unnatural" irrationality or whether irrational behavior might be understood simply as being some manner of exaggeration or extreme manifestation of rational behavior. Both sides present dichotomies (nature/nurture, natural/unnatural) which I believe can be realistically transcended in anthropological explanation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I am not so much interested in scientific understanding (causes and effects) of psycho pathology, though these explanations are not unimportant, rather I am searching for rationally explainable factors of irrational (disordered) behavior (causes and effects of a failure of rationality [irrationality]). Can failure of rationality cause mental illness or does irrationality result from mental illness, or is this another hen or egg problem. I believe the real problem is one of <u>processural</u> understanding rather than causal explanation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I am not discounting altogether any sort of biological (bio-chemistry imbalance, physical brain damage or genetic predisposition) or cultural (press and stress of social sets and setting) explanations for behavioral disorder of an individual. It is my contention that from a relativistic standpoint neither explanation is wholly adequate, though analytically partially necessary, but there is a third transcendent point of consideration. My main consideration is rather the perceived irrationality of that disordered behavioral process and this is beside the point of biological or cultural factors or genesis or causality. To understand irrationality we must reference this understanding against an understanding of rationality. And to define or explain rationality we need to reference this against some kind of <u>ideology</u> by which any model of rationality/irrationality can be understood as a movement away from rational ideology. Rationality is relative, and the standards by which we are to evaluate rationality/irrationality are also relative to the arbitrary willpower to believe. From a humanistic standpoint, rather than from a scientific one, it is necessary to understand rationality/irrationality as a function of individual willpower. Human behavior patternings are directional and relational and are explainable in terms of normal tendencies, generalities, and approximate probabilities, and rationality/irrationality is understandable in terms of approximation or deviation from these normal "gestalts". This is not to say that a schizophrenic wants to be "mentally ill", indeed his willpower is most probably irrelevant to his condition--but I do contend that somewhere within the root of the disordered behavioral process is an implied failure of rationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Furthermore I conceive of rationality as being contextually dependent upon change. I believe many theoretical conceptions of mental disorder and behavioral pathology are inadequate because they are relatively static models, failing to adequately incorporate the reality of change within the fundamental theoretical framework. Accounting for continual and constant change must be integral to any understanding of rationality/irrationality. He problem for change is the key reason for the empirical and theoretical inadequacy of any explanation of human behavior patterning. Rational behavior is behavior which is ordered along some explicable means in relation to change--in other words, entailing behavioral adaptation to change to maintain some sense of at least minimal order. Irrationality is the failure to maintain sensible explicable and understandable order in relation to change--unadaptive or maladaptive response to changes resulting in nonsensical disorder. The failure of an individual to comprehend the irrationality of his own disorder--the relativity of rationality--does not preclude the labeling of maladaptive behavior as irrational in relation to change. The key understanding of irrational behavior is that, aside from biological and cultural components such behavior is disordered (unexplainable) because it is essentially out of context to change (lacking any rationally identifiable frame of reference, whether biological, cultural or personal).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While I believe irrationality to be the negative expression or rationality, it is not just simply this negativity, but also more important there is an essential qualitative difference between negative irrationality and rationality construed as positively beneficial-healthy. While it is enough to interpret irrationality in negative terms referenced against rationality, the positive process is essentially different from this negative process and must likewise be referenced against rationality in the opposite, essentially distinct direction. Rationality is the anthropologically transcendent concept from which to understand behavioral irrationality and rational creativity, but simply in relation to rationality it is to be viewed as continuous and merely as an extreme or exaggerated condition of rational behavior. From the anthropological standpoint rationality might be viewed as neutral (objective) contexts against which to reference both "good", healthy "positive" behavior and "bad" unhealthy negative behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Understood as a negative organismic conditionality, I wish to interpret the meaning of irrationality/rationality in terms of the anthropological definition of human understanding which I have previously proffered, by first analyzing this definition into the exclusive, independent thetical terms of psychological understanding of psycho pathology and then in inclusive, dependent, antithetical terms of sociological understanding of socio pathology, and secondly I wish to synthesize these opposed understandings into an anthropological understanding of behavioral irrationality. I also wish to emphasize that the problem of rationality/irrationality is essentially different but not unrelated to the problem of rationality/rational creativity which I will deal with in the next and last part of this work. While I dislike the use of the term pathology as it connotes to me a biological disease/illness relationship which this work is seeking basically to dispute, I find the term most descriptive in terms of socio pathology as connoting a contagion--a social disease and psycho pathology as connoting primarily a biological process.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anthropological understanding of behavioral rationality/irrationality must be interpreted in symbolic terms of ego reality (rationality) as incorporating the dipolar behavioral continuum between thetical psychological understanding of psycho pathology of the self, and in sociological understanding of socio pathology of the other. Essentially ego reality (rationality) is the mediating reality between the two extremes of the behavioral continuum. The anthropological model of ego reality is fundamentally a tripartite one, as was the Freudian model of personality, incorporating biological foundations of the self (id), socio cultural structure and context of the other (superego) and personality of the ego reality (rationality). Ego reality is defined both in exclusive terms of the self and inclusive terms of the other and describe the interaction and interrelationship between the two within the personality. Behavioral irrationality is best understood anthropologically in the interpretation of rational/irrational behavioral symbolism--as primarily being the expression and communication of <u>emotionality</u>--as being essentially <u>affective</u> in nature, integrating the mind/body dichotomy.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Behavioral rationality is essentially ordered emotionality and irrationality is essentially disordered behavioral emotionality. While psycho pathology might be understood as lying closer to the extreme of biological--body brain dysfunction expressed in emotional modes of action, feelings and cognitions--in terms of pain, sufferings, anxiety and fear, at the opposite analytical extreme socio pathology may be understood in communicable terms of emotionality-cultural forms-conceptuality-mind expressed as the emotion of pure reason--of "unemotion". All behavioral modes ranging from personal to cultural, from pure mechanical material action to pure spiritual ontological mentation, have an essential emotional, affective content by which it is rendered personally and culturally meaningful (rational) or else ameaningful (irrational).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">First I will elaborate the psychological problem of psycho pathology, then I will elaborate the sociological problem of sociological problem of socio pathology, and I will finally elaborate upon the anthropological problem of behavioral irrationality as being the synthetical integration of the psychological and sociological problems. I believe there is a natural (psychological) and a logical (sociological) ordering of rational human behavior. I will state unequivocally that it is best summarized by the expression "Vachasa, Manasa, Kayena" in thought, word and deed. This order is unidirectional as a temporal process of change from thought (mind) to action (body) mediated through emotion. Emotionality has a rational ordering or directionality of expression. Irrationality is the reversal of this rational of this rational ordering--hence its disordering.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The psycho pathological process is to be viewed as a <u>developmental disorganization</u> of the individual, manifest in disordered behavioral stylizations and resulting in disintegration of the personality and potential self destruction. This psychological process is spontaneous and essentially exclusive and independent of the socio pathological process--it can occur out of context of any socio pathology, but the socio pathological process depends upon and includes psycho pathological development. There is in life two tendencies--one toward increased order and the other towards increased disorder. The first is birth oriented and entails courage-motivation and the second is death oriented and entails fear motivation. The first is to be viewed as healthy, positive developmental process while the second is unhealthy and a negative developmental process. Both processes are respectively positive and negative feedback cycles--virtuous and vicious spirals of growth and decay. He ultimate rationale, natural and logical motivational source of both processes is <u>willpower</u> (volition)--the fundamental organismic life energy of the human being. At the heart of all irrational psycho pathological processes I believe there is a fundamentally negative commitment or just a failure of commitment of willpower--eventuating in premature death. The same behavioral pattern might be either psychologically birth oriented and courage motivated or death oriented and fear motivated, depending upon appropriate or inappropriate contextuality, and hence the difficulty in neatly sorting out and distinguishing psychologically healthy processes from the pathological. It is not necessarily to imply that an individual becomes pathological just because he/she has "coped out" motivationally on himself/herself, but it is to imply that somewhere and somehow an important link in the developmental life process was consistently "coped out on" by someone. As I will try to demonstrate, I believe the biological organismic concept and the developmental life process is much more inclusive and broader than the narrow concept of the self--entailing a whole range of biologically imperative if not absolutely necessary human interrelationships. In a sense, certain biologically ordained human interrelationships can be viewed as transcendent psychological organisms in themselves and in these psychological relationships psycho pathological processes are often times "shared" by the component members of these transcendent biological entities--thus the "inheritance" infectiousness and transmission of psycho pathological disorders from person to person and from generation to generation. This can mean that psychological processes are due as much to failure to acquire appropriate repertories from appropriate role models as well as willfully coping out, as well as cultural or biological inheritance of predispositions to psycho pathological processes. The simple psycho pathological process extends beyond the self boundaries and incorporates a part of others.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The psycho pathological process being essentially an idiographic developmental disorder, I need to proffer a definition of what I view to be a "natural" or rational order of growth, maturation and transition in the developmental life process. I see the development of the human organism as being concurrently manifested all along the behavioral continuum. For my own convenience I will divide this continuum along three parallel planes--the mental, the emotional, and the actional. The mental plane of developmental disorder involves perceptual-cognitive functioning, from conceptually objective to subjective; the emotional plane of developmental disorder involves affective experience from low to high, and the actional plane of developmental disorder involves organismic somatic condition, from tensed to relaxed. Expression of psycho pathological processes occurs concurrently along three planes. It is important to note that the overall contextuality is the determining factor of appropriate or inappropriate behavior, and in the case of psycho pathology it is the total biological organismic context which is important.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe the developmental process to be a "growth" process which does not cease until senility and death. I wish to emphasize the continuity of this developmental process. Though this life death continuum can theoretically be analytically divided into any number of stages, I wish to emphasize that such stages are not biologically absolute or necessary but are rather arbitrarily determined by the human observer. Overemphasis upon stages distorts the nature of the developmental life process by creating the illusion of essential organismic structural-functional differences and discontinuity between stages. Instead of a developmental model dividing the life process into a series of steps or stages, I wish to proffer a developmental model of gradual continuous transition, growth and maturation , instead of a stepwise discontinuity rather overall continuity and interrelatedness. While there without doubt occurs biologically critical periods of inauguration and crucial passage periods of structural-functional transition, I believe that these changes occur relatively idiosyncratically and are a minor consideration when set against a developmental background of multidimensional holothetic organismic continuity and contextuality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The developmental life process is idiosyncratically relative--and is dependent to some extent upon the perception of change. There is some truth that the older we become the faster time seems to pass--a sign of biologically slowing down. In relation to a fifty year old, one year is only one fiftieth part of a lifetime, whereas for a four year old the same year is one fourth of a lifetime. In relation to at least potential biological progression, failure to progress can be considered regressive, while individuals can be seen to arbitrarily regress to earlier repertories of earlier periods of existence, such regression is also just implied by the perspective of potential progression. In general the process entails a broader and more sophisticated incorporation and acquisition of functional repertories of motivational expression.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In general the past cannot be definitively said to have a conclusively <u>decisive</u> effect upon the present in personality development. I believe that as a biological contextual 'background" the deep structure of the past, memories, old habits, acquired and deeply ingrained repertories genetic predispositions and structure does have a tremendous cumulative but not a <u>decisive </u>influence upon the present. The possibility of crucial stages as being permanently consequential to personality development has not been, nor I believe can ever be, adequately empirically validated. To say that a compulsive personality disorder is the result of overly restrictive potty training, or that missing out on a single day of appropriate adjustment will eventuate in a whole life time of misery, is in part merely to make an empirically untenable generalization. To believe in such a statement is to take a leap of faith and to close one's mind to the reality of alternative explanations. To lay cause or blame upon the past is to divest the importance of decisive influence of willpower of ego rationality--in determining the present. It is to commit essentially the same error as led the disordered individual down the dark corridor of psycho pathology in the first place. There is a need for harmonization in the life process--maintenance of a continual balance between the three planes of motivational expression--the mental, the emotional and the actional and the three functional forms of motivational expression--power, affiliation and achievement. The balance must be continually maintained with an ever present need to reharmonize within newly emerging contexts of life changes. The gross dysfunctional imbalancing of these motivations--to much of one at the sake of the others, is the primary expression of the psycho pathological process. It is impossible to say exactly where a psycho pathological process begins--it could begin with unresolved physical, emotional, mental problems--but the effects are always consistently similar--the irrational disordering of rational behavior. I wish to remonstrate the fundamental irreducible complexity of the theoretical problem that is entailed by the holothetic multidimensional organismic comprehension of behavioral irrationality. The key turning point is motivational loss of functional identity--a falling out of appropriate biological developmental context to the point of organismic disorganization. I will order the psycho pathological process along a developmental continuum of increasing disorder ranging the normal extreme of all pervasive anxiety of <u>rational anxiety</u> to the extreme of <u>psychotic irrationality</u>. I will arbitrarily divide this continuum for the sake of clarification into three phases--the initial beginning phase, the intermediate transitional stage and the culminating phase. Many individuals are able to achieve a minimal--perhaps optimal adjustment somewhere along this continuum upon the three planes of motivational expression, achieving a relatively changeless static condition--perceived permanence--by the maintenance and incorporation of certain "coping" mechanisms as long as possible--remaining in that condition indefinitely until irreconcilable mitigating circumstances force changes--either for the worse or better. Such changelessness is relative not absolute, and provides only an illusory modicum of security against inevitable demise. Eternal life is a nice wish. I will describe the three phases of the psycho pathological continuum of disorder as I believe they are manifested along the three planes of motivational expression.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The <u>initial phase</u> of behavioral disorganization of the life process along the <u>mental plane</u> of motivational expression is characterized by anxiety--defined by a fundamental mistrust of perceptions, cognitions and decisions, general indecisiveness and mental confusion and nervousness, causing and caused by the functional failure to satiate perceptual, cognitive and normative needs, by feelings of lowered self esteem and by insufficient power motivation and leading to an <u>intermediate phase</u> of transitional or chronic perpetuative mentations characterized by recurrent flights of fantasy, day dreaming, persistent obsessive mentation, anti-intraception, self deception, closed mindedness and entailing systems of ruminant reality testing (rationalization) of unresolved problems, of hypocritical pride and prejudice, and eventuating in a <u>culminating phase</u> of psychotic irrationality characterized by schizophrenic symptoms, paranoia, and general psychic disintegration and disorganization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The <u>initial phase</u> of behavioral disorganization of the life process along the <u>emotional plane</u> of motivational expression is characterized by emotional conflict and feelings of desperation, loneliness, emotional discontentedness and unhappiness, causing and caused by a failure to make adequate emotional adjustments to life changes characterized by a failure to satiate social/sexual needs, by feelings of social/sexual inadequacy, and by insufficient affiliation motivation and leading to an intermediate phase of transitional or chronic perpetuative systems of projection and transference of emotionality, by systems of emotional-verbal persecution, feelings of guilt, vicariousness of emotions, social withdrawal, chronic masturbation, sexual repression, emotional repression, self abnegation, separation of sex and sentiment, a general desensitization of personality expression, a "coldness" or shallowness of emotional expression, expressed antipathy, jealousy or apathy of others, and eventuating in a <u>culminating phase</u> of extreme psychotic episodes of mania and depression, in psycho sexual and psycho social personality disorders and in complete emotional dissociation, decathexsis and affective "flatness".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The <u>initial phase</u> of behavioral disorganization of the life process along the <u>actional plane</u> of motivational expression is characterized by physical feelings of bodily weakness, unhealthiness, uncleaniness, by feelings of impending physical threat or harm, or by fears of loss of bodily control or of impending doom or death or disaster, causing and caused by failure to make adequate physical adjustments to life changes characterized by failure to satiate biological needs, by feelings of material, financial or physical adequacy, and by insufficient achievement motivation and leading to an <u>intermediate phase</u> characterized by transitional or chronic perpetuative systems of perseveration of activity, of frustration and suffering, of compulsiveness, of acting out of wish fulfillment, of stinginess, of excessive orderliness, control, cleanliness, routinization, of miserliness, hoarding or excessive displays of conspicuous consumption, spending, ostentation beyond one's means by active efforts to enforce conformity, by excessive voluntary commitments, by fanatical belief and behavior, and eventuating in a <u>culminating phase</u> of extreme psychotic episodes of self destructiveness, excessive aggressiveness and destructiveness, psycho somatic disorders, sudden unpredictable outbursts of aggression or fugues or flignts, in excessive substance abuse and compulsive gambling and risk taking--"thrill seeking", by pyromania, kleptomania, by impulse control disorders, by phobias, and by the dissociative disorders, chronic hyperactivity and hypoactivity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I am not proffering an explanatory model or classificatory system of psycho pathology. I am only attempting to formulate a rough organizational model of behavioral disorder by which we can "rationalize" upon irrationality. Before complicating this already over inclusive model, I must reiterate about the enormous difficulty adequately explaining such a complex problem as psycho pathology. There simply are not final explanations nor conclusively absolute categories or labels by which to address and comprehend the problem of behavioral irrationality. I must also reemphasize the intended interactional nature and interrelatedness of the three behavioral planes of the developmental continuum of disorder. I have sought to explain psycho pathology as being processural rather than causal; as occurring within bounds of a dynamic contextual continuum rather than as being simply a static part of states or a series of steps.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I wish to elaborate upon a problem I previously alluded to--that of the need for determining psycho pathological disorder against an appropriate (or inappropriate) <u>biological organismic context</u>--one that extends beyond the bounds of the self. This is the fourth axes of evaluation of disorder--appropriate or inappropriate "social" behavior. From a psychological point of view "socio biological" behavior, I will define this context as being the minimal/maximal (optimal) biological family structure consisting of four potential role models--a mother, a father, a daughter and a son. This is the minimum biologically necessary to extend and sustain the biological line through time--biological reproduction and regeneration. Now I am not arguing that this biological family structure is a unexceptional and unalterable biological human universal--it is simply a man and a woman reproducing and replicating their genetic potential in the form of a son or a daughter. For any person, male or female, biological rationality entails at least reproduction and replication of oneself in terms of genetic potential.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I will divide the ego as self into the classical biological "Adam and Eve" dichotomy--into two biologically determined possibilities--the male self and the female self. Each of these two possible self entities has four possible "homosexual" role models which are heterosexually complementary. For the male self these are the alternative roles of son, brother, husband (male spouse) and father. For the female self the four complementary role models are daughter, sister, wife (female spouse) and mother respectively. At one time or another in the course of life it is potentially possible for either male or female self to assume each of these four role models. Note also that these four alternative biological role models have been purposely presented in order. A male is usually a son and a brother before he can be a husband and then a father while conversely a female is always a daughter and usually a sister before she is a wife and then a mother. This order has important consequences in consideration of psychological personality development. These four role modalities constitute what I term the <u>four alternative probable facets of personality development</u>--defining the four <u>theoretically probable </u>modalities<u> of psychological identity </u>of the <u>self</u> in a <u>biological context. </u>These modalities<u> </u>together form the<u> potential personality matrix </u>within which to express one's acquired <u>repertories</u> of motivationally functional behavioral <u>stylizations</u>. This minimal/maximal biological family unit describes the vertically ordered lineage structure of biological genetic transmission. Homosexual relationships are ordered lineally--diachronically in time, and heterosexual relationships are ordered spatially, horizontally and synchronically in space. This contextual unit defines the <u>primary</u> human interrelationships by which an individual personality, whether male or female, gains a biologically founded, psychological contextuality and rationality (rational identity).</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I am not stating that these are automatically necessary from a biological standpoint. Indeed a child can be adopted and orphaned, a man can have no sister nor wife, nor daughter or son and vice versa the same is true for a woman. Nor does a mother necessarily always naturally love her child, or a husband his wife. An uncle or aunt or grandparent or a friend or a foe can intervene practically anywhere within this lineage schema. These are only from a theoretical standpoint the biological preferred and important relationships, and they are the most naturally, logically and rationally <u>probable </u>though not the only possible relationships. I am only asserting that this minimal biological lineage structure is the most theoretically practicable for explaining and understanding the rational biological context for irrational psychological behavioral processes. These four alternative role modalities fit the four stages of personality and civilization development I previously cited; the oral, anal, phallic and genital--when considered in the biological developmental order of <u>child, sibling, spouse </u>or<u> parent</u>. They can be schematized as being the four vertices of a tetrahedron, as earlier alluded to.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The six interrelationships defined by these four role modalities are husband/wife, mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son, and brother/sister. Within the framework of these six familial interrelationships certain psychological inter-dynamics, <u>psychodynamics </u>arise which<u> </u>have meaningful consequences for psycho pathological development. The psychodynamics of these primary human interrelationships are such that where biological considerations fails to provide natural (rational)reinforcement in interhuman bonding, the deficit is felt in psychological terms of the self compared to potential personality as an internal, biologically based<u> deficit </u>of <u>personality</u> in terms of <u>unresolvable role model ambivalence</u> and <u>irreconcilable motivational repertory conflict</u>, within any of the four role modalities and six interrelationships, in either the male self or female self and is such as to tend to predispose the self psychologically to motivationally reinforce this internally felt deficit through external compensatory behavior patterns--through <u>projection</u> of <u>personality</u>. The problem is that where such compensatory behaviors do not occur because of mitigating environmental conditions, the bonds tend to become easily broken, causing a loss of biological identity and personality fulfillment, but when they are manifest, such behaviors often times become over compensatory to the point of disharmonization and imbalance such that the original nature (rationality) of the bond becomes irrational--psycho pathological, and such effects eventually become reflected in an over restrictive personality matrix of the self--with pattern of negative reinforcement (discipline, taboo, and punishment) predominating over patterns of positive reinforcement (privilege, reward, and liberty)</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The biological nuclear family is not the father/mother/child--it is simply the mother/child bond. The mother child bond is the only biological universal, and this even is not automatically, unexceptionably so. It is biologically the strongest and predominating bond of the personality matrix of the self--involving the acquisition of such fundamental behavioral repertories in early, even prenatal childhood development of trust, love, security, projection. In general, from a biological standpoint the female is the preferred sexual state--it is perhaps the most crucial to reproduction, the most vulnerable, the least expendable (one man can inseminate many women, but one woman can be inseminated by relatively few men). Even among the best primates the male tends to take a backseat and a peripheral role to the biological reproductive process. In relation to these considerations the male self can generally be said to stand in somewhat second place to the female self. The bonds between husband/wife and father/child are not as biologically stable as the mother/child bond, and this might very well be a deeply felt source of male ego ambivalence and masculine personality deficit, and even perhaps a "uteral" envy in having almost exclusive monopoly over the biological reproduction process. But the male as the phallic inseminator does have a trump card in the game of life--and he uses this card sometimes quite flagrantly to reassure himself and reinforce and compensate for his biologically sensed deficit. I will leave it to others to debate, test and disprove this assertion. I believe this fundamental biological contextual framework can be used to demonstrate more theoretically parsimonious and empirically commensurable alternative explanations for such notions as the now classical Freudian oedipal complex, and symbolic primal patricide, for the almost universal incest taboo, for nearly universal, pan cultural patriarchal domination and matriarchal subordination, and possibly for the deep seatedness of human competitive behavior and intra-species aggression, as well as many other problems.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I propose to be a very simple but very parsimonious explanation of the almost universal predominance of the male self and masculine personality over the female counterparts. The problem seems to be primarily one of masculine identity crisis, and usually females do not seem to have their lives afflicted by such an identity problem except where they have arbitrarily shirked their own role modalities. While a daughter might be construed as reinforcing the father's masculine identity by the implicit promise of increased fertility and is not necessarily threatening to the identity of the mother, the son might simultaneously be the source of such ambivalence for the father. The father/son bond is perhaps the weakest and most strained and most in need of behavioral reinforcement. All males have had fathers and were once sons themselves and potentially fathers too. The son reminds the father of his fundamentally felt masculine inferiority in his relationship to the mother and daughter and he thus overcompensates by reinforcing his authoritarian father role over the son. He feels jealous perhaps of the son's almost exclusive postpartum access to the mother, of the possibility of the son's rebellion and usurpation of his own authority, the son's dependence upon the mother's nurturance is a reflection of the father's own masculine frailty and a reminder that he once was some father's son also. The problem of male passage rites and totem taboos are not due so much to oedipal conflicts on the part of the son--of the son's ambivalence and jealousy towards his father--even though this is possible, it is more likely the case that the source of conflict is in the father's ambivalence and jealousy towards his son--the fear of usurpation of his authority and the resultant need to behaviorally reinforce his own role modality. Fathers are usually more powerful than their sons, and almost always in the father/son struggle come out on top. Anyways, while all fathers were once sons, a possible source of identity problems, not all sons are necessarily fathers, though they may be incipient--potential fathers. The heterosexual brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter relationships are biologically weakened and strained by the possibilities of latent feelings if heterosexual incestuous involvement mitigated by the problem of potentially unconditional love primary bonding occasions, hence the need to behaviorally obstruct and make the interhuman bonds even more conditional then they already are--daughter can sit upon father's lap only until tumescence. If incest were naturally repressed, as Freud believed, then there would be no need for strict incest taboos, they would not be so frequently violated as they are. Because of the latent possibility of incest, especially for the insecure male, taboos must be behaviorally reinforced and the natural bonds separated and distanced. Because parent/child and brother/sister incest <u>is</u> biologically deleterious and detrimental and is potentially socially disintegrative as are homosexuality and masturbation, these taboos must be reinforced within the biological family structure. Where the need is inadequately compensated for by other extraneous circumstances, the taboo is minimal and negligent anyways, but where there is manifest over compensation of extreme taboos, the problem of incest is taken very seriously, if only unconsciously in contextuality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What are the consequences of this biological context for the understanding of psycho pathology. In the first place it defines the four fundamental role modalities--child, sibling, spouse and parent, as developmental stages of personality growth. Regressive psycho pathology can be construed within this context as failure to progress to the higher level modalities--as fixation and imbalanced predominance in a lower level of being. These modalities are manifested mostly as emotional expressions of the self and emotionally is the primary manner of experiencing the problem of these modalities. In human bonding, between father and son and mother and child, husband and wife, the relationship often times take an affective life of its own--in love and hate, in passion--in its own right becoming a biological organimic reality in which the psychological dynamics and motivation of either member is inextricably involved and is transcended. To understand psycho pathology at this transcendent emotional plane--it must be interpreted within this biological context as involving psychologically more than a single personality--but the transcendent organismic integrity of more than one personality. When an individual disorder is treated out of context of these primary emotional relationships the problem often times goes unresolved--by analytically separating and destroying the transcendent existence from which the original problem arose. Parents and children, husband and wife often need to be treated psychologically as a single emotionally irreducible biological entity rather than as separate and isolatable individual conditions. The emotional plane of these primary interhuman relationships and the four role modalities of the psychological context are the rudimentary anthropological threads tying the problems of psycho pathology to the problem of socio pathology.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Socio pathology must be understood as irrational disordering of the ego in terms of the other in relation to sociological behavior systems and cultural identity--in terms of the cultural matrix. Understanding of socio pathology must be understood in terms of failure of ideological ordering of the social systems (as social rationality) and from the anthropological point of view--this is the implied ideology of humanism; in terms of failure of humanistic rationality, maturity and morality. This is not to say that the socio pathological process always begins with a failure at the formal ideological level of a culture, as opposed to the socio structural and the functional material levels. Indeed all cultures consist of concurrent processural interfunctioning at all three levels and socio pathology becomes manifest at all three levels. It is rather to assert that socio pathology always become expressed as the illogical (irrational) disordering of sociological systems in which the ideological level is no longer the primary level of rational organization of cultural functioning. Understanding of irrational sociological disorder must be referenced against a rationality ordered cultural context--and these are the sociological role modalities of the cultural matrix, by which the sociological concept of the other gains cultural identity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Nomothetic sociological understanding of the socio pathology of the other is antithetical to, dependent upon and inclusive of understanding of psycho pathology. While the psycho pathological process is to be seen primarily as a developmental disorder of the personality which is directional and motivational, on the other hand, the socio pathological pro--is to be seen primarily as a developmental disorder of the culture which is <u>relational</u> and <u>contextual</u>. While psycho pathology can be seen as the failure of the individual to adequately adapt to changes in the life process, socio pathology can be seen as stress causing contexts which hinders and precludes individual adaptability to change, with the next overall result of rendering whole cultures of people virtually maladaptive. It can be viewed as the failure to provide adequate sociological role models to enable the ego as other to be functionally culturally adaptive. While incorporating psychology by projection and congruence socio pathology extends further by rendering a whole culture of intrinsically rational people extrinsically, relationally, and contextually in functional political, social and economic structures--maladaptive and disorganized. The "mainstream" of "rational" normally adaptive individuals who are not intrinsically psycho pathological becomes socio pathological within the cultural context of socio pathology. Their social behavior patterning which is misconstrued as normal and rationally ordered can be reinterpreted within the socio cultural context as being relationally and contextually inappropriate--as irrationality disordered.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Socio pathology is a relative problem. The normal sociopaths of any culture would be the last people to admit the fundamental irrationality of their "systems", except in as much as these systems appear stressful and incongruent with their own natural and rational personal aspirations. Socio pathology derives its motivational energy from psycho pathological process by the mechanisms of collective projection of psycho pathological problems of the self onto the social systems of the other, and contextual congruence and collective conformity to these socio pathological systems. Within a sociological context of organization of diversity as little as 15% social congruence--say five people out of thirty--is more than enough to set the socio pathological process in motion. Psycho pathological individuals whose personality matrix resembles the cultural matrix of socio pathological groups, whose personal stylizations fit the system, can become socially reinforced and considered as being "socially" successful in cultural adaptability.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The essential problem of socio pathological development seems to be the rule of the other over the self, the imbalanced predominance of the "superego" over the "id", fostering social <u>dependency </u>of the individual in relational terms (emotional congruence) and the pervasive <u>diffusion of responsibility</u> (emotional projection) from the self onto the "system" of the other which can in fact be considered to be a group myth realized through collective conformity of behavior. The social "system" of the other takes a life process of its own which transcends the "self control" of any constituent of the system and thus the socio pathological process is set in motion. The functioning of the system is no longer necessarily commensurate to the adaptive needs of the individuals within its relational context--and in as much as it hinders individual adaptive functioning can be considered socio pathological. While psycho pathology might be considered as being the problem of selfishness or of ego confusion about the self, socio pathology can be considered as being the problem of selflessness or of ego confusion about the other.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Like psycho pathology, the socio pathological process occurs concurrently on three parallel levels of cultural functioning--the formal ideological, the socio structural and the functional material levels, and it occurs in three general stages of development--the initial, the intermediate, and the culminating stages.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The initial stage of the socio pathological process at the <u>formal ideological</u> level results in inappropriate relational context for adaptive human functioning, causally related to a failure to maintain sociological rationality and resultant social irrationality characterized by dishonesty and deceit of the other, the reification and deification of the system of the other, and the ignorance and apathy of the self, becoming manifest in the intermediate stage in transitional or chronic perpetuative maladpative cultural forms of malfunctional political structures characterized by political pride, authoritarianism and political extremism and eventuating in the culminating stage in prevailing political prejudice.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The initial stage of the socio pathological process at the <u>socio structural</u> level results in inappropriate relational contexts for adaptive human functioning, causally related to a failure to achieve social maturity in the form of social independence and responsibility and resultant social immaturity characterized by social dependency and irresponsibility and becoming manifest in the intermediate stage in transitional or chronic perpetuative maladaptive cultural forms of malfunctional structures characterized by institutionalism, social stratification and solidification of class boundaries, relative social immobility, social resistance to change, and social fanaticism and eventuating in the culminating stage of rampant crime, drug abuse and legal persecution.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is the key element of understanding and distinguishing culturally rational behavior from cultural irrationality--ordered culture from disordered culture? Cultural heritage can be seen as a complementary learning process, phenotypically modifying genotypical expression, as an extension of the biologically based adaptive mechanisms to provide an artificial context for more suitable adaptability. When any cultural matrix no longer provides such a context directly related to adaptability, then it can be construed as being irrational. The cultural matrix I believe can be defined as being four social role modalities with six possible interrelationships between these four modalities comprising the socio dynamics of social interrelationships. These role modalities tend to "spread out" horizontally or spatially across lineage structures incorporating age groups. The spatial element of human interrelationships becomes emphasized over the generational-temporal element-providing cultural identity of the sociological life process. These social role modalities represent the socialization or enculturation process of the individual over the span of a single life time. Social role deprivation and stress can occur in any one of these four stages, corresponding to the previous four developmental stages of oral, anal, phallic and genital, and influencing later development in the consequential higher stages, with the cultural development of the ego as other becoming dependent upon the four possible modalities for sociological and cultural identity. These four stages are the pre-educational (infancy), educational (childhood), functional (adulthood) and post functional (retirement and old age). This is, I believe, the socio cultural matrix by which sociological rationality and irrationality must be referenced.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I do not feel I have done the problem of socio pathology justice. It is a problem very difficult to discuss openly and publicly. Very few people are even willing to admit the possibility of the existence of socio pathology. It has been relatively ignored as a problem in and of itself. It is less well defined and poorly understood even compared to the problem of psycho pathology. To say that capitalism is essentially socio pathological, that its practicability doesn't preclude its inherent injustice, because it is founded upon the irrational principle of competition and is unjust because of the deprivation of human rights it entails and the resultant economic material inequity, and it is to be cited as a leading malefactor of the highest evolved forms of militarism in the world today, would surely be to invite criticism and trouble upon myself by others. Nonetheless I believe that socio pathology is a crucial problem; one does not have to look very long or search very far and wide to find its blatant manifestations. More people are victims of socio pathology than they are of psycho pathology, and from a humanistic perspective neither form of victimization is justifiable nor acceptable to any degree. The bottom line of any form of behavioral irrationality is that it results in harm to oneself or another human being. The key element to socio pathology, in whatever form it is manifest, is <u>contagion.</p> </u> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The final outcome of any socio pathological process is <u>social disorganization, cultural disintegration, </u>and <u>other destructiveness</u>. Socio pathology means essentially that rational people can still behave in irrational ways in a sociological context. I believe that we must be able to separate psycho pathological disorder from socio pathological disorder, as being interrelated processural problems and still distinct developmental processes, before we can have any accurate anthropological understanding of behavioral irrationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now what kind of consummate explanation can I proffer for the anthropological meaning of general behavioral irrationality. First I will summarize certain key anthropological points. All human behavior is ordered within a dynamic behavioral continuum of developmental and relational contextuality expressed in patterns at three parallel levels--the cognitive, emotive and connative. Anthropological understanding of rationality/irrationality is processural rather than causal. Important anthropological considerations are the physiological behavioral harmonization and integration between the three planes of motivational stylizations--the mental, emotional and actional, and the sociological behavioral harmonization and integration between the three levels of relational signification--the formal ideological, the socio structural and the functional material. The anthropological irrationality process can be divided into three conditions; the initial condition, the intermediate-chronic-perpetuative or transitional condition and the culminating condition. The anthropologically important psychological plane and sociological level are the emotional and socio structural, respectively, while the anthropologically important psycho pathological phase and socio pathological stage are the intermediate-chronic-perpetuative or transitional. The anthropologically important psychological disorder characterizations are rationalization, repression and regression and the anthropological important sociological disorder characterizations are delusion, projection and dependency. Dependency, diffusion of responsibility, projection and congruence seem to be the principally important anthropological emotive mechanisms. The anthropological problem of rationality/irrationality is principally a problem of emotional symbolization-emotionality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe the fundamental anthropological dichotomy underlying the problem of rationality/irrationality is the self (id)/other (superego) dichotomy. The fundamental behavioral continuum occurs between the two extremes of psychological and sociological. The anthropological problem is one of ego rationality as mediator between these two extremes of ego balance and ego integrity between these two opposites and to avoid ego confusion, resulting in disorder and ego irrationality. There seem in life to be a fundamental, irreconcilable problem of having to choose between the two extremes--to opt for personal development, "self actualization", "self becoming", self expression or opt for social fulfillment, development, growth-"other communication". Usually we have to opt for one at the cost of the other. We are continually confronted with many minor day to day decisions and encounters, and the net cumulative effect seems to opt for the predominance of one way of being over the other. Usually the component of the ego becomes sacrificed or subordinated to the other component.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Within context of this fundamental anthropological dichotomy I will risk a hypothetical anthropological generalization. Usually, but not always, most of the people most of the time choose if not decisively and explicitly then at least cumulatively and tacitly--to opt for predominance of the "other" over the "self" in development of ego rationality--for cultural becoming rather than personal becoming, for social fulfillment rather than personal fulfillment. Actually I believe many if not most people rarely if ever actually perceive such a choice, but it is made "unconsciously" for them--in their failure to acquire appropriate repertories for recognizing and making such choices in their personality development. Most people are so caught up in their relational contextuality and were so thoroughly enculturated and socialized at a sufficiently early age and their personality development has been so restricted by context that they are never really bothered by such choices--the decision was made for them in some other place and in some other time. This means that in <u>ego rationality</u> the <u>other usually predominates over the self most of the time</u>. I believe I can make an important anthropological generalization about the human nature of behavioral rationality/irrationality. Rational behavior is to be construed in holothetic anthropological terms as being "normal"--the normal identity (or normality) of the ego--ego imbalanced behavior in favor of the other is conceived and perceived as ego rational and normally appropriate by the mainstream of "normal" humanity and this essentially other directed ego "normal" behavior is manifested at the psychologically emotional plane and the sociologically socio structural level and at the intermediate chronic perpetuative and transitional phase or stage of psycho pathological and socio pathological development.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This means that most generally normal personality stylizations and most generally normal cultural configurations underlying most personality and most cultural matrices can be construed as being both intermediately psycho pathological and socio pathological respectively with the general ego irrationality being disharmonized and most strongly manifested at the emotional plane and the socio structural level. To find the most important causally related factors of general ego irrationality, we must look in this central direction. In this intermediate-emotive core area of the behavioral continuum most normal behavior is to be construed as being both moderately psycho pathological and socio pathological--that these states are generally construed as being ego normal and ego rational and both intermediate emotive conditions of psycho pathology and socio pathology are mutually reinforcing in most normal contexts. We must pay a cost of personal integrity for social integrity and instead of victimization by socio pathology we generally run the risk of victimization by socio pathology. To pay the admission into cultural identity most of us must be content with being both moderately normal psychopaths and sociopaths. The sociological mechanisms of cultural integration are essentially antithetical and irreconcilable to the mechanisms of personal integration, and between the pushing and the pulling between the two extremes of self and other ego normality falls squarely in the middle as being neither overly sociologically healthy nor extremely socio pathological. Using this generalization we can construct a reasonable picture of what the normality of ego irrationality looks like. In adjustment to life changes most people in most cultures most often and indeed must opt for an intermediate chronic perpetuative psycho pathological-socio pathological position manifested mostly on the emotive-socio-structural level of ego imbalance in favor of socio pathology and extreme conditions of relative health are the exception to the rule and usually these extreme cases in either negative or positive directions happen as a reactionary efforts either consciously or unconsciously to achieve a longed for but missed natural and rational and logical ego balance and behavioral harmonization or to escape the chronic normal condition of ego imbalance and disharmonization. The problem with being squarely in the middle is that we can go in either direction, and we are never really sure which direction we are headed in--for most it is better to stay in the middle.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The problem is that socio pathology predominates over psycho pathology and mitigates against the improvement of personal growth. Most cultures are socio pathological in the sense that they are ego imbalanced and tend to exact from the individual social congruence and collective conformity at the cost of psychological rationality. The anthropological problem of general behavioral rationality/irrationality is how to restore ego balance in favor the self by psychological restitution of the personality without causing imbalance in the opposite direction and this problem is essentially trying to motivate psychological willpower among people who just don't perceive the need.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In the anthropological understanding of the behavioral continuum of rationality/irrationality there are three behavioral levels of expression--the cognitive meaning level, the emotive symbolic level, and the connative signification level; and there are three conditions of processural development of ego irrationality--the initial condition, the intermediate chronic perpetuative or transitional condition and the culminating condition.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The initial condition of ego irrationality at the cognitive meaning level of behavioral expression is due to cognitively adapt to life changes characterized by loss of cognitive paradoxicality and analytically irreconcilable antinomality causally related to failure to achieve normal identity of the self in functional symbolization system of status characterized by ego confusion about the self and loss of personal identity leading to an intermediate condition of chronic perpetuative or transitional disorder characterized by psychological rationalization in the form of analytic dichotomization and sociological delusions in the form of beliefs in group myths and eventuating in a culminating condition of personality desensitization, derealization, dissociation, and depersonalization of the self.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The initial condition of ego irrationality at the emotive symbolic level of behavioral expression is due to the failure to emotively adapt to life changes characterized by loss of emotive integrity and subliminality and unsupressible feelings of limenality causally related to a failure to achieve normal identity if the ego in functional symbolization systems of sociability characterized by ego imbalance and failure to affiliate self and other within the ego and leading to an intermediate chronic perpetuative or transitional condition characterized by psychological repression of emotions and sociological projection of feelings and eventuating in a culminating condition of extreme deindividuation, deharmonization, dehumanization and disintegration of ego reality</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The initial condition of ego irrationality at the connative signification level of behavioral expression is due to failure to connatively adapt to life changes characterized by loss of connative creativity and unrelieved anxiety causally related to a failure to achieve normal ego identity of the other in functional symbolization systems of security characterized by ego confusion about the other and loss of cultural identity leading to an intermediate condition of chronic perpetuative or transitional disorder characterized by psychological regression of the self and sociological dependency of the other and eventuating in a culminating condition of cultural disorganization, devitalization and destruction of the other.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe there are four possible alternative "being modalities" of ego reality, against which ego rationality/irrationality must be referenced to be understood and in context to which all our affective experiences become expressed in symbolic patterns. These four alternative ego modalities are the "unconscious awareness" modality--consisting of dreams, hallucinations, "other world" experiences; the "pre-conscious intuitive" modality--consisting of disparate subjectivity, sensuality, feelings, perceptuality without causal or rational organization; the "conscious-analytic" modality--consisting of normative decisiveness, a sense of heightened awareness, an in-tuneness with reality, a sense of looking into the future with certainty, of oneness wholeness, of interrelatedness of being with the world, of omniscience and omnipresence and universality. These four modalities represent respectively ordered stages of being of ego reality corresponding with the other groups of four stages elsewhere mentioned. Between these four being modalities there are six possible transformational interrelationships of becoming. These four modalities and six interrelationships of becoming. These four modalities and six interrelationships represent the normality matrix of ego rationality providing the appropriate rational context by which ego gains normal identity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What more can I say about the anthropological understanding of ego irrationality. I believe that there is a single anthropological "mechanism" for explaining ego adaptability to life changes having both psychological and sociological components of expression and explanation. This simple mechanism, depending upon appropriate or inappropriate contexts, is useful for explaining both negative pathological development of personality, culture and ego normality and positive healthy development. The key difference is in the way this mechanism is used psychologically and sociologically in adapting to change--a right "forward" way and a wrong "backward" or reserved way. I will elaborate upon this anthropological mechanism in the next part of this work. Suffice it here to say that it is related to utilization of alternative states of consciousness and to revitalization movements and to anthropologically fundamental modalities of creativity and destructiveness, implying active participation in the process rather than passive unresponsiveness.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">What is the underlying nature of this universal human dilemma? Fundamentally it entails what it means to be human--the central characteristics of human nature from which no human can fully escape except through death, no matter how hard many may try. Much more of it is what it means to be alive, and not just like a carrot or an ameba but to exist in reality in the most human of meanings. The dilemma is that our human reality is full of illusion--illusion in thoughts, beliefs, in ideas, in our concepts and conclusions, in our rationality and our logic which makes for a false double standard of apparent genuine authenticity and makes of absolute truth only relativistic nonsense.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The search for truth is more a matter of dispelling illusions than of any direct form of definition. Once we separate in our minds our reality into a world of make believe and our existence into a world of reality, we commit ourselves to a blind world in which illusion and delusion become indistinguishable from truth. Truth--in the form of conceptual reason and intuitive faith,, must have an objective criteria in the world of reality in order to have any chance of meaningfully affecting our lives.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The source of the human dilemma resides within the unique nature of human being. Because of human intellectual and conceptual capacity--the individual must live torn between two worlds--the metaphysical reality and the physical reality to which the first is rooted. The former is a dependent and special case of the latter. The human capacity to serve as a bridge between these two realities predisposes human intelligence to confusions arising from conflicts between these two realties--a failure of adequate human integration of these two realities. When an individual's thoughts are inconsistent with reality, or when reality is not contiguous with the human mind--or the conceptual model of that reality--then the individual must choose arbitrarily between one or the other to resolve the confusion. On the one hand becoming blind to alternative answers or on the other hand becoming incapacitated to achieve realistic goals.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Traditional western philosophy has done very little to help to bridge this central fissure in the universal human dilemma, but rather has done more to widen the gap between the two realities and to reinforce preferentially either one or the other to the disadvantageous exclusion and sacrifice of the other. This essential dichotomy of the universal human dilemma can be found to undercut and provide the impetus behind almost every field of philosophically based inquiry.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Why has this been so? Over the ages philosophy has become a valuable tool in the hands of a few in order to retain power over the vast majority of humanity. Instead of deservedly serving as a guide to rational behavior, philosophy has become the guise and the means of justification for irrational behavior. When in conflict to this general situation a few revolutionaries have, through a leap of faith, essentially divorced their philosophical systems from any dependent relationships with human behavior or physical reality, and have themselves become doomed to impotency as a guide to rational behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is long overdue to dispel the unquestioned illusions of our traditional philosophical past and to clear the debilitating confusion which prevents affirmative problem solving. The clearing process starts in the realm of philosophy and comprehensive theoretical re-constructions of the conceptual egg of reality. The aim of philosophy is to provide self answering questions which make sense to those who seek to use philosophy as a guideline, yet all that philosophy has accomplished has been to further shatter the conceptual egg and to augment the confusion by turning illusion upon itself and separating the realm of philosophy almost completely from the realistic day to day relevancy.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The essential underlying dichotomy of the universal human dilemma takes the form of a dialectical conflict between these two opposing extremities of human thought. The conflict between these two extreme poses the confusion and gives rise to the dilemma which seems so complex and yet so obscure and vague. The problems arising from the universal human dilemma are not so simple. They are extremely complex. The general solutions to these problems are therefore also complex, yet it is the point of this work to convey the message both implicitly and explicitly that although complex, the problems are easier to resolve than many presume and that solutions are not as impossibly difficult as many believe.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I am not convinced of the reality of the many platitudinous truths to be encountered within our inequitable system, but neither am I unconvinced of the need for a single well integrated and comprehensive "understanding" about the reality of the "system". Just defining what I intend to convey is difficult. Previously there has been to my knowledge no similar attempt or achievement which wholly satiates my own extreme need of such comprehensivity of understanding. Of course there have been many candidates proffered as the final definition of reality in this field of science or in that area of human study. There have been many philosophies which purport to be the final statement about reality. But always I have come away disappointed.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I have evidence of universal themes, especially of a comprehensive central duality of reality and the subsequent behavioral dichotomization if reality which intuitively leads me to suspect that there is yet some unrealized potentiality--a new found unity or integrity of truth which might serve as a mainspring not only for human knowledge but for all human behavior and for all that part of reality which supposedly lies outside of ourselves. At the same time I have discovered prejudice and ignorance and a widespread divisiveness fragmenting reality into many separately bounded and isolated segments--each incomplete and a poor substitute for the whole. The "system" reflects this general fragmentation of reality by the arbitrary compartmentalization of conceptual systems into differing fields. But there is one universe and there is only one human "system".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe strongly that there is only one single unity to our conceptual "world view" of "reality"--not as resting apart from that which is outside of ourselves. I believe that such a possibility of unity is not dependent upon any new discovery or upon any new invention or creation, but that all of its basic ingredients are already available and that it is more a matter of proper combination or organizational integration of knowledge already easily accessible. I doubt such comprehensivity of understanding would automatically solve all of the problems and dilemmas of "reality", but I believe that alternative solutions to many of these difficulties can be easily generated from such a wholistic perspective. It might be the only value of such comprehensivity is to provide some vaguely sensed private need for unity or integrity. It might well be that it would solve no problems. But even if it leads only to a feeling of accomplished integrity, then it is enough in itself. The main object of this work is to provide just such a sense of unity and comprehensivity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The central focus is not upon the sciences, but it is rather upon the "human" side of reality; for although science has blessed humanity with unparalleled prospects for advanced evolution of technological civilization, it has also done a depressingly poor job of not solving some of the most crucial problems facing the future prospects for the survival of the human species. I do not even think that the main thrust of such an attempt as this can be based upon "scientific premises". The "weltaangschauung" has proven itself to be too much of a narrow and single minded system of rationalization and compartmentalization. Too much of its strict methodological criterion have been over generalized and over applied to areas of "reality" inherently unamenable to scientific methodology and technology. The overall result of such over extension if the scientific paradigm is a roundly dissatisfying image of reality and many mismanaged and poorly handled human problems. While extremely useful within context of its strict methodological premises--scientism neglects and fails to inherently "value ridden" areas of human behavior and reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is not so much reality which is the most pressingly urgent problem facing contemporary humanity; it is rather the false illusion of reality as it is reflected in our over generalized scientistic conceptual models and in our badly neglected humanistic systems of rationality. This distortion of reality eventuates in inappropriate and maladaptive human behavior patterns preventing and perniciously mitigating against the human species primary necessity of survival through adaptation on earth. This distortion is not so much inherent within the many fields and disciplines of knowledge and understanding but is rather the general effect of the overall <u>divisiveness</u> and <u>disunity</u> affecting <u>comprehensive </u>human understanding of reality. If such comprehensivity existed in the minds of humans, then the distortion of reality as a result if such disorganization would cease. Such comprehensivity is not as difficult to attain as it might at first seem, and it is readily accessible to any self enlightened individual--not just to an esoteric minority of privileged intellectuals. It is simply a matter of being honest enough about reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is an easy thing to say that such lack of comprehensivity and general divisiveness exists because ultimately this prevailing condition enables a handful of human beings in positions of privilege and power to control and lord it over the rest of humanity who persist in reinforced poverty. In a limited sense this is true, but to lay blame exclusively upon the decisively direct influence of stare political organization is also to ignore an even more important source of such disunity--the vast cumulative influence of the multitude of humanity who submit willingly or unwittingly to their own deprivation; the fault and power to change lies equally and ultimately within each and every single one of us, rich or poor, regardless of social status, prestige, position, function or class.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While it is the rich who has the most decisive power to affect the necessary changes, they are also the very ones who are least likely, most unwilling and most effectively resisting such changes, as they would be the very ones who would have most to lose by such changes. They cannot be entrusted with such leadership, power or responsibility. It is only among the majority of the have nots and impoverished and exploited who have the most need and motivation for change and cumulatively, they have also the most weight to effect it. So it is with the many that I must lay the focus of this attempt at conceptual comprehensivity of reality. The fault of the cumulative effect and the responsibility for the crucial changes therefore fall squarely on the shoulders of the already overburdened--upon each and every one of us--rich and poor alike. Ultimately change begins within each and every single human being alive, in the innermost depths of our individuality. This is the premises of a <u>fundamental reductionist approach</u>. In essence it means that the fundamental building blocks of human reality, of all forms of human behavior and the evolution of human civilization, is the single individual--the primary relationship between the self and the other.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">All conceptuality is illusion except as it can be systematically and logically reduced down to behavioral interaction between individuals and as it <u>willingly</u> initiates from inside the self. All of our manifest behavior falls along a continuum between passive thoughts and feelings and active words and deeds. This is not to deny determinism, responsive reaction, or transcendental concepts such as the arising synergistic qualities of human groupings, but merely to point out that both spontaneity and responsiveness, free will and determinism, reductionist relativity and absolute ideality all play equal parts in balance and harmony. Sociological entities--nation states, religions, cultures, are really only alive or existent in so much as they are conceptual translations in the minds of the individual constituents and in as much as this conceptuality directs their behavior--only in so much as they are the appearance and effect of a cumulative sum of individual behavior patterns and therefore "reasonably" if not "rationally" or "logically" reducible to the primary level of manifest interhuman interactional behavior patterns. Just as with laying blame and responsibility exclusively upon the rich, it also proves more appealing to focus attention primarily and most importantly onto the cumulative patterning of human behavior. Neither is such a fundamental reductionist approach a simple "replication of uniformity" or organization of diversity" underlying many cultural studies and giving rise to stereotypical superficiality or deviational superfluousness. Ultimately each individual's view of reality and behavior may be said to be at the same time distinctively unique and similarly related to all other humans' reality and behavior--simultaneously.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is to maintain a certain degree of similarity as well as individuality undercuts all human diversity, and that without such similarity and diversity human interaction--in the form of cooperative or competitive behavior--and human interrelation--would be impossible. Even more it is to maintain that if any human behavioral reality is not reasonably reducible down to the primary though relative level of interaction and interrelation, then it is not centrally useful to this attempt at comprehensivity. It is more peripheral inclusions of illusion generated from imperfect conceptual distortion--a-posteriori--after the fact--than preexisting--a-priori--in reality outside of our conceptual system.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is a fundamental dichotomization of the metaphysical world of ego reality between the individual or unique self and the collective other or common self. It must be realized that this dichotomization is a fundamental conflict in human nature and can only be resolved through attempts at actually integrating this duality of the soul. Both sides are interdependent and complementary. Without the common self the unique self would be a mere beast. But without individuality the self would be dull--lifeless. Only the individual self is sentient and creative. Neither one can be justly put above the other. <u>Ego balance</u> is the <u>preferred human condition</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The potentially for <u>all possible</u> human behavior patterns, whether they are actually realized or just imagined, resides within each of us. All of us have the potential for being the worst or the best possible of human kind imaginable. I will begin with a simple hypothetical generalization. In so much as certain behaviors are naturally good for ourselves--i.e. healthy--they must inevitably and naturally become translated into cultural behavior patterns that are healthy for all. The conflicts and problems existing on the large scale of the world wide social reality must all be ultimately reducible to forms of inner conflict and private individual terms of conceptual closed mindedness, ignorance, and prejudice that reside and recur within each of us. In as much as each one of us is capable of such resolution of inner strife and dissonance, so will we eventually, in a cumulative way, help to resolve world strife.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This generalization is necessarily broad and oversimplified, based more upon a religious leap of faith in fundamental humanitarian values of innate human goodness--rather than upon empirically validated scientistic corroboration or accumulation of supportive evidence. Ultimately such a comprehensive perspective as this work attempts to achieve can only be founded upon "blind faith", intuitive speculation and daringly broad generalizations. There are no absolute embodiments of personality types, no absolute patterns of behavior. There are only tendencies and relative degrees of behavior. There are only many trends and rates and frequencies. There are ranges of deviation and continuums of possibilities, probabilities and newly unpredictably emergent potentialities. There are many shades of color, but there can be no absolutely black and white image of reality. There is no such thing as an absolute good or bad, healthy or pathological, normal or abnormal, modal or average or deviant type of human being. There is good or bad, natural and artificial within each and every one of us. Some may be deemed better than others. This acceptance of the openness of relativity of human value orientations is the beginning of a "value free"--value conscious and value conscientious "science" of human behavior. No human is absolutely anything. The extreme relativity of human reality cannot be overemphasized or reiterated enough--it must not ever be forgotten from our conceptual formulations or plans. Humans are behavior potentials of an infinite range of possibilities expressible in terms of behavioral interaction and interrelation--dynamic and static. Separation of the name and label from its contextual relativity is precisely the source of the cumulative disunification of our realistic understanding. Our names become the substitutes for reality and then become the illusion of reality. The paradox is only through self fulfillment and self realization can we best serve the whole of humanity. True self realization ties the individual self and the collective self into an inseparable unity--ego reality. There is no nobler goal than in serving the whole of humanity, and this is only achievable by turning inwardly to find in the inner most depths of our souls our self identity and truth of reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There exists within the field of theoretical psychology the rudimentary structure of a comprehensive theory of reality involving as its keystones the empirically corroborated concepts of authoritarianism and it antithesis--the so called egalitarian or revolutionary personality with the ideas of the lateralization of brain function between left and right hemispheres and the general dichotomic "either on" dualisms which undercuts and undermines philosophy, psychology and all other fields of "human" understanding. There is also the theory of the closed versus open mind which is of extreme relevance to the comprehensivity of this theoretical structure.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is the nature of modern social organization that the one extreme--the authoritarian, the left hemisphere brain function, the closed mind, the absolutist and the rationalists, have been predominant in stress over the other antithetical extreme in the manifestation of human behavior patterns. The left brain functions, authoritarianism, closed mindedness, analytic thought have been culturally preselected to the continual exclusion and subordination of the complementary right brain functioning, egalitarianism, open mindedness and synthetical forms of thought--the "and" mode of computer logic.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Both extremes--both sides of the brain are in each of us--all of us have some degree of authoritarianism and egalitarianism, closed mindedness and open mindedness. Yet for most of us, when we were young, we were enculturated with the implicit and unquestioned presumption that is better primarily the first "social" way than to be the other "selfish" way; it is more "normal" and "healthier". We learn at a very innocent and ignorant age that it is more important to be successful in a social context and that in order to be thus we must play down and turn off the latter modes of behavior such that our energies will be concentrated toward successful "social achievement".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Just as it is in each and every one of us, within context of our primary interactions and interrelationships, so also does this predominance of emphasis upon the former modality of behavior to the deprivation of the latter modality leads right up the social ladder to the highest "most conceptually abstract' level of organizational complexity. Our modern state organized cultures are preeminently authoritarian to the neglect of egalitarianism, left brain functions take preeminence over right brain function. Even in school we are taught only one mode of behavior which is unquestionably the "right" way to the exclusion of alternative possibilities. The single most important influence in our most pressing problems is just this imbalance of left over right brain function, authoritarianism over egalitarianism, close mindedness over open mindedness. We pay homage to our way of life, give it lip service, live it without question, and it becomes by our willpower or lack of it our own "after the fact" reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Ultimately it is our own choice which modality of human behavior, which part of our inner psyche, conceptually, perceptually and emotionally, we allow to become top dog and which we submit as the underdog. It is ultimately a function of active willpower which makes for the imbalance in our reality, and it is within each of our wills the power to change this situation. We can give expression to that hidden side of ourselves, attempt to realize or actualize or factualize that possible suppressed deprivation of conscious and conscientious attention. It is in our willpower to change this imbalance, in our private as well as in our public lives. It is utmost and will always be foremost a function of individual willpower.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe this imbalance is an unhealthy and unnatural one. The human is at its best--is most functionally adaptive and happiest, healthiest and wealthiest when there is balanced harmony and integration between the two modalities of psyche and personality. Neither modality should be allowed to be topdog or underdog. Furthermore, I believe that balance between the two modalities is the only other alternative to the present and the past topdog-underdog authoritarian relationship. It is inherently not in the nature of that hidden side of ourselves not to seek dominance over the psyche and personality, but rather only to affect equal and harmonically balanced integration of form and function. Pathology is the result of its restriction. It is primarily because we have ignored its proper place in our lives that the dominance-submissive character of our internal physical and external social organization has arisen. The stress of the authoritarian power structure in society leads to a stress of competition, sexual and aggressive, over cooperation, of socialization of character over self realization of individual expression.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Finally I believe that it is simply by a matter of paying more attention to that misbegotten modality of human nature, by consciously seeking to integrate and express it in our lives, that there is any real hope of solving our most difficult dilemmas. We can without worry let the left side of our brain take care of itself for awhile, it has a way of making itself noticed and felt within our lives regardless of our inattention to it. We need to just let go of it. Because of the analytic side is predominant that our conceptual reality is divided pervasively down the middle. If the synthetic side were allowed its proper share of human behavior and ego normality, then the dichotomization undermining our conceptuality would become an integrity--a unitarian conceptuality of reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">3.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There seems to be a recurrent theme of transcendental unity of understanding of human reality. This unity can and must become reflected in our many diverse systems of conceptioning. The philosophical underpinnings which serve to separate and make conceptually inimical the many competing systems of belief and behavior need to be ferreted out, reevaluated and tied together into a rationally coherent and empirically consistent <u>integral whole</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is an integrity of personality--reflected in the harmonization between the three planes of motivational expression--the mental, emotional, and the actional. Likewise there is a corresponding integrity of culture manifest along the three levels of sociological systems--the formal ideological, the socio structural and the functional-material. Similarly there is a parallel integrity if ego normality--a balance between the self concept and the other concept. There is an overall behavioral integrity of the universal dynamic behavioral continuum.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This transcendent integrity belies an a-priori, preexistent ontological integrity of human reality. This integrity is holothetic in meaning, such that each individual part is distinct and different and yet at the same time preserves characteristic likeness of the overall unity of the whole. This is fundamentally different from a mere mechanistic model of synergy, in which each part serves a distinct functional/structural purpose in relation to the whole. The ontological wholistic integrity is transcendent of the mere interrelationships and interfunctioning between diverse and disparate parts. Even at the individual cellular level of biological life--whether it be a muscle cell or a brain cell--every cell exhibits the genetic potential of the whole totipotency--the potential replication of the unity of the whole distributed equally among each of the fundamental parts.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is also a recurrent theme of duality pervading our understanding of human reality. Whether it stems from the laterization of brain function or not, whether represented as being the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, the rational/empirical dichotomy, the mind/body dichotomy, the life/death dichotomy, or the metaphor/metonym dichotomy or whether this is a conscious analytical process of the mind or a reflection of a deep unconscious biological structure of the brain, it is, regardless of its depiction or explanation, a redundant and all pervasive quality of our comprehension of reality. Like the unity reflected in a holothetic manner throughout every little separable entity of the whole--so also is the duality of understanding of the whole reflected throughout the understanding of the many parts of the whole.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">And then there is also a recurrent theme of trinity about the behavioral reality of humanity--reflected throughout the many parts of the whole. Whether a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, or the three planes of human behavior or three levels of social systems or the three phases or stages of socio pathological or psycho pathological development--a beginning, a middle and an end--the theme of trinity seems to be persistent and important.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">And finally, one step further in this numerical process, there has been a recurrent theme of four foldness of stages and types and a corresponding set of six possible interrelationships between these four fundamental constituents. Perhaps, considered as a model of a tetrahedron, this structure might be considered to be the rational matrix of reality. Division into four parts is a recurrent theme in many creation myths. Carl Jung has spoken of "the nucleus of the psyche normally expresses itself in some kind of fourfold structure". The number four is also connected to his concepts of the female principle and male principle (the anima and animus, respectively) because there are four stages of development. For Jung four was a recurrent archetype symbolizing the unity or totality of the human world. I will summarize the possible correlations of four as I have used them so far in this work.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Oral stage/type: Stage 1 power, achievement and affiliation motivation. Other source, self object, power deriving from support, causal meta type, "non-reciprocal causal models", probabilistic or deterministic causal relations with no causal loops and transitive, epistemological mindscape type H--parts subordinated to whole universal principles apply to all, society consists of a hierarchical organization of categories and structures. Hierarchical relations between homogenistic components representing a classificational process. Philosophical cornerstone and stage 1 of civilization, philosophical metaphysical modality, Anima symbol of Eve representing instinctual biological relations, intuitive thought process, Animus symbol of Tarzan representing personification of physical power--Hercules the muscle man. Personality modality of the child--son or daughter. Cultural modality of the pre-educational infant. Ego "being modality" of "unconsciousness awareness".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anal stage/type: Stage 2 power, achievement and affiliation motivation. Self source, self object, autonomy, will, self control. Causal meta type "independent event models"--states of random distribution of independent events are more probable and nonrandom nonindependent relations and structures are less probable and tend towards randomness. Epistemological mindscape type 1--empirical and relative--society is composed of different and independent individuals: individualistic relations between heterogenistic components representing a random process. Artistic cornerstone and stage 2 of civilization, artistic metaphysical modality, Anima symbol of Faust's Helen--a romantic and aesthetic level characterized by sexuality, sensitivity, Animus symbol of the Earnest Hemingway representing the man of initiative and with a capacity for planned action. Personality modality of the sibling--brother or sister. Cultural modality of the educational childhood. Ego "being modality" of "preconscious intuitive".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Phallic type/stage: Stage 3 power, achievement and affiliation motivation. Self source, other object, assertive, competitive. Causal meta type "homeostatic causal loop models"--probabilistic or deterministic causal relations forming loops maintaining patterns or structures of heterogeneity. Epistemological landscape type S--nonhierarchical interactions between heterogenistic components representing homeostatic processes. Scientific cornerstone and stage 3 of civilization, scientific metaphysical modality. Anima symbol of the Virgin Mary--"love raised to the heights of spiritual devotion", feeling, Animus symbol of "Lloyd George"--the great political orator, "the animus becomes the word"-- professor or a clergyman. Personality modality of the spouse--husband or wife. Cultural modality of the functional adulthood. Ego "being modality" of "conscious analytic".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Genital stage/type; stage 4 power, achievement and affiliation motivation, other source, other object, genital mutuality, it moves me to serve others, generativity, compassion, togetherness. Causal meta type "morphogenetic causal loop models"--probabilistic or deterministic causal loops increasing heterogeneity, generating patterns of mutually beneficial relations among heterogeneous system of increasing the sophistication of the system. Epistemological mindscape type G--nonhierarchical interactions between heterogeneous individuals generating new patterns for mutual benefit. Interactive relations between heterogenistic components in morphogenetic processes. Humanistic cornerstone and stage 4 of civilization, humanistic metaphysical modality, Anima symbol of Sapienta--ultimate transcendental wisdom, thinking, Animus symbol of Mahatma Gandhi--"the incarnation of meaning"--a mediator of religious experience whereby life acquires new meaning. Personality modality of the parent--father or mother. Cultural modality of post functional retirement--seniority. Ego "being modality" of "transcendental synthetic".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The six possible interrelationships which exist between each of the corresponding sets of four form possible dimensions along which these different modalities are interrelated. I am not saying that all of these categories, stages, types and definitions assigned to them are necessarily automatic or valid. I am only suggesting the possibility of some underlying theoretical unity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Is this numerical correspondence significant of something important or is it merely a contrived patterning where none actually exists by natural necessity? I believe this numerology is at once both of these things. I do not believe we will ever definitively answer these questions--these patterns are derived more from intuitive empirical insight than from any form of rational logic. Perhaps they are just patterns which are very deeply ingrained in our tradition of cultural rationality. Even between the unity, duality, trinity and fourfoldness there is a curious pattern of similarity of unity, differences of duality and dichotomy, relationships of trinity and integrity of a synthetic wholeness. I will not venture far to preach the meaning of all this numerical symbolism--except to say that it is possibly related to R. Buckminster Fuller's conceptioning of the tetrahedron as being the basic structural entity of nature. If these numerical patterns are significant of anything meaningful then perhaps it is wise not to delve to deeply into why. Might there not be some quintessential modality or stage or type? It is demonstrative of a fundamental complexity of rational functioning. Perhaps they represent the parsimonious guidelines by which our rational metaphysical reality and our empirical physical reality are both interrelated and made humanly meaningful. The human being in a sense can be said to be the mediator or the interface by which these two realities are brought together and brought into "life" as the meaningful aspects of human existence. It is possibly indicative of perhaps some a-priori structure of rationality by which we are able to understand reality. I am not proffering the foundations by which to construct a new mathematical structure of the logic of rationality. This a-priori "<u>rationality matrix</u>" is pre-logical. I feel compelled to draw some conclusions as to the nature of the a-priori fundamentals of metaphysical truth and epistemological self which I cited in the first part.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">A description of the underlying deep structure of this a-priori "rationality matrix" against which we might reference our relative understanding of rationality, involves the elaboration of the a-priori conceptions of epistemological self, metaphysical truth, metaphysical self, and epistemological truth. These four represent what I believe to be the four fundamental modalities of reality, by which we gain human identity (rationality) of existence. Our a-posteriori knowing of the appriori absolute of metaphysical truth is our relative experience of <u>change</u>. Our a-posteriori knowing of the a-priori absolute of metaphysical self is our relative experience of <u>motion</u>. Epistemological self, metaphysical truth, metaphysical self and epistemological truth, in that order, constitute the four modalities or stages of human rationality. The six possible interrelationships between these four modalities compose the "reality dynamics". This is the rationality matrix in context to which we gain human identity (rationality) of our existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Thus it can be demonstrated that the dichotomic concepts of a a-priori/a-posteriori, epistemological/metaphysical, self/truth, time/space, motion/change, interrelationship, have important implications for the understanding of rationality--considerations involving left/right, brain functioning, temporal and spatial modes of expression and communication to which I shall return after I elaborate further upon the anthropological problem of rationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now that I have defined what I consider to be rationally from the negativistic anthropological standpoint of irrationality, I believe it to be appropriate to consider the meaning if rationality from the positive anthropological perspective of rational creativity as being somewhat the converse condition though also somewhat essentially and qualitatively different from rationality/irrationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I believe the rationality/irrationality behavioral continuum to be the universal behavioral continuum along which all possible forms of human behavior can be referenced. The paradox of the universal human dilemma is that rationality creative behavior occupies this exact same behavioral continuum and even though being essentially distinct the only real difference in relation to this continuum is in the directionality of ordering of human behavior--that instead of movement from order to increasing disorder, the reverse process happens, movement from disorder to order. In a sense all human behavior can be construed as being to some degree irrational and at the same time to be rational. There is no such thing as perfectly rational behavior and in fact I believe the majority of humanity tends to fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum--as being both somewhat moderately psycho pathological and socio pathological. In fact relatively healthy and rationally ordered behavior is probably about as infrequent as relatively extremely irrational disordered behavior. In consideration of rational creativity the directionality of the continuum is simply reversed from that of irrationality. There is a positivistic tendency to comparatively more rational behavior. All behavior, even superlatively rationally creative behavior can be construed as being to some minimal degree irrational and in an opposite sense even extremely irrational behavior might still have some possible touch of rational creativity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Then, irrationality can be construed as a nonreal (i.e. ideal) fiction toward the absolution of all irrationality--towards a state of absolute order (integrity of self/truth or epistemological/metaphysical unity) towards which rationally creative behavior strives, and away from which irrational behavior tends to lead. Rationality is a group myth--an ideal incorporating the elements of truth, love, God, and self. It is the only ideal by which all human beings share in at least tacitly by their alleged membership to the human race. The difficulty of defining rationality is that is knowable only indirectly by its attainment of lessened irrationality--it is relative to irrationality, and as such in and of itself, as an absolute form, it is inherently impossible for human beings to conceive it directly. It is noumenal and a-priori to the consideration of human behavior and as such it harkens me back to the a-priori concepts of metaphysical truth and epistemological self.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">These concepts are related to rationality only through the most relative of human conditions. The human problem is to push backward time and uncover space to reveal the true meaning of rationality. I believe I have adequately demonstrated that traditional rationalism and traditional empiricism, as the best representatives of the most fundamental philosophical schism which divides all of philosophy down the middle into two opposed and seemingly incompatible schools of thought, that all pervasive mind/body dichotomy, are not necessarily naturally, logically or rationally inimical to one another in my philosophy of absolute relativity. Indeed bringing together these two traditionally opposed schools of philosophy is the philosophical prerequisite to the achieving of comprehensive unity of understanding of reality by which we are then able to bring together in a rationally coherent and empirically consistent fashion all of the other diverse fields of human understanding. The contribution of Kant was to reveal to us the a-priori noumenal nature of the rational reality of human existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Underlying the mind/body dichotomy and inextricably related to it is the deep rooted life/death dichotomy. The essentially paradox of human existence is that no matter how deeply we reach into ourselves to grasp the truth, no matter how perfectly we strive to order our behavior, no matter how Godlike we would like to believe ourselves to be, nonetheless we are still tied to our imperfect constituents, to our base needs, to our animal like instincts and body and that one day we all must cease to function permanently. The life/death dichotomy is a fundamental paradox from which we shall never escape no matter how much we may wish or endeavor to. This fundamental irreducible <u>paradoxicality</u> of human existence is one essentially irreducible quality of human existence--the other qualities of human existence are <u>antinomality, limenality</u> and <u>anxiety, </u>and they are related to the four a-priori modalities of rationality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Antinomality is the essentially irreducible quality of our knowledge of the a-priori absolutes of metaphysical truth and epistemological self, of our experience of the relativity of space and time. Antinomality is a background of our common human experience of these a-priori absolutes--it creates in our absolutely relative knowledge an irreducible uncertainty of our situation. Antinomality is in a sense a background texture of all our knowledge of reality. What is meant by antinomality is an unresolvable sort of internal psychic conflict "generated by a proposition that suggests its contradictory (or the domain of its contraries) as strongly as its own affirmation, at the moment of its affirmation". Antinomality creates a shadow of uncertainty enveloping all of our consciousness.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The third irreducible quality of human existence is "limenality". This is a concept borrowed from the idea of the limenal stage of being "betwixt and between" usually occurring during rites of passage. It connotes a sort of being simultaneously nothing and something, of being "nowhere" and "somewhere" or an identity of "nothingness" and "somethingness" which is the result of our knowledge of metaphysical self by the experience of motion which pervades our life as a single long (or short) passage from birth to death. Like paradoxically and antinomality limenality creates an unresolvable conflict of uncertainty pervading all of our understanding of human existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Our essentially irrational response to the unresolvable qualities of paradoxicality, antinomality and limenality, constitutes the fourth essentially irreducible and unresolvable quality of human existence, infecting the meaning of human reality with all pervasive uncertainty, is the quality of <u>anxiety</u>. Anxiety is a pan human nervous condition from which we all seek escape but from which there is no escape. We all suffer from unrelieved anxiety, though some suffer more from it than others, and it is essentially an irrational and negative human condition.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Paradoxicality, antinomality, limenality and anxiety are the four essentially irreducible human qualities comprising the most essential substancing of the human meaning of existence and reality. They arise from the four modalities of rationality--epistemological self, metaphysical truth, metaphysical self and epistemological truth--respectively in that order. These four qualities of human reality infect all of our attempts at achieving rationality with irreducible irrationality. Irrationality is inextricably rooted in human existence. Together they comprise he essential "rational" substance of human reality which I previously called <u>relative contextuality</u> or <u>contextual relativity</u> of the human understanding of reality. The six interrelationships formed by these four qualities exhibit six fundamental subjective "absolutes" of the "reality dynamics" of human behavior. These are the subjective "absolutes" of loneliness, selfishness, alienation, meaninglessness, desperation, as the expression of the finality of death and dependency.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I have made unequivocally the statement that the only thing truly absolute in reality is relativity. Now I must substantiate my claim. In the extremes of my own utter subjectivity I must muster enough strength with which to decisively overpower scientific objectivity. With as much honesty and clarity of insight into my own reality as possible I divine several ideas which I believe to form the theoretical basis of the universal human behavioral continuum. These pure absolutes, distilled by honest intuition from the broth of subjective feeling, form the essentially relative absolutes of human behavioral dynamics. These consist of the absolute loneliness of relative human existence--that no matter how many people or how intimately we attempt to relate to some other person outside of ourselves, we can never completely, in the absolute sense, escape our own aloneness occasioned by our subjective relativity; the absolute selfishness of human existence--no matter how generously or altruistically we behave or how gratuitous we believe our hearts to be, we will always be selfish creatures; the absolute alienation of human existence, which is a uniquely human trait--consisting of psychic estrangement from or own physical foundations in nature; the absolute meaninglessness of existence--that no matter how complex or how much we try to communicate our meaning to others, we can never absolutely attain the full depth of mutual understanding we sometimes long for; the desperation of the absolute nature of human dependency--freedom and independence are an illusion--false ego gratification is its perverse obsession. These absolutes may appear very pessimistic, but in the darkness of the absoluteness of nothingness are the very seed kernels of optimistic salvation and resurrection of a sick and suffering human civilization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is in our dishonesty of failure to acknowledge and acceptance of these absolutes and the desire to escape from the human conditions they entail that the real problems of humanity begin. We surround ourselves with the superficiality of others and submerse ourselves in the shallowness of social life to escape from our desperation of loneliness. We hide behind the delusion of the group myth and the drama of group ritual. In the "narcissism of the no difference" we manage to escape temporarily (not permanently) our own utter subjectivity. We decide ourselves by our self righteous altruism in all of our behavior--as to our essential selfishness. Even in instances of socially reinforced patriotism or religiously inspired self sacrifice we commit a crime of fraud and self deceit, leading to the perverse compulsion of sacrificial behavior. In our touted "super egoism" we suffer an obsession with differences and a compulsion toward conformity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We hide ourselves as from the absolute meaninglessness of the language by the Great Lie of our Word and by the contrived hypocrisy of our culture and by blind belief in the great "truths" of God and the hope for salvation and eternal life in a life after death. In the fear of death and the perverse fascination with death we run from the fact of final death. We feel sorry for the fate of ourselves and for each other and live the illusion of life as if death played no part at all.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">These are the beginning perversities of life which eventually become the pathos of civilization. By denying and failing to confront these absolutes, humanity defeats itself and does not allow itself the chance to make good this relative existence. The role of reason, of a conscious and conscientious good or universal normative system based upon the ideal of universal human nature, the just world hypothesis--that all is fair and equal when there is actually very much unfair and unequal, the belief that we are necessarily beautiful or must be so or that humanity is "naturally" or innately good without needing to aspire to goodness--without the ugliness or evil only by which we might have some kind of meaningful contrast, that we must of necessity be happy without suffering or malcontentment in the satiation of all human desires, that we must be fortunate and rich in a world of limited resources and human limitations. That we must be godlike and perfect. Even our notion of freedom is an illusion. We lead a life of slavehood and drudgery at work by willful conformity to the absolute sovereignty of the state, even such a free "democratic" state such as our own. In childhood we are unwittingly and ignorantly and innocently victimized by these grand illusions and great lies to gain admission into adulthood.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Honest admission of one's ignorance of these problems is better than the deceitful pronouncement of false wisdom. The primary of psychological privacy and psychological autonomy is the beginning of the emancipation of an enslaved humanity. Human existence is being in the process of becoming. We are what we have become. Our pasts cannot be changed, rich or poor, good or bad, negative or positive. Our past can only serve as a guide for defining our present being and our future becoming. The destiny of our wills, the fate of our collective conscientiousness and consciousness, hand in hand, these will determine the outcome of human civilization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is unacceptable for me to live in a world such as I have found myself cast into--with the whole of humanity living from day to day under the threat of extinction and cataclysmic devastation by nuclear holocaust--the worst symptom of a curable and preventable socio pathology--militarism. It is unacceptable to see such unnatural "rational" behaviors dictated by custom, convention, belief; for humans to be forced by social circumstances and natural necessities to behave against their own better judgment. Neither can I cast off my own responsibility by a simple shrug of the shoulders and an exclamation such as "what can I do to change anything?" This work is part of my answer as part of an inseparable part of my life.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The unjust and unequal distribution of material amenities and an unfair differential access to humanity's resources--a few who have acquired unjustly more than they or any human being knows what to do with in a lifetime, and a vast multitude born into poverty and probably to die in misery, from this empirical basis of absolute relativism only can be deduced or derived any hopeful spiritual validation of human existence. Humanity has an almost overwhelming predisposition to irrational disorder and evil misanthropy--from which no human being has ever been immune, and also a very diminished potentiality for philanthropist creativity and ordered rationality--to which all human beings can willfully aspire.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I wish to elaborate upon what I consider to be the heart and soul of this work--and that is what I call my "general theory of creativity". My fundamental presumption is that creativity is the key to unlocking the problem of irrationality--both psycho pathological and socio pathological--the human root of all evil and the source of anthropological rationality and health. Rational creativity can be singled out as the driving principle behind all forms of what we can construe to be civilization--whether technological or theoretical and is also the single most important factor in behavioral adaptability and health. All "naturally normal" human beings are born with a capacity for creativity--and this creative capacity is the single most consummate factor which sets the human being apart as being sentient--meaningfully different from any other life form. Creativity is the healthy identity of the human species. Rational creativity can be singled out as being the consummate meaning if human intelligence--whether the ontological intelligence of the personality or of the culture. The cultivation of creativity is the single most important objective to the further progress of civilization worldwide. Inspite of the vast importance of creativity why is it such a neglected subject and why is its cultivation more often than not resisted and stifled and prevented from blossoming? Creativity pervades every facet of human behavior. Why has this uniquely human characteristic been so ignored as a central problem of humanity? Even many people who are proclaimed to be highly creative often accomplish very little that is truly original or valuable from a creative standpoint.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In the experience of the four irreducible qualities of human existence--these qualities of paradoxicality, antinomality, limenality, and anxiety--as we are thrown back upon ourselves in confrontation with these realities we have two fundamental alternatives. We can accept these qualities for what they really are and strive to incorporate them into our lives in a <u>meaningful</u> manner-creatively--allowing them to serve as "negative" motivation, or else we can continue to function in denial and inspite of these qualities trying to reduce their effect by escaping from them or trying to eliminate them by cognitive closure--eventuating in <u>ameaningful</u> behavior and destructiveness. Creativity is the constructive active utilization of these irreducible qualities of existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity can be defined anthropologically as a normative growth process of the ego in an effort to make reality humanly meaningful. It is primarily a decision making process in the fulfillment of basic human normative needs. People have an innate, uniquely human predisposition, proclivity and normative need to be rationally creative. The frustration of this need leads to ameaningful--"a-ontological" human existence--resulting eventually in irrational behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The four irreducible qualities of paradoxicality, antinomality, limenality and anxiety are the driving force behind willpower to both courage motivated rationally creative birth oriented behavior and fear motivated, irrational death oriented behavior. Creative behavior entails a direct confrontation of these four qualities in a process of striving to minimize their negative irrational "skewing" effect upon human existence with the honesty of knowing that these qualities will never be eliminated completely. Not enough has been said about the importance and supreme value of being honest. Honesty implies openness and receptivity. It is only by being honest that we may attain meaning. The deadliness of closed minded belief is that it entails a dishonest denial of possibility in the dichotomization of reality. Deceit is the denial of reality causing confusion and loss of ego integrity and aggravating the conditions of uncertainty rather than alleviating them. Think back upon how many times we have told lies or in belief been dishonest. When we are dishonest we fool first and foremost only ourselves. Reality becomes confused, ameaningful and disordered. We can have faith in what is most probable or likely, but we cannot believe with the illusion of absolute certainty on the basis of faith alone.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity entails never giving up on oneself in the face of opposition inspite of stress and many adverse pressures. A person who has a firm hold of oneself can survive with intact rationality virtually anything in an essentially healthy fashion. Creativity can be seen as a form of healthy "coping mechanism" (a nonstatic defense mechanism). I believe creativity entails essentially a consistent and continuous attempt at rationally ordering existence according to <u>one's own innermost dictates and choices</u>.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity is essentially a <u>decision</u> making process. It is primarily an <u>individual learning</u> process of developing personal integrity if the self. It is the self directed ego entailing meaningful personal <u>behavioral integration</u> of all of reality in human existence, involving actively making decisions, making mistakes, participating in the learning process, learning to make readjustments and increasing adaptability to changes. It can be assessed by the organismic adaptability in an original and spontaneous fashion to life changes. It is also a process of learning how to retain personality integrity inspite of environmental changes. What is of paramount importance is that creativity is a decision making process in which the creator chooses spontaneously his own ends and his own means by which t achieve those ends. At first the ends will be unrealizable and the means will be inadequate. The first product of creativity will be childlike, immature and bastardized--looking as if they were forced into reality, but in time after time--with active involvement and improvement, with patience and persistence, the creator is able to gradually and eventually bring the ends and means closer together to the point of harmonious compromise such that the ends and means merge and become one another inseparable and indistinct of one another. An important trait of creativity is honesty--by learning to become more honest about oneself and reality through creative integration the creator gains more self control over deceit--able to manipulate and live unaffected by the vast world of phony illusion. The creative process eventually develops to a point of maturity where the creative person learns to be the ultimate master of his own self--over his life and his behavior.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The creative process involves a marriage of two types of decision making processes--"rational" set piece decision making, beginning with a formal formulation or plan upon which to build one's conception like the directions to the construction of a model, the problem with this form of decision making--which is almost exclusively stressed in our "rational" culture--is its inflexibility to unpredictable, uncontrollable, irrational changes. It must be strictly adhered to and dictates rigid behavior which is malapative. The epitomy of this form of decision making is the nuclear grand strategy--a completely rational plan which is so precariously balanced that practically any minor unpredictable, uncontrollable and irrational change can automatically precipitate nuclear holocaust. It is a possibilistic strategy which is essentially paranoid--requiring virtual absolute control over the environment while any compromise adaptation to unforeseen changes tends to have an overall deleterious effect upon the final decisive outcome--it entails a process of complicating the picture into too many possibilities. The other, opposite process is encounter decision making based on a probabilistic strategy of simplifying the picture into an few as possible probabilities. It is ad-hoc and ad-lib relying upon performance of previously learned repertories in a non-directed responsive fashion. It is the inch by inch, day by day cumulative approach to living. The drawbacks to exclusive reliance upon this form of decision making process is that it entails a going nowhere--virtual indirection--indecisive in terms of eventual outcomes or achievement if a long range goal--it is too responsive and inhibits the spontaneous acquisition of new more adaptive repertories to deal with change--it also becomes eventually maladaptive. The point is that the creative process reaches a point of maturation at which these modes of decision making become so inextricably interrelated that they are virtually indistinguishable--ends are integrated with means--plans become one with the repertories--such that the creative decision making process becomes a single function in the creators existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The creative process requires a limited environmental context--one which is totally in control of by the individual and out of control of any other person or uncontrollable external influence. Whether this limited context is imply a piece of paper, a canvas or an inner space of the psyche, there is a need of some kind of space and medium contained by that context onto which the self can "objectively" project oneself in an arbitrary and willful fashion, by which the creator can subsequently manipulate and modify the objective contextual medium in an "objective" fashion. It is a means of objectively and rationally realizing one's innermost subjective self in order to organize and reintegrate it back into oneself in a refined and more rational way. It is projection of self primarily through feelings--upon canvas in line and color and repeated reorganization of these lines and colors of the self into a coherent, meaningful consistent and rational fashion. It is self realization or self actualization through self expression. Creativity entails active participation of the self with the environment in an effort of rationally ordering and organization the environment to objectify the subjectivity of the self. A person lacking psychic integrity and creativity will structure his immediately controllable environment--his room, his furniture, his personality items and the whole of his "external" existence in a manner which will reflect this psychic disorganization. Much can be learned about the psychic integrity of a person by the way he organizes his environment, and expresses himself as in his writing, discourse, etc.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity is a growth process requiring foremost some measure of personal and environmental <u>continuity</u>. The key element to this growth process is continuity--the longer and more pervasive the overall continuity the greater the degree of growth. It takes time to develop creativity--it doesn't happen overnight. It is a positive feedback cycle. Being a growth process it entails active incorporation of increasing complexity of environmental elements commensurate with the degree of inner psychic integrity. The problem is that it soon reaches a point of environmental frustration and resource deprivation--extending itself beyond normal bounds--there simply being not enough "to go around" to spare to be handed over from the day to day struggle of existence to be given to the creative process. The creative process requires to some degree insulation from the mainstream environmental influences--a quiet pooling and concatenation of elements to stimulate and sustain creative continuity--without which creative development is frustrated and eventually stemmed.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity is a <u>dynamic</u> process--by bringing meaning to reality it makes reality and existence come alive. From the beginning original preconception to the final realization there is a continuous interaction between self and object which in relationship takes a life of its own. The created object evolves as the vessel of the artist's self expression and self meaning. The creator becomes a mere means--a medium--the vessel or instrument through which this vital process is brought to life and "happens". The creator serves merely as a bridge between the inner physical world of subjectivity and the external physical world of objectivity. In a sense it is a marriage between these two worlds which produces new offspring. Human beings literally create reality through their being. The emotional element is the human bridge between the conceptually passive inner world and the concretely active outer world of reality. Creativity is realization of meaning through the objectivization of emotionality. The human being is indeed a symbolizing creature. Emotionality is the important anthropological element of the creative processes--as it is objectively expressed through symbolization. Creativity is the meaningful human interrelationship with reality--given existence an <u>ontological meaningfulness.</p> </u> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Creativity is the bringing to birth--the active realization of preconceptions arising from the interaction and interrelations between the four "being modalities" of ego reality--between the four states of "consciousness"--unconscious awareness, preconscious intuition, conscious analytic and transcendental synthetic. It involves wholistic experiencing of reality at all levels of being--modalities of ego identity. These alternative states of consciousness are all integrated into an interfunctioning whole in the creative process. This entails neither exclusive emphasis upon nor exclusion of any single state, but rather all states must be inclusive--<u>harmonized</u> as much as possible. Perhaps the normal process of consciousness is cyclical in movement between the states. Perhaps jumping across and between states and skipping intermediate states might both be detrimental and stimulating to the creative process. The emphasis is upon transition and movement between the alternative states in primarily a self controlled and willful fashion, rather than fixation upon any sets of states. Psychic integrity entails the achievement of this psychic freedom to move between all of the states. The problem seems to arise by exclusive emphasis or denial of any of the states of consciousness to the neglect of any other. Commonly, indeed normally, the third being modality--the "phallic personality type" is emphasized as being the "rational" and exclusive emphasis of consciousness. The more consciously analytical we can be the more intelligent we are construed to be.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">People normally proffer the attempt of active intrusion of the third being modality of analytical consciousness upon the other modalities of being. This analytical intrusion upon alternative states of consciousness can be lethal to the creative process resulting in the destruction of psychic integrity--psychological disintegration. Exclusive obsession with any one level leads to tuning out or turning off the other alternative levels of being--a stifling and blocking of movement between being modalities. Exclusive dependence upon any one modality might be culturally advantageous in a restricted context--but it renders the personality virtually maladaptive to any other alternative context. Creativity allows and develops behavioral integration at all levels of behavioral expression.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The valuable point of behavioral integration through the creative process is that the behavioral integrity achieved in one area or facet of life spills over and flows into all other areas of existence--if it is allowed to do so--and the integrity of behavioral rationality eventually will become manifested throughout all of existence as a harmonic, well integrated, ontological whole, eventually allowing the individual self control--to behave rationally--in virtually any and every context.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The negativistic process begins with failure to act decisively--a normative retardation and disintegration process--allowing instead of normative self control, to be responsively controlled from without predominantly by the decision making of other people. Integrity becomes diffused outwards by projection and repression upon a myriad host of haphazard and chance influences. It becomes a vicious feedback cycle which once set in motion spirals towards the consumption of personal integrity in a sea of irrationality. The psychic disintegration becomes reflected in the disorganization of a person's controllable environment. Indecisiveness, inner denial, deception, confusion, increasing anxiety and uncertainty; passivity, willess acquiescence to the dictates of change and chance--leads to a going "nowhere" feeling--a state of virtual regression.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Paradoxicality, antinomality, limenality and anxiety--if not consciously and conscientiously and consistently and coherently confronted--will all lead to what has been called cognitive pathology and epistemopatology and to a meaningful behavior and eventually to behavioral irrationality. Ameaning is a fear motivated behavioral self restriction and constriction--a reduction of the inherent uncertainty of reality "by denial, by a form of phony certainty achieved by covert annihilation of the problematic, the complex and the subtle. Behavioral preservation, systematic routinazation, obsessive compulsiveness, group myths and group rituals--these are anathema to the creative process.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">These irreconcilable qualities are at the heart of both rational creativity and behavioral irrationality--an endemic human weakness to affect behavioral closure (whether cognitive, emotive or active) within the restricted confines of a limited and closed <u>system</u> of behavior "so long as it gives the promise of relieving the pains of cognitive uncertainty. We are all vulnerable to the claims of simplistic, reductive, hypergeneral or in other ways ontology distorted frames, so long as they have the appearance of 'systematicity' ".</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The creative process entails foremost psychic and behavioral <u>"independence"</u>--relative freedom of control by the willpower of the other. If an individual cannot free himself/herself from those little foreign voices in the back of his/her head, then creative development will be severely restricted. The degree of freedom attained will become evinced in the quality of self expression. The creative process is fundamentally a self directed ego process. The other concept plays a rather contradictory and difficult part in the creative process. In a world in which the majority of humanity is ego imbalanced in favor of the other--the anthropological educational cultivation of creativity in favor of the self is of primary importance to the improvement of the pan human condition. The other concept is not unimportant or superfluous to the creative process--but it can become anathema to its development--undermining creative growth.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In conclusion I will hypothesize the continual transition between alternative being modalities--in short, human reality dynamics tends to break up and disrupt ameaningful behavioral systematization arising from fixation at any one modality by introducing new alternative possibilities of meaning from the alternative being modalities (from "outside" the usual or habitual behavioral patterns--the "normal") and the active willful effort to objectively (rationally) realize these new subjectivity experienced forms of meaning into new behavioral systems of order and organization is the heart and soul of rational creativity. Full utilization of alternative states of consciousness is prerequisite to the cultivation of creativity and to the restoration of ego balance <u>worldwide</u>. It is essential to maintaining healthy adaptability (rationality) of the human race and for assuring our survival.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In relation to creativity the other concept poses somewhat of a problem. The key essential element for the cultivation of creativity is the relative behavioral independence of an individual from the willpower of the other or from any "system" of the other--as a collective representation of the other concept. The problem of over dependence in human relationships, especially of emotional dependency, is the single most critical factor hindering the creative development of humanity and leading to the development of general behavioral irrationality. Dependency/independence is a relative condition. Total freedom is an illusion. The question is how much dependence? Every human being has only a limited fund of resources--time, energy and money--with which to cultivate rational creativity. If the lion's share of this inventory is spent upon sustaining and maintaining social interrelationships, then the cultivation of creativity must necessarily suffer. Many people live creatively (if somewhat vicariously) in their relationships with other people. But how much can other human beings be treated as "objects" of one's creativity without imposing upon those same peoples' creativity. I do not mean to demean the importance of interhuman relatedness, or to devalue the creativity of the psychotherapist or of the shaman or to spoil the meaning of love. It is only rather the net measure to which social relationships impose upon the total fund of life resources of any given individual and in my prejudiced opinion this general degree of relative dependence/independence is usually great enough such that the creative process is almost completely inhibited. Creativity depends upon relative human independence 9especially emotional independence) in order to develop.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">But also the other concept provides an important reinforcing function for the creative process of the self. The life resources for sustaining the creative growth process must to some extent come from others. The rationality of the creative process, the identity of the creator, is only in relation to the objective context of the other--its value as it is <u>communicated</u> to the other--and objective context applying virtually to the whole of humanity. The problem of creative self expression becomes then a problem of rationally objective communication to the other. If the creator fails to communicate effectively his self expression, then the creativity will be out of context to ego balanced rationality and will be objectively valueless.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">As an artist I am keenly interested in non-verbal and especially visual forms of communication. I am also well aware of the central problem confronting an artist every time he approaches a canvas--<u>the need to communicate self expression effectively</u>. It is a problem that in our modern times of great transience, of great alienation and great loneliness , frequently becomes ignored and neglected. The importance of the necessity of effective communication is often denied or lost sight of by the irresponsible artists, who being so narcissistically enraptured in the subjective reflection of their own expression, are misguided or abandoned by aesthetic philosophy, which in its turn reneges responsibility in failing to provide a sane and stable platform upon which to base human thoughts, words and actions in life.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">To all of the literary fields of artistic expression--prose, poetry, fiction, nonfiction, dramas, novels and short stories, the crucial necessity of communicating to a very wide and diverse audience is never, nor can ever be lost sight of. It has to do with the nature of the very atom of literary expression--the word which automatically conveys some meaning from the private subjective realm to the objective public domain. In literature the very clay of expression is communication in the form of words, whereas in the visual arts the irreducible primary of communication is not so apparent or pressing. Any artist can paint purely for his own egotistical pleasure in self expression without ever caring about the communication of his meaning to others. In literature self expression is closely synonymous to communication, but in the visual arts stylistic self expression easily gains preeminence over communication.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">This general situation is somewhat analogous to the "private language argument". In art personal styles may easily developed utterly disregarding the necessity of conveying meaning to others. In language, including writing, the conveyance of meaning to other people is inherent in the very nature of its meaning. Though idiolects are individually stylistic, they are not allowed to evolve into mutually unintelligible languages like dialects can, without losing in the transformation the very essence of meaning.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Now I wish to draw the connection between the verbal world of communication, eminently language, as a tool of human application and conceptually extended manipulation and the visual symbolization system conjuring to life in our imaginations normally only verbally accessible concepts and ideas. It is as if there were an artistic spectrum ranging between right and left hemispheres of the brain, between what is heard and what is seen, between music and visual forms of art--integrated by the verbalization of language, between which falls many blended variations, poetry just this side of art, song just this side of musical instrumentation.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Art and music are the <u>spontaneous</u> languages of imagination, springing to life from the soul of potentiality. Words and symbolization systems are the responsive languages of the other, the reactive imposition of willpower upon the soulful force of life energies--channelizing, canalizing, conforming. Creation of communication is the final end product of this interrelationship. Communication and self expression are virtually synonymous. Communication is the scientific aspect of human behavior. Expression is communication of self. Communication is the expression of the other. Art and music is closer to the self, languages are closer to the other. Expression and communication implies relationship and relativity. Might it not be possible that the ultimate goal of visual expression is to create or bring to life from the spatial dimension of reality the temporal dimension, and vice versa, that the ultimate goal of auditory expression is to bring to life from the pure temporal dimension of reality the spatial dimension? No matter how farfetched the idea, might it be possible that the objective of art is to create space from spatial nothingness--the illusion of infinity. Is it not the goal of language to integrate the two possibilities to create reality?</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The problem of language deals with a vague notion I prefer to call the <u>human reality of "verbality"</u>--deeply related to the expression and communication of human becoming or realization of potentiality. It implies motion, movement, change--dynamic as opposed to static. Language lies squarely and centrally between the realms of auditory and visual perception. Pure auditory perception deals with the sequential lineality of the temporal dimension of reality as it is sensed and transformed. Pure visual perception deals with the relational dimensions of space. Integrating the essences of space and time is the verbality of language. Communication of expression creates not only the subjective identity of the person and the external reality outside of that person, but ultimately it is the very fabric of that reality. It is the act of relationship between that mind body dichotomy undermining all philosophy--integrating and synthesizing a unity of identity that is reality. Art and music lies at the extreme edges of this "verbality" and in their remoteness they are least restricted by conventions or social standardizations of communication and they are the most expressive of imaginative possibility.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is precisely for this that both are so valuable to both the individual and humanity--it names a part of reality which science cannot touch. And yet both art and music must remain connected, relative to the central body of language, based upon verbalizable forms and concepts, to be of value to the human community.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Our rational reality is encompassed by the metaphorical meaning of the word. The word as metaphor is our emotional access to rational creativity. We must open up the boundaries of our definition of rationality to include more than just restricted analytical consciousness--virtually all of the alternative levels of consciousness. Language is the primary symbolization system of humanity for the expression and communication of the emotional meaning of rationality. Language is the beginning of our historical civilization. The word as metaphor is the beginning and end of both rationality and irrationality. When words become systematic substitutes for meaning then the word is no longer metaphorical and the systems of conceptualization in which they are employed become ameaningful and irrational.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We are in the scientific epoch of the maturational development of civilization. In our historical heritage we can trace the beginning philosophical epoch of the ancient classical world and the artistic epoch of the renaissance. We are on the verge of entering a new epoch of civilization--the epoch of humanistic man. This is the final culminating maturational stage of human civilization.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">While our science has effectively undermined any rational basis for our belief in the supernatural, we have quite unwittingly found a rational substitute for our lost supernatural reality--and this substitute is the vast mountain of accumulated words and books. Our accumulated literature has become the modern day equivalent of the supernatural realm of bygone eras. Our rationality as summarized by our great metaphor of the "word" has become the predominating implied religion of the world. The "word" has become the voice of our rational "God", the symbolic replacement by which we can give our existence a rational meaning. All of our touted rationality is not intrinsically an evil thing. Quite the contrary it has been a necessary alternative in the historical epochal evolution of human civilization. The primitive prehistoric human did not dichotomize the natural from the supernatural realms of human existence--for him all things natural had supernatural significance. Supernatural reality was as rational as natural reality: they were one and the same rational reality. In our scientific world we have effectively distanced and separated the supernatural from the natural realm, and we have filled the growing void of the in-between with an ever increasing complexity and sophistication of the "word". We have become inundated by a flood of names and meanings. In order to make sense of our confused and confusing rationality we read and write more books, magazines, stories, newspapers, etc. Communication of the "word" has become our world wide mass media, linking all the corners of the globe within our television room. The rationality of the word has become our secular religion.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Widespread literacy is a good thing. There are more books in our world than there is time in a person's entire lifetime to read them. Most people will read only a few books in their lifetime. A few books can have a profound influence upon the way a person views the world and influences reality. It is extremely important that the books an individual reads are the right ones. But whose to choose. A good many books are very valuable but many more are practically useless to the rational enlightenment of humanity. The impact any one book or any one author can have upon the world is limited and questionable. No two people will read the same books in the same sequence in their lifetimes.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Our secular ideology of rationality--epitomized by the word--has been for a long time now the predominating active though unrecognized religion of modern civilization. The essential difference between this and all other religions has been to substitute symbolic rationality for the supernatural. The word as metaphor has acquired in the transformation a supernatural essence in human existence. Whether to be construed as good or bad, as harmful and evil or as beneficial and helpful, rationality is the primary ideology of the world civilization of humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Nowhere is the implicit religion of our modern rationality better embodied than in our educational institutions. Our educational institutions are par excellence for reinforcing this brave new secular religion. The textbook has become a veritable bible over which the devoted noviate to the "system" must pour and ponder. Our schools are like churches to which the many "bright" supplicants periodically return to pay thoughtful homage to the "Great Systems of Rationality" of the secular saints of enlightenment--the Freuds, Einsteins, and Darwins. Our professors have become the high priests of this brand of religion. Theirs is the good shepherd's task of the "system"--tending to the flock to make sure that all of the "systems" children stay well within the fold. Amidst all of our conceptual subsystems of our "Grand System" how much of what we read is truly relevant or meaningful to our common contemporary human existence? Is the morning ritual of staying abreast of the current events world wide by reading the newspaper really necessary or relevant to the rational coping with daily life? How much of our "system" might be more ameaningful routinization and institutionalized systematization preventing creative rationality rather than cultivating it--inducing unwittingly closure of the mind by an inundation of trivia and irrelevancy? How much time are we left to ponder the really meaningful issues of existence? How much of our common rationality is illusion composed of myth and leading to nonfunctional and maladaptive ritualization of behavior. I believe a great deal of evidence can be amassed in a short time to demonstrate that indeed a great deal of what we construe unquestionably to be rationally sacred is essentially ameaningful to contemporary human existence.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">"The occurrence, extent, and tendencies towards meaningful or ameaningful thinking will be determined to a large extent by cultural valuations, ideologies, rationales…orientation of knowledge seeking behavior dominant in a group, pervading all institutions and agencies that influence intellectual style, habit and sensibility…</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The besetting cognitive problems of a culture, a subculture or an era can thus be very much a reflection of whatever factors lead to the relative valuation of meaningful and ameaningful thinking. One must even face the possibility that cultures can arise which place so limited a value on meaningful thinking that many of its members are deprived absolutely of the possibility of achieving "high" orders of meaningful thought, relative to their capacities, or of discriminating such states, should they occur, as in some sense valuable or even different from ameaningful thinking. I believe that something very much like such a culture in question is the world culture of the 20<sup>th</sup> century."</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The formal educational system has become the primary institution of this implied religion of rationality. The formal educational system if divested of cultural biases and nationalistic prejudices, can become the primary vehicle of social integration, of socialization, of enculturation of humanity and for the civilization of rational creativity in the newly emerging world civilization of humanity. As the embodiment of our "Grand System" of rationality, the education system is the primary mechanism for spreading literacy and for the rational enlightenment" of humanity. If changes for the better movement to world peace and permanent alleviation of human suffering are to happen, then these changes must begin within the framework of the educational system. If the cultivation of rational creativity is the key factor to the promotion of world order then this cultivation must begin in education.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The main change that needs to be affected within the educational structure is a shift of emphasis from social competitive performance to cooperative individual learning. Competition has served no positive end for civilization or for the amelioration of the human condition. There is no reasonable justification for any competitive form of enterprise except in the release of excess energy--tension which might prove otherwise uncontrollable. We can see that competition serves a negativistic purpose, and that it is only useful in this negative sense. If one is searching for positive means for the amelioration of humanity, it cannot be justly found in any competitive form of behavior. Competition leads only to wasted behavior and inevitable frustration. It entails going endlessly in circles until all resources are used up. The fact that the economic doctrine of capitalism is founded chiefly upon competitive enterprise within a market economy means only that many people suffer and lose for the sake of the few successes. The idea that competition is conducive to healthy behavior is a fallacious consequence of too strict adherence to the Darwinian paradigm of survival of the fittest. Stress on competition in schools improves performance of previously acquired repertories of behavior but hinders the actual learning process--the cultivation of rational creativity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">I have previously asserted that the only truly rational ideology of humanity is humanism, and the spirit of this humanistic ideology must pervade our new secular religion of rationality. I believe the field of anthropological understanding has an important, indeed a crucial role to play in the promotion of this new humanistic ideology and secular rational religion. Especially within the framework of the educational system--as being the foremost teachers of the necessary anthropological understanding by which ideological humanism can be realized in a world wide context.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The all pervasive condition of humanity seems to be what I call "anthropological anomie"--a world wide identity crisis of humanity, a spiritual and moral despair as in apathy, ignorance, antipathy and prejudice the majority of innocent humans allow themselves to be manipulated and defeated by a small minority of petty, selfish politicians. Anthropological anomie is a sorry condition affecting the moral consciousness of the majority of humanity. Anthropologists as human beings and all human beings as incipient lay anthropologists need to become more self aware of latent human potentialities. Introjection, insight, self awareness--unlocking the secrets inside of ourselves--swinging the imbalanced normal ego back in favor of the self--this is the primary pathway toward rational self enlightenment and cultivation of rational creativity. The self is the important source of meaning in human reality. The paradox is that only through self fulfillment and self realization can we best serve the whole of humanity. True self realization ties the individual self and the collective self into an inseparable unity of the ego. There is no nobler a goal then in serving the whole of humanity and this is only achievable by turning inwardly to find self and truth. Expanding access to unconscious potentialities of the self leads simultaneously to expanding access to hidden potentialities of reality. Reaching inwardly expands human reality outwardly.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Anthropology does have a purpose beyond mere observation and explanation of human behavior and that purpose is the humanistic enlightenment of humanity. The goals of anthropology is the educational enlightenment of humanity about humanity for the sake of humanity--putting human beings in touch with themselves and each other. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe rational enlightenment does have an effective result in diminishing and reducing the ignorance and prejudice which serves to hinder world wide social reform. Human beings are normally receptive to rational insight. The main obstacle to the realization of these reforms are not social--they are rather political--in nationalistic terms. Anthropological methodology must be tailored to fit this objective, to devise schemes for tapping into these potentially unlimited and priceless human resources of rational creativity. Anthropological methods must become more applicable and amendable to human normative needs.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The anthropologists must consider their roles as intervening in the normal human behavioral processes to restore normal ego balance in favor of the self--as human technologists and behavioral engineers--as applied humanists instead of applied scientists--in lieu of humanistic values and not under the auspicial guise of scientific neutrality in the service of capitalistic or nationalistic unnecessities. Who is best to decide? There might perhaps have been a time when an anthropologist could have legitimately and justifiably observed with an air of neutrality and scientific objectivity a bloody human sacrifice with impunity and immunity from moral implications--as a neutral and value free observer without being implicated in any way as an accomplice. But that time is long past and in context to our newly emerging world culture I do not believe that this degree of scientific claim to neutrality is any longer justifiable or permissible. At what point does the anthropologist cease being a mere observer and begin intervening in the "normal" behavioral process for the sake of behavioral rationality or "normality"? What is the legitimate power of the anthropologist as the modern day equivalent of the shaman? We must all answer these question in our own way to the best of our imperfect human abilities.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">No human owes any allegiance to any system before or above the allegiance he/she owes to oneself and to the whole system of humanity. Any human subsystem which exacts such allegiance and servitude against the humanistic prerogative is in this day and age of technological affluence and scientific rationality to be construed as unjust. No system ought to be better or bigger than any of the human constituents who compose that system. Inevitably, when we institutionalize our suprahuman systems, they grow out of control with a life of their own, uncontrollable by any human or group of humans. The "Grand System" and all its many diverse institutionalized subsystems--once begun--have taken on an existence independent of its human constituency--transcending the powers of any one person or group of people to control or change the direction of the system. Once mobilized, the system rapidly gains an overwhelming and unstoppable momentum. Even the key decision making politicians, like the President, cannot work outside of the context of alter the structural context of the system which has installed him and empowered his decisive authority. In a sense the President is even more tied to the context of the system--a mere sycophant of the values of the system, than any one else. This is the grand paradox of our systems--those with most decisive authority to affect changes are precisely the least able to do so--the least willing because they have the most to lose. We need to collectively wrest human control back from the system--to rehumanize human existence within context of the system and this is foremost to be accomplished by the cultivation of rational creativity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The fundamental basis of moral action is consideration of the whole of humanity. Humanitarian ethics and morality, nonexclusive of any human being, are the only just rules which must guide our behavior. No subgroup or human subsystem can justly be said to exist outside or above humanitarian considerations. All state, military, political, economic, or social doctrines or orders are beneath and subordinate in consideration to humanitarian ethics.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The primary axiom of any just society is that each and every individual must be allowed as free access to any material resource or technical means, including unrestricted freedom of movement, of selection of occupation and relations, as well as the basic freedoms of speech, press, belief, etc. While this ideal is unattainable and impracticable in the most absolute sense, this is a primary objective which underlies all social, economic, political behavior. Ultimately the viability of world culture--its adaptability and flexibility to change and future stability are dependent upon the realization of this axiom of the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of human beings--ultimately the ideal goal of absolute freedom for everyone.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is a reflexive corollary to this primary axiom that any restriction to the realization of such freedom, while apparently desirable, will always in the long run prove incapacitating and undesirable in unforeseen ways. This loss of potential freedom can never be shown to be true as this corollary can never be shown to be false. It is an opportunity cost of what might have been but isn't. Any social order, under any nominal disguise, which is founded upon the restriction of individual freedom (i.e. independence) by the cultivation of dependency, is necessarily evil. This includes any form of political, economic or social system.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">There is a single stipulative revision of this first axiom. This is that no one's freedom must be upheld at the cost of harming any other single individual in any way--psychologically, ethically, physically. There are no exceptions to this rule. The protection of individuals from the unrestricted freedoms of society is the first and only basis and purpose for law and order within a society. The good for one is ultimately the good for all and this good entails the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people with one vital stipulation--that the consequences of any belief or behavior will not entail the slightest amount of harm or sacrifice by even a single solitary individual.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Do we need religion? Do we need to believe in a God? Do we need to believe? One recognizes eventually in one's lone search for truth that the greatest truths have been identified and spoken about not bye the philosophers, the artists, or scientists, but by great religious leaders of all history. Religion, no matter how basic, superstitious or abstract or secular or atheistic, has a definite place in human existence. It entails in part belief in truth. No amount of science, art or philosophy can ever displace the paramount role of religion in human existence. But here some important qualifications must be made. Just as science, art philosophy can never displace religion--so too can religion never be allowed to displace the equally vital roles of science, art or philosophy. To no longer seek understanding of the relativity of reality or to stop questing after the truth by the consignment to meaning to unquestioning faith and blind belief is as much a crime as to live life completely sacrilegiously</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">To have a religion does not necessarily mean a theistic believe in s deity. While a belief in God is a frame of mind replete with solace-- no matter what form that belief may take-- whether otiose, anthropomorphic , supernaturalistic, animistic, totemistic, superhumanistic--there is also one critical shortcoming that such belief entails and that is the implicit denial and subverience of the role of the self in human existence to something outside or more than the self. It may be said ultimately that the self is godly and vice versa, but to say such a thing is to selfishly make ourselves godlike when indeed we are very imperfect. God can be a catchall for everything we want it to mean. My only question is why do we need a God?`</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Unfortunately with the death of God there is a conversion of the mediocrity of humanity to shallow nihilism, fatalism, pessimism, existentialism and the vilest of evils--fanaticism and fascism. To forsake God is not to forsake sacredness altogether, rather it is to cleanse and purify our nobler conceptions of any aphoristic misnomer--to help bring clearer objectivity to belief in those ideas we do hold as sacred--truth, love, life, self and humanity. It is too bad that denial of God has so often been equated to an existentialist denial of the meaning of life itself. Life does not need a Godlike purpose beyond itself. The only godly purpose of life is found in living itself. Life is an end in itself without need for any further justification. Belief in God can be as debilitating as it is humiliating. While there is an important role for humility in life, there is an equally crucial need for transcendence of self imposed limitations--beginning with the conception of God as a limitation to our cognitive and normative behavior. It is too bad that people don't learn t just live life comfortably without need for godlike justification of existence--just as it is important to learn to complacently accept the inevitability of death, the ultimate reality of human limitations, without the comfort of belief in some kind of afterlife--of the consolation of a bit of eternity to share the godlike immortality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Rather than try to prove the existence of God in whatever form we wish to conceive--an impossibility without ultimately committing a leap of faith--why not attempt instead to disprove God's existence. There in nothing in reality to be found that God must exist outside of human conceptioning. The reality of God is ultimately a collective illusion--almost universal--a human belief. Finding ultimately that it is also impossible to satisfactorily disprove God's existence, we must look to suitable criterion for such a belief--i.e., its universality and its consequences.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">To not believe in God is not to have no beliefs at all, or not to be a non-believer. It is my judgment that no human being can ever achieve happiness or complacency as long as he/she chooses to be a non-believer or not to believe in anything. Whether consciously committed to some system of belief or not, it is a central shortcoming of the human condition that the human being is a rational animal--that in order to behave rationally, either in thought or words or action, is to have some system of rationalization (i.e. belief) that must at least be entertained to some degree at the conscious level. To throw away belief in anything is to throw away the meaning of life itself.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Infinity is a fact. Eternity is a fact. Reality is a fact. Existence is a fact. The self is a fact. Humanity is a fact. Unconsciousness is a non-fact redefined as structural relativity and reinterpreted as alternative symbolic interactionism between the human being and reality. Relativity is a fact. Meaning is a fact. Universe is a fact. Nothingness is a non-fact. Nothingness cannot be known. Perfection is a non-fact. Absolute truth is a non-fact. God is a non-fact. God is the unknown and unknowable. The attempt to know God is a fallacious act of willful self deception. The fact of God's non-existence can only be intuited and indirectly inferred as a conceptual possibility because it can be known only as a possibility it therefore exists as such, but only in as much as nothingness exists, the unknown and the unknowable exists. To look for direct proof of God's existence is at best to search for El Dorado or to make God into a universal collective reality--a group belief shared by all human beings. The fact that one atheist can be said to possibly exist, that the non-existence of God is possible, is proof enough of the non-existence of God. Rather than search for proof of God's existence, search for disproof of God's existence or proof of God's non-existence. To ask anyone to believe in a God of nothingness, non-existence, non-reality and you would be asking them to condemn the meaning of existence to self denial. Humanity is not God. Self is not God. Life is not God. But this is not the same as to say self is without meaning, that life is without purpose, or that humanity is without value. Each has intrinsic meaning or value in reality. Let God be the consummate existence of infinite possibility, eternity, perfection, universality, absolutism, unrealized potentiality, unfulfilled portions of our existence. God cannot be known directly in our existence, but only inferred indirectly from the possibility of his non-existence. God is the great counterpart of meaning in human existence--what could have been, what might be, but what isn't. We all need wishful thinking to cope with reality.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Man will return to nature, but he will not be the same thing he once was. He will be different. He will no longer be innocent, but in his guilt of trespassing and violation he will learn the value of responsibility. He will no longer be virgin--in his ignoble sexual satiation will be born true love for life. He will no longer be unselfconscious--in his narcissism he will come to feel to feel the pride of humility. A new man shall emerge, aware of his strengths and weaknesses, having come to terms with his limitations and unsettled restlessness. In his acquired wisdom he will transcend in complacency the blithe happiness of his inherent ignorance and life shall no longer be confronted in trepidation and he will no longer follow the herd in fear, but a new man shall stand alone in courage and face securely the ultimate resignation of death as the natural end of life.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Many changes in the world today are relatively permanent. Every new concrete foundation, every new highway or concrete edifice, will last more than a lifetime. Are such changes necessarily desirable in consideration of mankind's time tested myopic lack of foresight. Unless completely effaced by overwhelming disintegrative acculturation pressures or forcefully eradicated by cultural genocide, most cultures are in the world to remain for quite awhile to become eventually incorporated into the "Grand System" as a subculture of a far greater world wide culture of humanity. Even inspite of formalization and standardization of the written word, I believe culture change might possibly accelerate rather then decelerate. The many world subcultures are liable to diversify, segregate, and differentiate from the mainstream quite beyond recognized boundaries--instead of the trend toward pan cultural uniformity and homogeneity as some well intentioned people hope for. The diversification of subcultures will not hinder the organization of world culture into a well integrated, ontological organismic whole. A unique phenomenon will prevail. The holothetic multiplicity of the world cultural continuum will become the prevailing normality uniting continually differentiating cultures within bounds of a single heterogeneous world culture. I believe cultural boundaries and cultural relativity to be insuperable boundaries to the achievement of the replication of uniformity ideal within a single homogenous world culture on the basis of universal human nature. It is a similar phenomenon that is observable with the multicultural plurality and ethnicity within a single cultural continuum. A unique form of creolization and bastardization of multicultural elements and characteristics by distinct and separate cultures and personalities who adopt a diverse plethora of appealing and functional polycultural characteristic drawn from a complete range of inventory from which to select. As political territoriality and sovereignty can be diminished and eliminated world wide with the institution of world order and peace--transcultural accessibility will increase to become virtually unlimited, allowing potentially all individuals and cultures to freely borrow and share with others. Diversity will multiply and world organization will become extremely complex. This will be the transcultural identity of world wide humanity.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Within this new world wide multicultural continuum the anthropologist might play an important role as a cultural interpreter, as a mediator between cultural boundaries, as a middle man in intercultural transactions and as an interface by which to facilitate intercultural integration--by which transcultural integrity of humanity can be achieved. This is not to be done simply as a kind of esoteric professorship nor by the mere popularization of anthropological understanding. The anthropological methodology must be unified into a coherent world wide program as the basis of organization for a world wide popular recruitment and revitalization movement. Anthropological methodology must be made applicable in a teleological and heuristic sense--at all levels of cultural and personal integration. Does such an anthropologically based religious revitalization movement simply spell the end to the honest integrity of the academic discipline by popular pollution and inevitable corruption by private interests? What is to keep this humanistic revitalization movement from being any different from any other popular movement--from eventually stagnating in the same morass from which it originally sought freedom.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The difference is that unlike any previous revolution or revitalization movement, this movement incorporates the spirit of revolution, of revitalization, of change and adaptability as a permanent part of the structure of the movement--making world culture relatively permanently dynamic. A final movement to world order entailing not a static and changeless human condition but rather a steady state of continuos evolution of world civilization. This anthropological revitalization movement is yet part of a much vaster revitalization movement which is becoming more and more necessary at all levels of world culture. The day may yet be long time in coming when the spirit of humanistic enlightenment will spark spontaneously within the sleeping souls of most of humanity. But while waiting for the majority of humanity to awaken and arise from their ideological slumber, must the few of us who remain awake be kept from doing what is rationally within our powers to prepare for this new edge.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">A new world order is entailed. The only other alternative is degradation and devolution of human civilization and eventual extinction of homo sapiens sapiens. Must we await another dark ages before the final humanistic revival of humanity is to occur. We are transforming in earth upsetting ways delicately balanced natural ecological systems which it has taken Mother Nature millions of years to establish. But how deeply felt are our disrespectful worldwide transformations and in truth how resilient might Mother Nature prove to be against our insolent but superficial scratch marks on the face of the earth, that in the long run--in geological if not archaeological time--will not rapidly be effaced from the surface to become merely a single geological substratum in the stratigraphy of the earth. Our biosphere is an extremely delicate single layer of biological tissue enshrouding the earth's surface.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">We are on the verge of an epoch of the a-historical human. We are witnessing the superimposition of a rational empirical super culture upon the many world wide subcultures. We are on the verge of a post historic era. I believe we human beings have unique option to the final fate of all biological organisms--death--the "sociobiological" organism of "human culture" included--and this is the option of transcendence to an idealistic ontological plain of existence--of relatively permanent and long lasting relatively immortal civilization of humanity. The teleological and heuristic implications of this option involve enormous and revolutionary changes other than what is currently played out on the contemporary world stage. We have, by virtue of our unique human characteristic of rational creativity, the "godlike" destiny of aspiring to a supranatural plane of "spiritual being" not in an idealistic and unrealistic fashion but in a realizable and "ordinary" normal <u>rational</u> manner.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">The change may be a long time in coming. It may not happen for many lifetimes, most subtly and gradually. It is definitely not going to happen overnight. I believe it will come most eventually in its own time--when the change is ready to "happen". Or it may never happen at all or it may never be allowed the chance to happen. But I believe a permanent change (changing permanently) must come if we are careful not to deprive ourselves or our posterity of this golden opportunity. If we are at the dawning of a new "golden age" of human civilization of being "born again" of permanent revitalization and resurrection of humanism, a humanistic epoch of completed maturity of civilization, no longer beset by very many earth shaking structural changes of maturational development of civilization, then our pilgrimage to paradise is not to be the idealization of some hermetic utopia, but it is to be the utilitarian realization of a "mature society".</p> <font FACE="Book Antiqua"> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"> </p> </font> <p align="center"><font face="Times,Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/PhilosophyIdeology/">Philosophy, Irrationality & Ideology: A Synthesis in the Anthropology of Knowledge</a></font></p> <font FACE="News Gothic MT" SIZE="3"> <p align="center"><font face="Times,Times New Roman" size="2">2001</font></p> <font FACE="Times,Times New Roman" SIZE="2"> <p align="center">Hugh M. Lewis</p> <hr> <p><a name="Copyright">Blanket Copyright</a>, Hugh M. Lewis, © 2005. Use of this text governed by fair use policy--permission to make copies of this text is granted for purposes of research and non-profit instruction only.</p> <p>Last Updated: 08/17/06 </p> <hr> <p> </p> </font></font> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p align="center"> <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" LANGUAGE="javascript" Src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/MyCounters/MyCountera"> </SCRIPT> <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" LANGUAGE="javascript1.2" Src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/MyCounters/MyCounterb"> </SCRIPT> <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" LANGUAGE="javascript" Src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/MyCounters/MyCounter1"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <a HREF="http://www.TheCounter.com" TARGET="_top"><img SRC="http://c1.thecounter.com/id=515383" ALT="TC" BORDER="0" width="88" height="31"></a> </NOSCRIPT>  </body>