ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Psychology & Psychiatry

Anything Goes on the Couch, Bedroom, Boardroom, Laboratory...

Updated on August 1, 2014
Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud | Source

In the early days

of psychoanalysis, one of the most fascinating things our forefathers in the art discovered from the couch was that ostensibly normal upper-class European women (and men) had no idea who they were.

Their socially constructed personas seemed to fall apart once they were lying supine in the protected environment of the doctor’s office. One hundred years later, no psychoanalyst has stepped forward to proclaim that they succeeded in helping anyone ‘find an identity’—whatever that would mean; or even define what a person is, or is not.

This does not however deter

the general population from which and by which our politicians are elected from determining that a foetus at sometime becomes ‘a person,’ with life and death consequences — without, of course asking any psychiatrist!

Nor does it deter anyone from saving their intellectual integrity in this manner of reasoning by weaseling out of the contradiction (of both claiming to know and not know what a person is) by proclaiming that the category is a legal one (so, ironically, human right is already alienated by virtue of being a legal category) instead of an essentialist one. And of course, we can get out of that infinite regress of contradictions by claiming that no child actually exists anyway —essentially — it is really ‘created’ ex-nihilo (by a big bang, of which the smaller bang in bed is a correct simulation).

Aristotle | Source

And we can also solve

the Aristotelian rebuttal that a big bang is inconsistent with a primal ‘nothing’ by turning it on its head and claiming that the big bang is the inverse of a big in potentia implosion (since a circle is an expanded dot — or singularity) just in case any modern scientist would stop to answer Aristotle.

But what would happen if — instead of drawing a distinction to escape a contradiction — we ventured into the contradiction (or problem)? As one Indian philosopher long ago suggested.

Not necessarily through psychoanalysis, which did not yield any abiding results, but through something more direct! — both in concert with life’s challenges, and with our own natural curiosity. What would happen if we asked primary questions: what is a person? Who am I? How do I know anything? And later in university: why are they teaching me things they have never investigated?

It is assumed

(not demonstrated) that the scientific method works from the ground up all the way into the brain and its consciousness…without any leap of faith! Finding the one cause to the one effect in controlled conditions can be extrapolated and applied to uncontrolled conditions to yield the same results! — Is this science or technology? Are they different or the same?

Most scientists would have

the intelligence to concur that data obtained in experimental conditions created by, and isolated in, a geodesic dome, would not be legitimately extrapolatable and applicable to the natural world outside, simply because a geodesic dome — no matter how controlled the atmosphere inside —cannot account for true uncontaminated isolation. If it could not be done for nature (and it was tried in the Southern US) why would anyone believe that it can be done for human consciousness? — where the expanse to be bridged must travel from subatomic physics to the human mind! If anything, the reverse was ‘proven’ to physicists in this field: namely, that their subatomic world was — like the mind — apparitional rather than physical.

The technology branch of

science cannot accept the ‘theoretical discoveries’ — which ironically, are supposed to be an extension of the same ground up methodology; and thereby continue to formally claim that technology is science, not unlike their compatriots in social (science), medicine, and law who can pass legislation about ‘persons’ without needing to know what one is; and whose intelligence is not reducible to a technology animated by a dichotomy of subject (cause) and object (effect), because the ‘premise’ here cannot be investigated this way. It ‘predates’ the whole technological frame-work. Or to put it another way: the hypostases of of metaphysics pre-condition the hypotheses of technoscience.

Scandal in the Biosphere

Published on Aug 21, 2013

A giant 2.2-acre terrarium, Biosphere 2 was hailed as a marvel of modern science - until the scientists who volunteered to live inside it were embroiled in scandalous rumors of sex and deceit.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.