The Demons of Freud: “Freud demonized the unconscious as a “netherworld of dark, twisted urges” w/ Comparison of psychoanalysis vs spiritual research
Abstract: This essay critically compares psychoanalytic theory with research on spirituality. The materialist argument in context of spirituality is that spirituality is “intangible and beyond the senses”. Yet, there are a number of studies that demonstrate a correlation between spiritual processes and compassion. In contrast, psychoanalytic theory, particularly Freudian concepts like the Oedipus complex, are completely lacking in real-world context and empirical evidence. There are numerous prominent scholars who critique psychoanalytic theory such as Noam Chomsky, Stephen Jay Gould, Psychologists Hans Eysenck, and John F. Kihlstrom, who criticize its unscientific basis and the psychoanalytic vague and nebulous concepts – which are unmeasurable. Concepts. Kant, McGilchrist, and Sherif emphasize valid scientific theories must be grounded in real-world context-evidence. Furthermore, Freud demonized the unconscious processes by portraying the unconscious as a “netherworld of dark, twisted urges” (Bargh) – and as Buddha observed long ago, “We become what we think!”
This essay highlights the double standard in academia’s acceptance of unscientific psychoanalysis while marginalizing spirituality. Here are comments made on FB neuroscience, Neil de Grasse Tyson, and psychology groups.: such as “mental illness”, “Santa Clause”, “fairies,” and so on. The most obnoxious comment was by a “neuroscientist” who stated on my post, which was a fairly generic post about spirituality in which I didn’t even mention spiritual-psychic experiences – “please keep the religious drivel to religious channels, this is science and science by its very nature only deals with the material – what can be observed and measured. It serves no practical use of time to hypothesize whether giant cosmic parrots travelling from higher dimensions are responsible for anything because unless one flies into our view there’s no way to prove it.”
The flaw in materialist methodology is so fundamental and simple it is mindboggling. The materialists never categorized “tangible” evidence vs “intangible” evidence. Aristotelian scientific method described a four-step process – which materialist never followed – 1. Gather the facts 2. Categorize the evidence 3. Analyze the evidence 4. draw conclusions. The end result was a gross oversimplification which produced the “supernatural” concept and category – which effectively disconnected spirituality from humanity and people – making it worthless. By definition the “supernatural” is outside the scope of scientific inquiry and so has no real-world context – making it meaningless
As Justice Rehnquist states, “It is not true if the major premise is not true!”
Life, creation and consciousness – “force beyond anything that we can comprehend”!! Setting the Stage: Perspective on Social Science
Philo of Alexandria provides an excellent insight into the limits of consciousness. He states “The mind which is in each of us is able to comprehend all other things, but has not the capability of understanding itself. For as the eye sees all other things, but cannot see itself, so also the mind perceives the nature of other things but cannot understand itself.” ~ It stands to reason that human consciousness can only understand and analyze itself via a “frame of reference’ – or mindset – from within human consciousness – and several scholars have observed that the only way to evaluate human consciousness is by using a mirror – in one sense or another. The “materialist view that quantification equates to science and materialism is objective is false. Iain McGilChrist observes that it is the opposite and that the materialist “rigid adherence to arbitrary quantification” “limits and restricts” possible analyses. Half of human consciousness isn’t quantifiable: art, music, dreams, creato9vioty, imagination, , as well as symbolism which is complex and outside the scope of strict quantification – not to mention “death”. Rene Guenon is a bit more focused in stating that the materialist ideology is the “denial of everything that is of a supra-individual order” (p.90) Guenon’s assessment appears to be generally correct. E Halas, R. May, as well as Mustafa Emirbayer (to an extent) indicate symbolism was sidelined and marginalized. D Hay, K Gergen, and V. Enriquez emphasize that the western “rational Individualism norm has morphed into a form of extreme individualism. That is because “social consciousness” is a “supra-individual” concept. In Wikipedia, there are only three references to social consciousness – the most salient being to Karl Marx the creator of Marxism and Communism. Karl Mannheim, (1893 – 1947), a founding father of sociology stated that “we must realize once and for all that the meanings which make up our world are simply an historically determined and continuously developing structure in which man develops, and are in no sense absolute” (Mullins). Besides Mannheim, Guenon, and McGilChrist, there are a number of other critics of materialism including Talcott Parson, Rupert Sheldrake, Jeremiah Reyes, and Arran Gare
Guenon states materialism specifically “denies” spirituality because spiritual “authority is “supra-individual in nature, The “materialist model” of spirituality is “All spirituality is unreal” – based on the materialist maxim that spirituality is “intangible and beyond the senses” as explained by William R. Miller and Carl E. Thoresen. First, that is a fallacy – the Definist Fallacy to be exact. For instance, take the concept of “Death”. Death, of course is “intangible and beyond the senses, Yet, following the materialist argument Death becomes a figment of your imagination – which is absurd of course. Furthermore, there are a number of “tangible” types of spirituality such as compassion, grieving, musical spirituality, art and so on. A derivative of the materialist maxim is the concept of the “supernatural” – which by definition is outside the scope of science and thus lacks any real-world context-evidence which is necessary for a valid scientific theory according to Kant, McGilChrist, Muzafer Sherif) – which makes the “supernatural” an artificial abstraction which is scientifically and academically worthless. My argument is that in light of the “selective attention” process which is acknowledged as a critical process in the human mind – re-directs and mis-directs attention from functional spirituality to an empty and meaningless artificial abstraction.
Long ago Aristotle described the scientific process as a 4 step process: 1. Gather the facts 2. Categorize the evidence into types 3. Analyze the evidence 4. Draw conclusions. It is a bit mindboggling that the mistake materialists made was so simple and fundamental. Materialists failed to distinguish between “tangible” and “intangible” – labeling all spirituality as “intangible” and “supernatural”. There are a number of very “tangible” types of spirituality! 1. Spirituality of Compassion (Sprecher, S, B Fehr 2005; Saslow, Laura Rose 2011) 2. Musical Spirituality: 3. Spiritual Healing in Grieving 4. Children’s Spirituality 5. Artistic Spirituality 6. Poets and Prophecy 7. Dream Weaving/Creative Transcendence 8. divinity in nature – earth as a living force 9. Spirituality and Autism 10. pro-social norms. Another major methodology flaw is that materialists failed to distinguish bet6ween the “divine” and the supernatural. There is a world of difference between “divine” and “supernatural”. For instance, Celtic Spirituality and Celtic Catholicism holds “A deep reverence for nature is a central conviction in Celtic Spirituality. Creation is revelation. God’s presence permeates all of creation. Every single piece of it. Celtic Spirituality holds that the Divine is incarnate in all of creation.” In the context of beliefs, “divinity” would also be a “tangible” type of spirituality.
Social consciousness can be difficult to understand. If ever there was a social-political movement that centered on thoughts and ideas, the Enlightenment would be it. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, which began in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries were an intellectual and philosophical force created by social-political-religious ideas that dominated the world of ideas in Europe and generated major changes in the culture of Western Civilization. Furthermore, human consciousness has developed and ‘evolved’ through the various stages in human history- from the stone age to the iron age to moder industrial civilization – so. It would appear readily apparent that an influential factor in understanding human consciousness would be “Consciousness as drive and force”! That would be especially relevant in context of cross-cultural understanding such as Filipino values like Bayanihan, Kapwa, loob. In the essay, “Myths as Symbolic Maps of Social-Moral Order”, I stress the historical connection and correlation between spiritual beliefs and social-moral order – which supports Emile Durkheim’s view of religion as the foundation of morality – that religious experiences generate shared values and beliefs that bind society together. There is a major point made by Saslow that there is a difference between spiritual processes and religiosity processes – and that spiritual processes are more closely connected with prosocial values such as compassion. Many scholars who are anti-religious lump spirituality in with religiosity and throw spirituality away – when it appears readily apparent that spirituality is closely correlated with prosocial values such as compassion and community.
Wolfgang Pauli “To me it seems the most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality!” It would seem “our reality” isn’t working all that well! “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them!”Albert Einstein
Freud demonized the unconscious as a “netherworld of dark, twisted urges” (Bargh) & A comparison of research of psychoanalytic theory to the spirituality of compassion – using as a basis the materialist argument that “intangible” phenomenon are not real
Oedipus_and_the_Sphinx_MET_DP-14201-023 wikimedia
Real World Context-Evidence –
• Iain McGilchrist: Iain McGilChrist states “Thinking is always thinking, but philosophical thinking is, upon the whole, at the extreme end of the scale of distance from the active urgency of concrete situations. It is because of this fact that neglect of context is the besetting fallacy of philosophical thought … I should venture to assert that the most pervasive fallacy of philosophic thinking goes back to neglect of context … neglect of context is the greatest single disaster which philosophic thinking can incur.”[1]
• Immanuel Kant: “If a concept lacks reference to any object of possible experience, Kant argues, it “has no meaning and is completely lacking in content”[2]
• Muzafer Sherif: “Sherif emphasizes that real world contexts are important, even if regarded as “messy” compared to controlled lab experiments.”[3]
Critics of The Psychoanalytic school of thought – which is listed among the top 8 schools of thought in psychology!
Critics of psychoanalysis highlight its lack of empirical evidence and scientific testability, arguing that unobservable concepts like the unconscious mind are difficult to prove or disprove. Other major criticisms include its reliance on a small, unrepresentative sample of Victorian-era patients, Freud’s alleged sexism and Eurocentrism, an overemphasis on sex and childhood, and the subjective nature of techniques like dream analysis. Additionally, critics point to the significant time and financial investment required for treatment and question its efficacy compared to other psychotherapies.
“Linguist Noam Chomsky has criticized psychoanalysis for lacking a scientific basis. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould considered psychoanalysis influenced by pseudoscientific theories such as recapitulation theory . Psychologists Hans Eysenck , John F. Kihlstrom, and others have also criticized the field as pseudoscience.”
“Many traditional Freudian approaches to treatment are no longer in favor, but modern psychoanalytic therapy continues to play an important role in psychology today.” For instance, “Due to the nature of defense mechanisms and the inaccessibility of the deterministic forces operating in the unconscious, psychoanalysis in its classic form is a lengthy process, often involving 2 to 5 sessions per week for several years.” “Of key importance in psychoanalytic therapy is transference. Freud had originally noticed that his patients sometimes felt and acted toward him as if he were an important person from the patient’s past.”
“Eysenck (1952) delivered the most damaging indictment of psychoanalysis when he reviewed studies of therapeutic outcomes for neurotic patients. He found that about half recovered within two years. What was so damning for psychoanalysis was that for similar patients who received no treatment at all (waiting list controls), the figure was about two thirds.”
Many psychoanalytic concepts such as “defense mechanisms”, “transference” or “repression” simply are not measurable. On top of that, “In psychoanalysis, narrative explanations of character (personality) or sexual orientation almost always describe how the child solved the Oedipus conflict.” The Oedipus Complex is garbage – unscientific and degrading of religion and spirituality.
Oisin observes, “One of the major issues with psychoanalytic theory is that it’s claims are presented in such a way that they are deliberately left vague and untestable. In other words, the unscientific nature of the theory makes many of their claims impossible to either validate or disprove allowing psychoanalysts to claim the validity of their theory without providing any evidence to support it….. This is one of the most damaging critiques of psychoanalysis, To conclude, psychoanalysis seems to be more concerned with discovering what the analyst sees as the issue rather than engaging with the patient at a human level to understand their perspective. Rather than get to the root of the psychological distress it rather creates more layers to it and may even manipulate the patients already tenuous grasp on reality to create a problem where one never existed in the first place. Due, to the vague and unscientific nature of psychoanalytic theory many of it’s concepts would be difficult to utilise in practice. There is a severe lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play in psychoanalysis even by the analysts themselves.” (A brief critique of psychoanalysis, medium, Oisin)
Psychoanalytic theory vs Research into Spirituality
In contrast to research into psychoanalytic theory, there are a number of studies which demonstrate the real-world context-evidence of compassion’s correlation with spirituality. I should highlight the fact that compassion is very fruitful and functional.
Studies of Compassion
• Saslow et al: “Our findings argue that spirituality—above and beyond religiosity—may be uniquely associated with greater com- passion and enhanced altruism toward strangers.” (p. 215)
• Sprecher and Fehr: “Those who were more religious or spiritual experienced more compassionate love than those who were less religious or spiritual. (p.629)
• Studies of compassion from Oxford Handbook of Compassion – which demonstrate the importance and relevance of compassion for social well-being
• On top of that there is a ton of sociological evidence such as Mother Teresa and Dr Sweitzer – as well as the thousands of compassionate care givers in the USA alone.
Empathy
• “Singer found that the women activated the pain distress network in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and the anterior insula regions of the brain…regardless of who was receiving the painful stimulation.”
• Dr Covin observes that psychologists have come to realize how “closely intertwined” the systems for physical pain and social pain are.
• Spirituality is an emerging field of research
Commentary: While psychoanalytic theory appears to have no basis in real-world context-evidence, the research into the spirituality of compassion has numerous studies that demonstrate real-world context-evidence for the spirituality of compassion
The Psychoanalytic school of thought is listed among the top 8 schools of thought in psychology. Yet, Frankl’s logotherapy, Jungian collective consciousness and archetypes, as well as William James classic work The Varieties of Religious Experience are largely excluded from mainstream academia. For perspective in the Jesuit Loyola College in Maryland I could find no courses on Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, or anything about spirituality. “Spirituality” was not a specialty of any of the professors or associate professors in Loyola. The same was true of the other five Maryland Universities I checked out. I didn’t see anything about existential – positive psychology either.
(A more complete analysis of the correlation between Compassion and spirituality can be found in the article “Compassion vs. extreme individualism: Dawkin’s “selfish gene” theory – “genetic selfishness will generally give rise to selfishness w/ limited form of altruism falls short vs. compassion: studies: Saslow, Sprecher-Fehr, & Baumeister’s Model + Saslow: kin selection theories fall short)
As William James observed: “Pragmatism asks its usual question. “Grant an idea or belief to be true, it says, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone’s actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth’s cash-value in experiential terms”? (James & Perry, 1943, p. 97).
Commentary
The Supernatural concept is just a derivative of the underlying materialist argument that “spirituality is intangible and beyond the senses” – which besides being a fallacy is also untrue because there are a number of tangible types of spirituality
Spirituality – an emerging field of study;
The answer to spirituality is “People” NOT the “supernatural” – spirituality has got entangled in abstractions.
1. Consistently studies show that somewhere between 1/3 to half of people have spiritual–psychic experiences of one kind or another. That means in America there are minimally 110 million people they know nothing about – that psychiatry knows little or nothing about.
2. “Psychological research on spirituality and religion has grown exponentially in recent years (Paloutzian & Park, 2013) . In the diversity of new research, “spirituality” has proven to be a complex and dynamic term that is challenging to define.” – Tomlinson et al
3. William R. Miller and Carl E. Thoresen in “Spirituality, religion and health: an emerging field of research” state that “The study of spirituality and health is a true frontier for psychology and one with high public interest.”
4. Edgar Online [Edgar Cayce] “The findings of the research brought forward an interesting theme of spirituality as an emerging discipline. MSR deserves a place among the radical approaches.”.
5. “Perhaps prompted by the approach of a new millennium, a new discourse about spirituality began to emerge in the 1990s….” Diarmuid Ó Murchu observes that “This new upsurge of spirituality is itself one manifestation of a world undergoing global transformation on a scale not known to humanity for many millennia!”
6. “The past three decades have witnessed a surge in research on spirituality and health. This growing body of literature has linked different aspects of spirituality as well as religion to both positive and negative indices of human health and functioning. However, most studies in this area have investigated questions at a descriptive level…. and thus cannot explain mechanisms by which spirituality and health may be interrelated.
7. Kenneth J Pargament and Annette Mahoney, emphasize that, “Researchers [psychologists] have tended to study spirituality “from a distance,” relying on surveys that contain global distal measures, such as whether the individual believes in God, how often he or she goes to religious services, how often he or she prays, and his or her self-rated religiousness and spirituality……” (p. 616)
8. J E Kennedy: “Very little research has been aimed at investigating the overall effects” on people Furthermore, Dr Visuri observes that “There is a difference between analyzing experiences and researching people.”
9. Furthermore, as Dr Stacey Neal of Kaiser Permanente (JHU) stated: ‘she (and psychiatrists) has no education or training in “people” who have spiritual-psychic experiences.
10. “Anomalies” – a tern frequently used in the American Psychological Association – is another fallacy-delusion. In Park & Paloutzian chapter “Mystical, Spiritual, and Religious Experiences”- synopsis as short list of APA “anomalous experiences, hallucinations, near death, past life, mystical, and paranormal experiences!” In reviewing the chapter, I found nothing on “people” / nothing on “people” who have experiences .
Frankl’s disconnect further complicates and muddies the waters:
The creator of logotherapy-psychoanalysis, Viktor Frankl (1905 – 1997) observed, “The pictures by which the individual sciences depict reality have become so disparate, so different from each other, that it has become more and more difficult to obtain a fusion of the different pictures.” (p. 7 will) That is, the different disciplines and schools of thought in science, and especially in psychology, it would seem, effectively become, for all practical purposes, completely separate and disconnected units or entities! Muzafer Sherif, a founder of social psychology, in his critique of methods in social psychology emphasized that schools of thought in psychology have become “self-contained sandcastle”
Introduction: Freud demonized the unconscious processes (and thinking) by portraying the unconscious as a netherworld of dark, twisted urges
The prominent unconscious psychologist, John Bargh (PhD), in his book, “Before You Know It,” observes that, “while his [Freud’s] emphasis on unconscious drives was without a question a ground shaking insight, in effect Freud demonized the unconscious operations of the normal mind, claiming that each of us harbored a separate unconscious netherworld of dark, twisted urges that we could exorcise only through psychotherapy…..,.In his extensive and detailed theorizing, Freud presented the unconscious mind as a seething cauldron of maladaptive complexes bent on causing trouble and grief, which could only be overcome through the intervention of our conscious mind.”[4] (p.11-12)
The Oedipus Complex
In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud makes it clear that the “primordial urges and fears” that are his concern and the basis of the Oedipal complex are inherent in the myths the play by Sophocles is based on, not primarily in the play itself, which Freud refers to as a “further modification of the legend” that originates in a “misconceived secondary revision of the material, which has sought to exploit it for theological purposes” That is, Freud argues that the Greeks hijacked the Oedipus story for religious purposes, when any objective view indicates Freud is the one that hijacked and twisted the Oedipus Myth to vent his own subjective views of religion and religious beliefs. However, as most any psychologist will tell you, people would have a tendency for not being able to distinguish what Freud says about the Oedipus Complex and what the true, actual “narrative” of the story actually is. The medium is the message, as it were.[5]
A brief summary of In the Oedipus Rex tale of Sophocles tells the story of a person, as a baby, who was abandoned for the reason that a “prophecy” that this baby would grow up and kill his father. The abandoned baby is raised by another king of a neighboring territory, grows up and meets his biological father by accident on a road, and kills him in perhaps the first recorded instance of road rage. Then Oedipus travels on to Thebes which is terrorized by the Sphinx monster, who asks visitors riddles and then when they do not answer correctly devours them.
Oedipus solves the immortal Riddle of the Sphinx, which asks, “What walks on four legs in infancy, walks on two legs as an adult, and finally walks on three legs in old age?” The answer, of course is “man” who crawls on all fours as a baby, walks on two feet as an adult and walk with a cane in old age. By answering the Sphinx’s riddle Oedipus frees Thebes from the terror of the Sphinx which had been killing travelers. The queen of Thebes is, in truth, his biological mother and in gratitude the queen marries Oedipus making him king.
So, based on the actual Oedipus Myth, on the “face of it,” what the “Oedipus Complex” would seem to symbolize, according to Freud, is a man who becomes “possessed” a basic instinctual “drive” to overthrow or kill his father in order to fornicate with his mother. Even taken as a pathological state historically, to my knowledge, there is not a single case of a man killing his father in order to fornicate with his mother has ever occurred. Further, if Freud had actually thought over Sophocles’ Athenian tragedy Oedipus Rex, upon which Freud had based his Oedipus Complex, Freud would have realized that the central plot revolved around the “Prophecy” that Oedipus would grow up to kill his royal father King Laius and Oedipus’ abandonment to avoid that fate.
That is, Greek’s had a strong sense that each person had their own destiny and the plot tells the story of all the perverse kind of things that can happen to you if you try to avoid your fate. Freud detested religion and I would argue that the Oedipal Complex was, in part, an underhanded ‘attack’ on prophecy and religion. Also, Freud was quite literally a cocaine addict at one point. Any kind of objectivity toward the Oedipus Myth, would, in reality, likely grasp Freud’s Oedipus Complex – “Demonizing” as Bargh put it – or perhaps better described as “sick” for putting “maladaptive” ideas and ‘archetypes’ into human consciousness.
Analyses of Freud
In his 1907 book, “Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices” Freud compares faith to neurotic obsession and so defines faith and religious beliefs as neurotic obsession – as a mental illness that is. Later Freud argued that religious beliefs were a form of psychological “consolation,” and also, he argued that religious beliefs could act as wish fulfillment[6]. In the later work, Moses and Monotheism (1937) portrayed Moses as a tribal father figure killed by the Jews and also described the Christian rite of Holy Communion as cultural evidence of the killing and devouring of the sacred father – very parallel to the Oedipal Complex.[7]
However, it should be said that the Jews did not kill Moses and Freud ignores the self-sacrifice nature of the crucifixion as well as the fact that it was the Christians who brought the ‘eating flesh and drinking blood’ symbolism up. I might mention, in passing, that my personal sense of the Last Supper, would be it was that Christ did quite literally know he was going to be crucified which would put an end to his preaching, so he psychologically ‘hammered’ his disciples to make absolutely certain his message would be unforgettable, and also to set them in motion, as it were.
In general, one of Freud’s consistent themes was the view of the concept of God as an embodiment of a (tribal) father figure which was an illusion based upon the infantile emotional need for a strong father figure. He believed religion was necessary in the early stages of human and social development as an impediment to violence. Kenneth Gergen, a psychologist and author of The Saturated Self, summarized Freud’s view of religion: “Indeed, for not only was religion a form of collective neurosis but the superego (the seat of moral inclination) functioned primarily as an irrational defense against the unconscious and amoral forces of eros.”[8] (p.167 SS) Not even a word about compassion which is a mainstay of every major religion in the world, not to mention justice or even truth!
In contrast, Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology, in contrast, argued that “it makes no sense that systems of ideas like religion, which have held such a major place in history and from which people have always draw the energy needed to live, are merely tissues of illusion. Today we understand that law, morality, and scientific thought itself are born from religion, have long been confused with it, and remain imbued with its spirit.”[9] (p62 el) E. O. Wilson, a prominent biologist and the founding father of sociology, speaks about a powerful spiritual-religious experience he had as a young teenager. He spoke of spiritual and religious experiences as a “perpetual fountainhead of human emotion. It cannot be compartmentalized as the manifestation of some separate world.”[10] (p. 45, Nat) I should highlight that Freud, in one of his saner moments, did argue that the only scientific approach to the analysis of religion is to address what function(s) that religion and spirituality have.
Self-fulfilling Psychologies as Realities
Self-fulfilling ideas-prophecies are realities – and should be considered in context of psychology theories – especially materialism and reductionism. As Buddha observed long ago, “We become what we think!”[11] That would also be true of the materialism ideology with its fixation on quantification[12] (McGilChrist) and laboratory experiments (Kay Deaux)[13].
Iain McGilchrist states: “An increasingly mechanistic, fragmented, decontextualised world, marked by unwarranted optimism mixed with paranoia and a feeling of emptiness, has come about, reflecting, I believe, the unopposed action of a dysfunctional left hemisphere.”[14]
Self-Fulfilling Psychologies
A. Impression Formation C.N. Macrae, S. Quadflieg,
The term self-fulfilling prophecies refers to the observation that sometimes our beliefs about others can lead us to treat them in such a way that they subsequently become what we expect them to be. Originally, the effect was demonstrated in the classroom and called the ‘Pygmalion effect.’ In a seminal study, teachers were told at the beginning of a school year that certain of their students were potential late bloomers, who would be expected to excel during the school year under proper guidance.
Even though there was nothing in actual fact that set those students apart from their colleagues, several months later their schoolwork had improved considerably. Since this initial observation, numerous similar investigations have testified to the robustness of the effect with regard to both, positive and negative expectations. Follow-up studies also demonstrated that perceivers sometimes unintentionally transmit their expectations through nonverbal signals.
In a mock interview situation, for instance, it has been shown that when an interviewer’s negative expectation about another person was reflected in his or her nonverbal behavior (i.e., keeping more physical distance), the interviewee actually performed more poorly[15] (Impression Formation C.N. Macrae, S. Quadflieg, in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), 2012)
B. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy R. Rosenthal,
Self-fulfilling prophecy, also known as interpersonal expectancy effect, refers to the phenomenon whereby a person’s or a group’s expectation for the behavior of another person or group serves actually to bring about the prophesied or expected behavior. The history and diversity of this area of inquiry shows that the expectations of psychological researchers, classroom teachers, judges in the courtroom, business executives, and health care providers can unintentionally affect the responses of their research participants, pupils, jurors, employees, and patients. Meta-analytic procedures are used to evaluate the social importance of the magnitudes of the obtained effects. [16](Self-Fulfilling Prophecy R. Rosenthal, in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), 2012)
“Proper knowledge maps or mirrors the actualities of the real world.”[17] K Gergen A map without a proper concept-theory of social consciousness and spirituality is an unhealthy distorted model.
Commentary & Reflections
Human consciousness is not a toy: Overview of Freud
Many psychologists still quote Freud as a genius. However, one should keep in mind where Freud started: with dreams. Obviously, dreams are not “conscious” – so all Freud did was to add that since dreams are not conscious must, then, be “UN”- conscious – which is not exactly a “theoretical” scientific leap of any true magnitude. Paul Tillich, the famous Christian theologian observed, “The concept [of the unconscious] itself goes back to Schelling, not directly, but by way of Schopenhauer, the volunteeristic philosopher and critic of Hegel, and by way of Eduard von Hartmann who wrote a whole book on the philosophy of the unconscious. And it is possible to show that this book was known to Freud.”[18] (history p.442)
Brian Morris, in Anthropological Studies of Religion, states that “the positivist tradition” have naturally pronounced psychoanalysis to be unscientific and “mentalist.”[19] (p. 154) That is, most all of the processes Freud talks about like ego, id, superego, sublimination, and transference are supported only by anecdotal information which is usually accomplished by a very liberal interpretation of the facts – ironically very similar to the interpretation used by believers in Nostradamus and the Oracles of Delphi whose rather creative interpretations according to scientists distort the facts. Viktor Frankl, a brilliant psychoanalyst and fellow Jew whose central theme of his theory was man’s powerful Will to Meaning, offered a rather muted criticism of a thousand-page psychoanalysis – of an artist – by a Freudian psychoanalyst. The general gist of his comment was that the thousand pages didn’t amount to anything substantial. That is, in common talk, the psychoanalysis was a lot of nonsense. Later, Brian Morris goes on to say about Freud, that “Sartre …denounced …. Freudian theory as …. presenting a dehumanization of the human personality (1943: 50-4)”[20] (p. 154)
Also, Viktor Frankl in Man’s Search for Meaning did state: “Sigmund Freud once asserted, “Let one attempt to expose a number of the most diverse people uniformly to hunger. With the increase of the imperative urge of hunger all individual differences will blur, and in their stead will appear the uniform expression of the one unstilled urge.” Thank heaven, Sigmund Freud was spared knowing the concentration camps from the inside. His subjects lay on a couch designed in the plush style of Victorian culture, not in the filth of Auschwitz. There, the “individual differences” did not “blur” but, on the contrary, people became more different; people unmasked themselves, both the swine and the saints.”[21]
Point of Order: Freud is often seen as a liberator of humanity from the ultra-repressive psychological norms and social conventions about sexuality. In view of the contemporary totally unrestricted sexuality, Freud, no doubt would be rolling in his grave. The high rates of child sexual abuse could possibly be induced by the total absence of any restrictions on sex or sexuality apparently available in contemporary society. It is crystal clear that some psychologists used their ‘theories’ as weapons to destroy religion and religious beliefs they personally didn’t like. It is clear Freud’s theory was designed to undermine and damage religion and religious beliefs simply because Freud did not like religion – and somewhat successfully, too. For instance, in David Wulff’s textbook Psychology of Religion, there are eight references to Freud who saw religion as completely an expression of “wish fulfillment,” with the concept of “compassion” which is prevalent in all major religions getting but a few more references than the number of references to Freud.[22]
In light of Jung’s statement that the theories of psychologists are, in essence, “subjective confessions,” as well as the fact that much of the “science of psychology” is beyond any absolute scientific measurement or quantification, “we” should remember that in human consciousness much is in truth a matter of judgment. The bottom line is that, Human consciousness deserves to be treated with respect. Many psychologists and psychiatrists treat the human mind like Freud seem to treat human consciousness as their personal play-thing, disregarding any responsibility, true objectivity, or truth. Freud was such a man!
Comparative analysis Freud compared to Frankl, Jung and William James Synthesis-Consensus: Spirit-Spiritual processes Create Meaning & a Sense of Reality
The concept of the Synthesis-Consensus of Viktor Frankl, William James, and Carl Jung, that spirit and spiritual processes create meaning is actually very simple. William James, in his classic work, the Varieties of Religious Experiences, convincingly demonstrated that “spiritual experiences create a “sense of reality.” It is rather self-evident that when you compare James’ descriptions of peoples’ experiences then see James’ descriptions of the peoples’ religious-spiritual beliefs – or sense of reality. Furthermore, there are some existential studies which show that do support the idea that spiritual beliefs – in certain circumstances, situations and with certain people – do create meaning[23].
Carl Jung’s views and ideas parallels the observations of William James. William James statement that spiritual experiences create a sense of reality – created from meaning derived from the spiritual experiences of course. This is consistent with Jung’s strongly expressed belief that experiences are a primary influence on a person’s beliefs. Carl Jung states unequivocally that “Spirit gives meaning to his [man’s] life”[24] (CW8:643)! Carl Jung elaborated on that, in the Collected Works (CW8: 648 -1968 revised), when he stated that “Life and spirit are two powers or necessities between which man is placed. Spirit gives meaning to his life, and the possibility of its greatest development. But life is essential to spirit, since its truth is nothing if it cannot live.”[25]
Paul Wong explains in some detail Viktor Frankl’s views regarding the nature and characteristics of spiritual or noetic (from nous)processes in the mind “in the following quotation: “The noetic (spiritual, specifically human) dimension contains such qualities as our will to meaning [Frankl’s central concept of the human being’s primary drive] our goal orientation, ideas and ideals, creativity, imagination, faith, love that goes beyond the physical, a conscience beyond the superego, self-transcendence, commitments, responsibility, a sense of humor, and the freedom of choice making. The human dimension is the medicine chest of the logotherapist. Patients are made aware that they have these rich resources of health within.”[26] (Fabry 1994 pp.18-19) (p.156)
Comparison to Durkheim
In contrast, Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology, in contrast, argued that “it makes no sense that systems of ideas like religion, which have held such a major place in history and from which people have always draw the energy needed to live, are merely tissues of illusion. Today we understand that law, morality, and scientific thought itself are born from religion, have long been confused with it, and remain imbued with its spirit.”[27] (p62 el) E. O. Wilson, a prominent biologist and the founding father of sociology, speaks about a powerful spiritual-religious experience he had as a young teenager. He spoke of spiritual and religious experiences as a “perpetual fountainhead of human emotion. It cannot be compartmentalized as the manifestation of some separate world.”[28] (p. 45, Nat) I should highlight that Freud, in one of his saner moments, did argue that the only scientific approach to the analysis of religion is to address what function(s) that religion and spirituality have.
Is there a problem? With forethought and malice: Kaiser Permanente doctors and psychiatrists:
The Materialist Model of Spirituality is that “All spirituality is unreal”
Preface: As Jean MacPhail, author and scholar, observed, my personal spiritual-psychic experiences are unique – in part because the experiences – some conscious, some in dreams – related to events outside myself, in part because many are documented and in part they consistently are ‘perceptions of threats to the group (only thing I seem to be good at). From discussions with people who have spiritual experiences, “perception” appears to be a significant aspect of peoples’ spiritual-psychic experiences. Physiology and Circumstances are also significant factors. After 40 years of spiritual-psychic experiences, I can say it is easier to say what it is NOT, than what it is. It is NOT powers, the supernatural, fantasy, superstitious nonsense, or mental illness. I encounter mental illness quite frequently – though there is not a single bit of evidence that spiritual experiences are automatically and necessarily mental illness. People often find it frightening because it is an unknown to them and it is an unknown to them because that is what they are taught.
From my research, my 1981 warning to the FBI is historically unprecedented and comparatively speaking exceptionally detailed as well as an accurate prediction-warning of a terrorist attack. I would add that – to my knowledge – I am the only person who can (theoretically subpoena federal agents as well as I have the only warning prediction which is notarized with a FOIPA stamp on it. I also have a dozen striking experiences with many documented by emails – all with reasonable interpretations
After my experience I agree with Baruss and Mossbridge, who state that “As a result of studying anomalous phenomena or challenging materialism, scientists have been ridiculed for doing their work, been prohibited from supervising student theses, been unable to obtain funding from traditional funding sources, been unable to get papers published in mainstream journals, had their teaching censored, been barred from promotions and been threatened with removal from tenured positions. Students have reported being afraid to be associated with research into anomalous phenomena for fear of jeopardizing their careers. Other students have reported explicit reprisals for questioning materialism and so on. (Baruss, 2014b, P.L. Berger, 1970; H. L. Friedman & Krippner, 2010; Hess, 1992; Rossman & Utts, 2014; Sommer, 2014; cf. Chargaff, 1977; Jahn, 2001) Siler, Lee, & Bero, 2015) (Baruss and Mossbridge Transcendent Mind p.25) After the past 7 years I have to agree with that 200%
I believe – rightly so, that the Definist Fallacy induces a widespread “wrong thinking” (Justice Rehnquist term from 104-page article on his rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court). I sent my Kaiser Permanente doctor my critique of the materialist fallacy which was endorsed by four prominent psychologists. They just blew it off. Because it is clear to me that is a major methodology flaw – a serious maladaptive stereotype, I filed five internal complaints with Kaiser Permanente stating how offensive I find their acceptance which condones and approves of a sick destructive maladaptive stereotype.
Giant Cosmic Parrots
It is clear the Definist Fallacy is a major underlying cause for ignorant comments by college graduates – such as these comments I heard on FB “science” groups: “mental illness,” “Santa Claus”, “fairies,” and so on. The most obnoxious comment was by a neuroscientist who stated on my which was a fairly generic post about spirituality in which I didn’t even mention spiritual-psychic experiences – “please keep the religious drivel to religious channels, this is science and science by its very nature only deals with the material – what can be observed and measured. It serves no practical use of time to hypothesize whether giant cosmic parrots travelling from higher dimensions are responsible for anything because unless one flies into our view there’s no way to prove it.”
Sr Director Evans of Kaiser Permanente Member Services sent me a written letter – by registered mail no less – stating that my rights to KP services had been suspended for abusive conduct. Below is the top listed abusive message of mine by Director Evans. This is a quote of the message from me which she said was abusive: “December 8, 2022 “I felt that the acceptance of the Definist fallacy and your refusal to acknowledge my rights and beliefs as extremely offensive” I even filed a complaint with the DOJ [which I sent them but they never read apparently] which was accepted. My position is endorsed by Dr. Koenig, Dr Wong, and Dr Farra, and Stefan Schindler”
Actually, that is an accurate statement – that I find the Materialist fallacy-maladaptive stereotype extremely Offensive” In the end, a valid question – which is very evident since I do actaully have a published and peer reviewed critique of the psychology of religion, endorsed by four prominent psychologists which focused on the Definist fallacy – maladaptive stereotype with over 10,00 views and zero criticisms.
I also filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human services in 2021 – with a list of consistent problems I have had. In 2025 I got a reply that said they don’t have the authority to investigate. For the record, the U.S. Department of Justice accepted my complaints # 83404-WLP, 83404; 95500, 91650, 91569, 90778. My complaints explained in detail how the Definist Fallacy causes serious misunderstandings and cause prejudices, misunderstandings, and outright ignorance at times. I left the United States because of that Harassment – much of it documented.
Commentary: Giant Cosmic Parrots ??? those are some really sick ignorant materialist dirtbags.
Resources
[2] (CR, A 239/B 298). (P.15 KANT’S THEORY OF SYMBOLISM JOHN D. GLENN, JR.)
[3] Wikipedia
[4] Bargh, John. Before you know it: The unconscious reasons we do what we do. Simon and Schuster, 2017.p.11-12
[5] Freud, Sigmund. The interpretation of dreams Sigmund Freud (1900). 1900.
[6] Freud, Sigmund. “Obsessive actions and religious practices.” Standard edition 9 (1907): 115-127.
[7] Freud, Sigmund. Moses and monotheism. Sanzani Edizioni, 2023.
[8] Gergen, Kenneth J. “Saturated Self.” The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2007).p.167
[9] Durkheim, Emile. “The elementary forms of religious life.” In Social theory re-wired, pp. 52-67. Routledge, 2016.p.62
[10] Wilson, Edward O. The meaning of human existence. WW Norton & Company, 2014.p.45
[11] Leonard, Michael. 2018. “8 Buddha Quotes That Will Show the Power of Your Mind.” Fearless Soul – Inspirational Music & Life Changing Thoughts. May 28, 2018.
[12] McGilchrist, Iain. The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world. Yale University Press, 2019
[13] Deaux, Kay, and Mark Snyder, eds. The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford University Press, 2012.p.794
[14] McGilchrist, Iain. The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world. Yale University Press, 2019.
[15] Macrae, C. N., and S. Quadflieg. “Impression Formation.” In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Second Edition, pp. 410-417. Elsevier Inc., 2012.
[16] Macrae, C. N., and S. Quadflieg. “Impression Formation.” In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Second Edition, pp. 410-417. Elsevier Inc., 2012.
[17] Gergen, Kenneth J. “The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.” (1992).
[18] Tillich, Paul. “Mysticism and guilt-consciousness in Schelling’s philosophical development.” (1974).p.442
[19] Morris, Brian. Anthropological studies of religion: An introductory text. Cambridge University Press, 1987.p.154
[20] Morris, Brian. Anthropological studies of religion: An introductory text. Cambridge University Press, 1987.p.154
[21] Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s search for meaning. Simon and Schuster, 1985.
[22] Wulff, David M. “The psychology of religion: An overview.” (1996).
[23] Williams, James. “Varieties of religious experience.” New York: The New American Library (1902).
[24] Jung, Carl Gustav. “The Collected Works of.” In Psychology and alchemy, pp. 609-617. Routledge, 2014.CW8;643
[25] Jung, Carl Gustav. “The Collected Works of.” In Psychology and alchemy, pp. 609-617. Routledge, 2014.CW8: 648 -1968 revised.
[26] Wong, Paul TP. “Viktor Frankl’s meaning-seeking model and positive psychology.” Meaning in positive and existential psychology (2014): 149-184., p. 156
[27] Durkheim, Emile. “The elementary forms of religious life.” In Social theory re-wired, pp. 52-67. Routledge, 2016.
[28] Wilson, Edward O. “On human nature.” (1978).p.45
Written By
Leave a Comment