From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:48:23 -0500 Archived: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:26:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:30:42 -0400 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:01:17 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>Contributors to and readers of this thread might like to >>consider the following points: <snip> >>I would draw particular attention to the concept of 'nuisance' >>in all of this. When issues of mental illness are raised in >>connection with highly unusual experiences, it is always worth >>standing back from the bare facts of the experience and pausing >>to consider this factor and the ways it which can affect what is >>reported, how (or whether) it is reported, and resultant responses. Sound and excellent advice, Gerald! >Just to add more grist to the mill, it should also be understood >that Mental Illness in the medical community is defined by the >DSM-IV: >From: >http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html >"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth >Edition (DSM-IV) <snip> >The DSM IV is published by the American Psychiatric Association. >Much of the information from the Psychiatric Disorders pages is >summarized from the pages of this text. Should any questions >arise concerning incongruencies or inaccurate information, you >should always default to the DSM as the ultimate guide to mental >disorders. <snip> Yes, the existence and the application of the DSM IV manual within the community of mental health professionals is a very important point. Despite this being the bible of professionals in the mental health community, as you so accurately point out, the experiments that Ray referred to clearly indicate the existence of some very serious problems. If all the professionals are using their bibles and they are each interpreting and applying all the data properly and consistently then we should not be seeing the results that the experiments referred to by Ray have shown. The fact that there is such a thing as the DSM IV that is the ultimate guide to mental disorders available to all the professionals yet we still have the results of those experiments shows that the process is breaking down with the psychologists and psychiatrists themselves. It all boils down to subjective interpretation in the end and this occurs behind the eyes and within the craniums of the psychologists and psychiatrists, not within the pages of the DSM IV manual. Nothing in the above should be construed as my accepting the contents of the DSM IV manual as completely accurate because I certainly don't. >But as pointed out by others, the entire >field of Psychology is built on a foundation of theories that >often evolve from the bottom up, making the field highly suspect >in many ways. Maybe. Maybe not. Most likely you are partly accurate. The experimental psychologists (and there have been lots of them who were quite competent and who both understood proper scientific methodology and applied same) have devised and conducted many outstanding experiments and conducted much excellent research. A lot of their data has come from reproducible experimentation and results are often confirmed by more than one completely different type of experiment - each of which were designed to test something from different angles. Psychology is much more than dealing with and treating mental illness. Psychology is the science of human behaviour, not just the science of mental illness and how to cure it. If you limit psychology to the area of mental illness then you miss the big picture quite entirely. Psychology is the science of the mind and its mental and emotional processes; it is the science of human (and animal) behaviour that studys actions, traits, attitudes, thoughts, and mental states. Dealing with mental illness, that is, diagnosing and treating mental illness, is only one aspect of psychology. That the aspect of psychology which deals with mental illness is fraught with problems and full of highly suspect teaching is undeniable. I have been saying this right from the beginning. One only needs to look at Freud's dream and sex theories, and his ideas regarding women, to be utterly convinced of this. Even Jung, though certainly much more 'on the ball' than Freud ever was, was probably inventing his own underworld and perhaps inventing the archetypes as well (though it is possible they are real). The problem with Jung is that he had accepted Freud's version of the unconscious and merely seen himself as exploring it even deeper. The archetypes may be real but it is how Jung came to decide this that makes some of his concepts dubious and suspect. In Janet's psychology (before Freud) the view of the human psyche was simple; its hidden aspects were merely subconcious as opposed to unconscious (there is a huge difference). Freud viewed the hidden aspects of man as deep, dark, negative and turbulent and man's objective consciousness was essentially powerless against it. Jung, a romatic, accepted Freud's deep underworld concept but, extremely interested in religion and the early church fathers, could not accept that man's experience of God was nothing more than disquised sexual impulse and he also believed that the forces in the unconsciousness were not as dangerous as espoused by Freud. He had to invent a deeper level of the unconscious to reconcile this, replete with the archetypes. However, the essential point here is that, although Jung's version of the unconsciousness is a more positive one and provides man with access to greater power, it was still power controlled by the unconscious. Hudson had known that the objective mind (not the subjective mind) is the part of man in control and is not passive as both Freud and Jung believed. The experience of hypnosis shows Hudson right and both Freud and Jung wrong. Don't begin to even get me started on the problems with psychoanalysis! So, in Freud's dubious and pessimistic theories on a negative unconscious which the objective mind of man has no control over and which causes neurosis due to unconscious sexual repression, and Jung's probably invented collective unconsciousness with its archetypes as the basis for a perhaps equally dubious set of theories, we see two examples of conflicting psychological systems. And it doesn't end with these two. This takes us back to my point. There are so many systems within psychology. Lots of conflicting views. With new systems in the making, such as that of transcendental psychology as being developed by researchers like Stan Groff. Considering this alone, it is small wonder that the experiments referred to by Ray produced the results they did. Add to that a flawed human perception process and faulty reasoning and things are exactly as expected. But to use this to throw out the whole field of psychology is sheer folly. The experimentalists in the field have done lots of great work and produced much valuable data. That the flawed human beings trying to apply it (especially in the field of mental illness) can't get it together, and these same flawed human beings put too much stock in certain ideas in psychology that haven't yet been proven, is not reason in any way, shape, or form to throw out everything that has been gained through the application of good science in this field. But that is what is being attemped by several people on this list. Regardless of what value is or isn't present in the field of psychology, the fields of parapsychology and parasociology are much, much harder to dismiss. As are their findings. But you will still find much in the psychologies of older _quality_ researchers like F. W. H. Meyers and E. Gurney that may be of extreme relevance to the solution of the UFO enigma. And, whether certain researchers within the UFO community recognize it or not and accept it or not, traditional psychology has a huge contribution to make to UFO research. At least where UFO research isn't pseudoscience! Eugene Frison Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp