Philosophyís purpose is to improve the quality of peopleís lives. In doing so a philosopher proposes some entity such as happiness and describes a logical way to reach this state. This article mainly deals with the idea of happiness and also tries to give a foundation for psychology by putting forth a theory for the human nature. Socrates dealt with the importance of doing the right thing to be happy with yourself. Some later western philosophers deal with how to keep the masses happy, some examples are John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism) and Karl Marx (communism or Marxism).
Happiness or for that matter any other feeling is simply a state of mind. Any philosophy that propose to increase happiness for mankind must take this into account. For a philosophy to have any real effect it must focus on the individual and his state of mind. The science that work with the mind is psychology, and it is therefore reasonabel that any philosophical idea of happiness uses psychology as its tool to accomplish this.
I see Buddhism strictly as a philosophy that comes with a toolbox of psychological tricks to help the individual become happy and content with his life. This article will not deal with every aspect of Buddhism. I will only bring forth some psychological theories in support of already existing axioms and recommendations within Buddhism. My purpose in doing so is to validate these axioms and recommendations of Buddha, and somewhat more clearly explain the importance of adhering to those recommendations. This is done based on the theory for the human nature and its functioning.
A new theory for evolution will be proposed. A theory that says that evolution is a psychological process. I will also propose a theory that tells mankind its purpose, which is to make our souls beautiful, which is done by becoming happy. This last theory has been added because Albert Schweitzer points to the necessity for mankind to have a theory of the universe or world-view that has a connection to civilisation.
Finally I will take a look at personality disorders and see how well they can be explained using my theoretical model of human nature.
This account of the human nature does not claim to be complete or correct in every detail. The purpose has been to try to find the foundation of our personality. That is what all humans have in common. I have used introspection to do this and it started as a top down process, but developed to become a bottom up process. For some behaviours I have used strictly observations to determine their existence. My conclusion is that human nature can be divided into four distinct levels, instincts, emotions, ego needs, and philosophical insight.
Instincts are the lowest level from where one can organize higher behaviours. It is my standpoint that all higher organisms including manís behaviour have its roots in instincts.
This level has developed with the purpose to enhance our capacity for survival. Complex learning becomes possible through conditioning (this is further developed under the paragraph ďConsciousness from a Developmental StandpointĒ). This means that emotions function as a reward for behaviours that gives gratification to the instinct it is paired with. Emotions stop functioning as reward as soon as the desired behaviour has been established. This is also valid for more complex emotions such as dignity and love. Anxiety is used to indicate that the instinct is not being satisfied. This force the development of ego needs as the environment changes. One could say anxiety is the result of a changing society and that Nature use anxiety to kick mankind along. Anxiety also forces evolution on the brain as a physical organ.
This level has a similar appearance as Maslowís hierarchy of needs. The major difference is that I conclude there is a self-realization for each ego need. This view adds much more complexity to the human nature. It also puts focus in how many areas we as humans can grow and develop our approach to life. Free will exists on this level due to the fact that we are not able to take into account the effect of unconscious input into our decision-making. Learning is accomplished through operant conditioning and modelling, with emotions serving as positive or negative reinforcement. I have split this level up in three different sub-levels, need for security, need for appreciation, and self-realization. As one move upwards towards self-realization the relevant emotion decline indicating a declining need for the instinct to express itself. It should be noted that ego needs are the sublimation of instincts. To move upwards in ego needs the instinct must not be easily satisfied, that is anxiety forces development on us, or we cognitively learn a more mature way to satisfy the instinct. The drive to go forward is the need for the instinct to express itself.
On the lowest level of ego needs, need for security, one can approach life in two different ways. These two approaches are opposites, and how you start life will influence your way of approaching life in general. From this we understand how important childhood is for us since thatís mainly when we have the biggest need for security and exist mainly on this level.
On this level emotions have ceased to function as reinforcement. There is no need and consequentley no drive. The insight itself is enough. This final step is strictly an intellectual exercise. Moral philosophie seems to be the most valuable insight, since it will give piece of mind. This view was established by Socrates with whom I am in complete agreement. To reach this level one should live a life in moderation, be accountable, have self discipline, and respect for all living creatures. To see an outline of the human nature, see the table below. That which is written in the squares of the table is an idea of the models that the unconscious works with. These ideas are subjective and open to change, not like Platoís ideas which where supposed to be objective and final. To remove illusions that cloud the ideas means to better be able to experience reality to a higher degree, and in this sense my ideas are similar to what Plato was talking about. Hence there is no reality only perception.
We need to look closer at the instinct to kill for practise. As can be seen from the table it is listed twice. This is because the emotional reward from sensual pleasure is so great that it needs an opposite pole to balance it, self-hatred.
Self-hatred is such a negative feeling that it is not acceptabel. This means a defence mechanism will act. In this case it is repression. This happens according to my observations between two and three years of age. The repressed self-hatred lies as a gravitational centre in the unconscious. The unconscious thoughts are drawn in and bent around this centre. Our instincts that are sublimated to needs in the unconscious are bent (distorted) by the centre, hence our inability to satisfy our needs. Since the needs are distortions of the underlying instincts it becomes impossible to achieve need satisfaction. This is the reason why we create new needs in the hunt for lasting well-being. This inability to identify our needs correctly put us in a constant search to satisfy ourselves with different substitutes. This is the foundation for progress as we know it.
When the emotion of self-hatred is experienced it is rationalised to be hatred and projected onto someone. Envy and jealousy might just be a mix of sensual pleasure and self-hatred. Sadism might be to operate at the level of need for security in this area, that is to take apart and break everything.
The more a person pursue behaviour considered as evil, that is manipulation and control in order to satisfy the instinct. The more the unconscious entity of self-hatred will grow. This means the gravitational force will increase and the ability to achieve need satisfaction becomes more or less impossible. This expresses itself as a displeasure with life in general, and finally the only way to feel good is to manipulate and control.
The conscience is a collection of data suggesting a proper behaviour and as such it is the precursor to the idea of morality. It might be a combination of norms, rules, laws, and the feeling of sympathy. When it turns into morality every decision we take is evaluated against these models. These models suggest a compromise solution in order to satisfy two instincts. By using these models we are rewarded with dignity, both literally and emotionally. Having a back pain is a clue to you that you are doing something that is not in agreement with your idea of morality. What happens is that psychic energy is channelled to other parts of the mind/body. To have morality means to always behave the way your conscience suggests.
A conscience is necessary to have in order to learn to be accountable, but it is society's responsibility to make sure we have a reasonably good childhood so that we learn right from wrong so that we as grownups may be held accountable for our actions. This is said in light of determinism that suggests we are not accountable for our actions, which might be true, but we must learn to be accountable in order to build a better society and so that the rotten seeds can be locked away in order to further the best interest of society. Determinism is itself uninteresting since society and our lives are to complex to be evaluated by cause and effect.In essence determinism only serves those who refuse to be accountable for their actions. It should be noted that kissing ass will destroy the conscience, hence such a person cannot comprehend what it means to have morality.
|Beauty, everything is beautiful.||Love, is rewardin in itself.||Knowledge, holistic view.||Diversity, I have a function.||Moral philosophie.||Life, is a reflection of one's personality.||Goodness, is acceptance.||Self-confidence, is to guide.||Humour, a good laughter prolongs life.||Rearing, self-sacrifice is desirable.||Value, all living creatures equal value.||Power, control yourself.|
|Material expectations are fulfilled.||Love, ability to share emotions and thoughts.||Knowledge, for its own value.||I'm okay.||Morality, consideration of others take precedence.||Self-realization, through work or hobby.||Give, out of goodwill.||Self-confidence, to assert one's views.||Humor, to laugh at oneself.||Create a stimulating environment.||Humans equal value||Control, dominant-submissive.|
|Material safety.||Relations, understanding of others. Sympathy and empathy.||Curiosity.||Liked, this is something everyone desires to be.||Norms, rules, laws, understanding of.||Appreciation.||Sharing.||Dominate, a group.||Funny, at the expense of others.||Mold, the child.||I have a value.||Manipulate.|
|Material abundance/Shortage.||Unconditional/Conditional belonging (love).||Safe/Insecure.||Belong/Outcast.||Conformity/Rebellion.||Accepted/Rejected.||Altruistic/Egoistic.||Relevant/Irrelevant.||Funny/Boring.||Control/Let go.||Superior/Inferior||Take apart/Break.|
|Satisfaction/Anxiety.||Safety/Anxiety.||Fear/Anxiety.||Security/anxiety.||Peace of mind/Anxiety.||Alive/Anxiety.||Displeasure/Anxiety.||Pleasure/Anxiety.||Happiness/Anxiety.||Maternal feelings/Anxiety.||Self-hatred.||Sensual pleasure.|
|Physiological needs.||Self-preservation.||Conquer/Explore.||Group belonging.||Hierarchy.||I am.||Kill in self defence.||Kill for food.||Joy.||Raise children.||Kill for practise.||Kill for practise.|
Lets start by defining the unconscious: The unconscious is made up of models for basically everything. All higher functions that are capable of recovery from brain damage are to be seen as unconscious models. Automatic processes, schemas, filters, and complexes are to be viewed as unconscious models. Human nature is a structure made up of unconscious models for absorption of psychic energy. The unconscious is programed by the soul, which contains an idea for each model and as the unconscious develop the soul is changed (moulded).
The unconscious contains the entity of self-hatred. It also contains all information including the associated emotion that has been conscious at some point of time. Information is processed by the unconscious in several dimensions and then stored in simplified models containing the relevant information that can be extracted from the original mass of information. The next step in evolution will be that mankind learns to connect these models into another model that sums up the essential information contained in the smaller models. We call this holistic thinking, but itís simply nothing more than a model of models. The next step seems to be to make models of models of models. Maybe we could call that post-holistic thinking.
These models help us interpret information in our surrounding and control our behaviour, which would make our personality a reflection of our unconscious models, such as proposed in my table over human nature. According to my theory for evolution an idea of these unconscious models are inherrited by our offspring, which would account for why some human behavior patterns seems to be like archetypes. I also propose that the ability to speak a language is an unconscious model. Itís also proposed that sleep is needed for the unconscious to process information, plus to group information into models or create new models and suggest this interpretation to the conscious. The word model has been used to denote any cognitive representation of reality, which to us as individuals is known as perception.
Dreams are difficult to interpret since they are the result of models, maybe several models. The best way of interpreting dreams might be as an idea or symbolically. They can for example be seen as the conclusion to some problem bothering the unconscious based on all the available information. Dreams can be seen as a way of releasing built up psychic energy in order to avoid anxiety.
The unconscious is continuously feeding our conscious with its interpretation of everything. To disregard this information is to reject 90% of what we know.
I have looked at consciousness as something that develops through life. Starting with the infant and slowly moving to adolescence. I will present two theories (natural and adaptive conditioning) for the functioning of emotions. I try to answer what consciousness is and why it exists. The whole theory gives a new perspective on what consciousness is and it might also explain a little bit about our past.
It is well known that behaviours are aimed towards feelings of pleasure and away from feelings of discomfort. This knowledge has however never been used for suggesting a mechanism for learning behaviours that involves emotions. This I propose to do by examining and reinterpret some old conclusions. I will start by refreshing the readerís memory regarding classical conditioning and operant conditioning. These theories are about learning behaviours.
In Pavlovīs experiment on classical conditioning a light was turned on in front of the dog. After a few seconds some meat powder was delivered to the dog and the light is turned off. The dog is hungry and salivates. This procedure is repeated a number of times. The dog learns that when the light comes on it gets food and therefore starts to salivate as soon as the light is turned on. This gives the following sequence: Light (conditioned stimulus)-Salivation (conditioned response)-Food (unconditional stimulus). My interpretation is the following: Hungry (emotional stimulus)-The dog knows it gets food when the light comes on (behaviour)-Food (need)-The dog is satisfied by the food or experience pleasure (emotional reinforcement). I argue that if it had not been for the emotional reinforcement, the dog would not have learned to respond with salivation so quickly, if at all.
In operant conditioning desired behaviours are rewarded with food or praise. For example, a hungry rat is placed in a box with a bar that releases food when pressed. Soon enough the rat has learned that it gets food when it presses the bar. The following interpretation is done: Press the bar (desired behaviour)-Food or praise (positive reinforcement). This is how we raise our children and dogs nowadays. My interpretation for the rat is as follows: Hungry (emotional stimulus)-Press the bar (behaviour)-Food (need)-The rat is satisfied by the food or experience pleasure (emotional reinforcement). As can be seen I have exactly the same interpretation of both classical and operant conditioning, this indicates that my explanation is more fundamental. Also in the case of the rat I argue that if it had not been for the emotional reinforcement, the rat would not have learned to press the bar except by chance. I argue that this interpretation of the experiments is correct, since I have incorporated the subjectsí internal states in my explanation.
Both of these original theories do not consider the internal state of the subject and this is critical to how I view emotions and their function as I have shown above. Notice that some animals learn behaviours with praise as the need. This indicates similar emotions as in humans.
What is from a developmental standpoint the first level of consciousness? According to my view the babyís first experience is satisfaction/dissatisfaction; this is a type of emotion. It seems like emotions comes together with the needs, but notice that the satisfaction of the need also leads to an emotion. For example: When the baby is hungry, it cries because it wants food, and it gets the breast. After it is full the baby will experience a feeling of fullness. This gives us the following sequence of events: Hungry (emotional stimulus)-Cry (behaviour)-Food (need)-Satisfaction (emotional reinforcement). This could be called natural conditioning. My view is that emotions precede needs, and that needs are created by emotions. Therefore I will call emotions the first level of consciousness. The basic idea here is that emotions shapes behaviours and I suggest one way this could be done, called natural conditioning.
The next intellectual achievement in a babyís life comes at about the age of 1.5 to 2 years of age. The child than understands to differentiate between itself and the surrounding environment. It also understands that it is an individual. This is also the time children start to use the words, me and you. I call this identity. Identity is the capacity to look in oneself and identify oneself as an individual. One can imagine when the child displays aggression it evokes a response that is interpreted as being accepted or rejected. The following sequence of events might occur: Anxious or angry (emotional stimulus)-Temper tantrum (behaviour)-Comfort (need)-Feel accepted (emotional reinforcement). This response might lead to the first acknowledgement of a self (ego). The second level of consciousness is consequently identity. This could also be called the idea of self. I argue that ego is just an illusion, but a necessary one. Without ego no consciousness, as we know it.
With increasing identity we reach a point at which we understands that other people experience the same thoughts, feelings, and needs as we do. This is what develops into empathy, the capacity to experience the same feelings and thoughts as another person. The third level of consciousness is consequently empathy. This could also be called the idea of understanding others.
The following list is an expression of increasing consciousness:
According to my theory we have a consciousness that has three levels or aspects.
To my understanding empathy is to unconsciously recognize someone else's behaviour or spoken expression and the emotions that are relevant. This means that you have unconscious models for this that are the same or similar enough to light up where upon one experiences a feeling of pure happiness. Personally I experience this when someone is happy or sad. Normally I become so happy that I cry. Maybe this is not empathy but something new.
It seems like subjectivity is an important feature of consciousness. Emotions are highly subjective and identity is highly subjective, consider for instance an attack on your personality. Finally, empathy is based on experiencing someone elseís emotions, needs, and thoughts. This is also highly subjective. Perhaps subjectivity is a fundamental feature of the world, one that we have no instruments to measure.
Emotions serve the purpose of being stimuli and reinforcement to different needs according to this theory. I propose that emotions have been developed as the need for programming (learning) becomes necessary. As we all know emotions continue to develop through adolescence. During adolescence natural conditioning continues for behaviours or thoughts that are appropriate for a given situation. For example, a boy sees a girl he finds attractive, he walks up to her and says a nice thing, the girl smiles and the boy feels good. Attracted (emotional stimulus)-Flatteries (behaviour)-Smile (need)-Feel good (emotional reinforcement). Together they form something that shapes behaviour. I believe it is only the first few times we engage this natural conditioning that we experience emotions for real. After the behaviour is established the emotional stimulus and reinforcement might cease and we only experience the memory of the emotional reinforcement. Also this might fade with age.
One can also imagine that anxiety is a driving force to create new behaviours and needs during adolescence, anxious-behaviour-need-emotional reinforcement. Needs are meant to keep us safe and develop normally. To begin with we have need for food, warmth, and closeness. Later on we develop needs for friends, fashion clothes, and so on.
It is also possible to imagine that behaviours are created without an emotional stimulus. An adolescent might in a given situation show a behaviour that is successful; hence he/she experience a positive emotion. We than have the following: Adaptive behaviour (behaviour)-Socially successful (need)-Feel good (emotional reinforcement). I call this adaptive conditioning. Which type of conditioning is dominant in adolescentís remains to be investigated.
Identity, this creates a self or ego. The ego is created out of a need to make sense of the inner and outer world. We understand our own uniqueness. We can look at the outside world and understand that it is not part of us. This gives us the ability to influence and manipulate the world around us. This level would be responsible for making tools and machinery and sharing of knowledge. I see ego as an observation (of the brainís activity) and integration program with the purpose of focusing on important events and broadcasting information, attention being the mechanism with which information is focused and broadcasted. Ego is the history of the brainís experiences, autobiographical memory; as such ego has connections throughout the developed brain. Information enters attention more easily if it is related to the information presently in attention, but unrelated information might also enter attention if it is important or emotional in its content. Information constantly enters our attention, but ego decides, based on what information it gets back from the global broadcast if to ignore the present information and return to the previous information or to refocus completely. In this sense egoís only function is to direct attention with the purpose of making sense of information. Ego directs attention based on the information it gets back from the broadcast. This gives the illusion of free will.
Empathy has been developed because of the need to interact with other humans. It makes it possible for us to understand different points of view from the speakerís perspective. To form deep relations depends on empathy. Marriage in western societies for example has become dependent on a strong bonding prior to marriage in the late 20th century.
Psychopathy is nowadays called antisocial personality disorder and is characterized as a lack of empathy for other humans. They also seem to lack emotional nuances that normal humans have, they appear to be less emotional than normal people. They only seem to experience stronger emotions and to a lesser or no extent weaker emotions. This I suggest made them more rational historically than normal humans, because they did not have so many conflicting emotions and needs to obscure them from what were the main problems. Notice that only a small part of those diagnosed with anti-social personality are criminals, the rest lives normal lives.
I imagine that people with anti-social personality were able to advance to high positions, as advisors to the rulers or high positions within the church, which in past times were a force to be reckoned. The reason I believe that the clergy was an attractive career for these individuals is because of its hierarchy and bureaucratic organisation. Within such an organisation their rational mind would be recognised and they would be promoted to high positions. Their rational mind would also have led them to become advisors to influential people.
Nowadays people with this disorder are living a dwindling existence. This is due to the fact that normal people have learned how to be rational and that we today have democracy and equality between the sexes. There is no denial that there still exist opportunity for these people to advance within big companies and within the governmentís bureaucracy, but the competition with normal people are much harder today. Against the background of the different levels of consciousness I would like to call this personality disorder, infantile, and at the end of this article is a more elaborate discussion of what characterizes this personality.
The theories of natural and adaptive conditioning are best left to psychologist to investigate. These theories suggest that our behaviour is strongly influenced by our environment, since new behaviours are created in a certain environment to be effective in it. This is nothing new, but it suggests the mechanism by which we adapt to a certain environment. Another consequence of this would be that the philosopherís zombie would be a memory of the past, since emotions are needed for us to develop certain behaviours.
The theory of consciousness indicates a social functioning of consciousness. This might be of interest to evolutionary theorists.
The historical importance I give to people with anti-social personality disorder is both interesting from a historical as well as evolutionary view. The importance of this does not rely on the theory of consciousness that I present, but it is the strength of the theory to be able to support and lend evidence to such speculations.
To change or create a new thought process you need to focus and concentrate hard and repeat a statement silently in your mind for four hours. During this time you need to be so focused and concentrated that all other thoughts besides the one you are repeating are suppressed. For example if you do not feel liked all the time you could repeat the following thought: "I am okay". If you have recurring suicidal thoughts you could repeat the following thought: "I am going to die the way I lived, with dignity". The thought behind this statement is that it is not dignifying to commit suicide. This is of course nothing but a form of meditation. What happens is that information in the unconscious in support of the statement is tied together into a model that give rise to thoughts in support of the statement. Likewise if you ask a question like "What is the highest good?" the unconscious will tie together information related to this and try to extract an answer from this model. If the subject is not mentally strong enough to do this meditation one can always use psychic driving, which is another way of programming the unconscious.
The first stage of learning that an individual goes through is learning of facts, because the brain rewards this thought process. Secondly, the brain rewards understanding of the facts that is making models out of facts. Third, the brain rewards understanding of interactions between models that is holistic thinking. One can express this by saying that initially the brain works using assembly language, but with increasing complexity of thought there is a switch to C++.
Your emotional maturity corresponds to how your unconscious process and stores information. People who are mainly rewarded for learning facts therefore has problems to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions since they can not rely on their unconscious feeling of right and wrong, hence these people tend to intellectualise every decision. They use assembly language. This means that such an individual is basically incompetent to make decision in todayís complex world.
It seems like a normal person starts making models during puberty. To emotionally mature in addition to what takes place during puberty there are two ways. First, to learn the thought process in school, hence it's a cognitive way of maturing. Secondly by having adversity in life such that one is forced to think in bigger and bigger ways. What Iím saying is that the unconscious learns from the conscious how to process information.
Manís desire for power stems from the instinct to kill for practice, which sublimates in to a need to control and manipulate everything including oneself. This desire for power is the driving force behind historical changes and development of society. Each new structure of power that is created through history rely on different variations of structural violence to reinforce it and make it resistant to change, and in doing so prevents society from further development. The kind of structural violence used is a reflection of the people at the very top of the power pyramid.
The use of power will feed the unconscious entity of selfĖhatred, which will grow and in a negative way effect the well-being of the individual using it. This has the effect that people in power might reason that if Iím not happier than this, than I have no reason to make people effected by my power any happier. What kind of world would that be where the average citizen is happier than me? Jealousy consequently prevents the person in power to make a whole-hearted effort to improve the lives of the average citizen.
Democracy has to some extent cured these problems. One also understands the importance of not letting people be in power to long. Many democratic countries have laws for how long you can hold a certain position (president). A system like democracy is not without a flaw, because if all parties and some institutions benefit from a certain structural violence this will take place. In a perfect democracy with total openess the people should be given the opportunity to say their meaning about what kind of structural violence should be used, if any.
Decisions can be made in two ways. It can either be based on intellectually weighing the arguments for and against a certain decision, or else you use your gut feeling (intuition) to guide you and afterwards you intellectually rationalize (motivate) your decision.
20th century political decision-making is characterized as intellectual. I argue that this is wrong. Why? Because no decision affecting a group of people or society can be analysed in such detail to assure the correct decision. The world we live in is far too complex to be broken down into statements of cause and effect.
I propose that all decision making should be guided by oneís gut feeling where appropriate. The reason for this is that knowledge that is unconscious expresses itself as a feeling for what is right and wrong. All information that we have learned throughout life is contained within the brain, most of it is unconscious and expresses itself as a gut feeling. The good thing about this type of decision-making is that you get a second control whether your decision is right or wrong when you intellectually gather the arguments in support of your feeling. Because, if the arguments in support are few and not very convincing it might indicate you need more information or you might be taking the wrong decision. What Iím saying is that most of what we know is unconscious and expresses itself through feelings and should therefore be used to guide our decisions. To make an intellectual decision is probably to disregard 90% of the information available in the brain. This makes obvious the danger in removing oneself from the consequences of oneís decision, because it than becomes an intellectual exercise.
It should be known that if a decision is accompanied by a sting of hatred or envy, it means you are taking the wrong decision.
It seems like the unconscious turns information about the world in to models beginning in puberty. Itís my understanding that when two or more models are used together to process information the result is a gut feeling or intuition. This means that the result is not easily explainable in rational terms because itís to complex. To make sure you are right you got to gather evidence in support of your conclusion otherwise you have to rely entirely on your intuition. In summary; Fully developed personality means little or preferably no emotional influence, hence a good gut feeling (intuition). Intuitive thinking would be the next stage after formal operational thinking if one follows Piagetís model.
The patriarchal system of society might be against nature. It's based on the misunderstandanding that the strongest is the most fit to lead. This of course gives men an edge since they have physical strength superior to women. It was previously claimed and believed correct that women were intellectually inferior to men. Women have also been claimed to be more emotional than men, which supposedly should make them less rational. I claim the opposite is true today.
My theory regarding the qualities of women is based on that women have stronger emotions than men during their teenage years. Based on my theory of emotional maturity and how decisions should be made would make women better at having positions where making complex decisions are an important part of the job. This comes from that complex decisions should be made using our unconscious, which speak to us through a gut feeling, hence the one who used to be more emotional would have a better gut feeling. This is not to say education is not important. On the contrary, education helps us as individuals to emotionally mature into holistic thinking. My theory says that the one with most knowledge and the capacity to access one's unconscious(gut feeling) is most suitable for complex decision making.
What I'm saying is that nature intended for women to have the power of decision making, while men with weaker emotions during their teenage years and more aggressiveness (the instinct I am) should have the executive power to implement women's decisions. This will of course never happen for two reasons. First, men will never give up decision-making power. Secondly, many men have equally strong emotions during their teenage years as women making them just as good at making complex decisions.
I also would like to say that women who nowadays make career and adopt men's behavior of intellectualizing problems removing themselves from their emotions are no more fit to have powerfull positions than men are. Many of these type of women become known as bitches and hard asses. It is my prediction that the leaders of the future will have more in common with foremen than managers of today. That is we will see a more people oriented leader style. Leaders should be those who bring out the best in us and make us function as a team with a minimum of force. Women and men are by nature different. Embrace it and use it.
If women don't have stronger emotions than men during their teenage years, than my reasoning above falls together like a house of cards and if that's the case, my apologies to all of you powerful men who felt offended by this psychological excursion of mine into the nature of mankind and the opposite sex. However, based on my theories the one most fit for complex decision-making are the one with most knowledge in combination with a well developed personality where all emotions are satisfied, this gives an excellent prerequisite for a good gut feeling.
The present definition of personality is that of having a rigid behaviour pattern. That is the person uses the same approach to many different situations. This would mean that a person who is able to adapt by using different approaches to many different situations lack personality.
Times are changing and people with rigid behaviour patterns will find it increasing difficult to adapt to the fast changing and complex environment. I propose that the definition of personality is changed to be the ability to adept to reflect the quality needed today to survive and prosper. The old definition reflected what used to be successful behaviour. Today the opposite behaviour is successful behaviour.
A new definition might be something like this: Personality is to behave socially correct in any given situation and at the same time retain one's value system. A reflection one might make is that the key to a personality is to have a large value system.
Using my table over the human nature one might draw the following conclusions. A person that is operating at the level for need for security, his output will be charachterized by firm opinions. These opinions are not easily changed since that means changing personality. A person operating from a level of need for appreciation, his output will be more nuanced and he will mainly be interested in people listening to what he got to say. Changing view is more easily done here since it only means you have been listening and taken into account what others has said. A person operating from a level of self-realization, his output will be characterized as somewhat unique. Throwing light on an issue from a neglected angle. People with a well developed personality uses all of these different approaches depending on the situation.
Furthermore one can explain differences in personalities by assigning different activity to different instincts. There are of course more to a personality than my table over the human nature but it's my understanding that it's the foundation that a persons personality is based upon.
First let me define stress: A physical state different from our normal state that has no effect on the situation or problem we are facing. Based on this definition we understand that all physical changes taking place in the body that has no effect on the situation or problem are stress.
A person living in a modern society needs to teach the body proper responses. If you are faced with a situation or problem that has physical effect on you, than you need to ask yourself if this response serves a purpose. If not, you need to teach the body a more appropriate response, which to me is to become calm and relaxed. From the state of being calm and relaxed we can decide rationally what action to take. So from this we understand that a person of today needs to acquire two new skills. First, we need to learn how to put the body and mind in a calm and relaxed state. This can be achieved by learning meditation, but the easiest way is to think of something pleasant or interesting for a while. Secondly we need to learn to recognize when our body is performing in a state different from our normal state. This means that when we recognize a stressful situation or problem we put ourselves in a calm and relaxed state for a couple of minutes. After that we get back into the situation or problem. This way we teach the body an appropriate response.
Depression might to a large extent be determined by unrealistic expectations. That means we have a conflict between what our conscious and the unconscious is telling us about our situation in life. Another way of expressing this is to say we feel we deserve so much more than we got or we do not feel worthy of what we got. The emotion of depression would than arise from anxiety mixed with a positive feeling. Areas that would cause depression are likely to be about love, being liked, and being accepted.
First let me define neurosis: A maladaptiv behaviour for the release of psychic energy to avoid anxiety. Maladaptiv meaning there is no possible progression.
With this definition we can have different types of neuroses depending on from which instinct the psychic energy comes. I am is such a powerful instinct that one would call a neurosis based on this instinct obsessive compulsive behaviour. Aggressive behaviour is a way of releasing energy from this instinct. Abuse of different kinds might be from the instinct group belonging where the individual donít feel liked and has a problem of moving on to the idea that he is okay.
Let us first propose that anxiety is caused from that psychic energy is not absorbed in the unconscious models of human nature. To stop anxiety from occurring we have to identify what weakness a person has in his personality. Then we ask the person to focus on memories of situations where he/she had a good behaviour that will strengthen this weakness in the personality. The person should focus his mind on this task for 3-4 hours. Or else the person could read a couple of books dealing with the issue that is a weakness. This should create an unconscious model that can absorb the psychic energy.
Structural violence denotes behaviour that has its roots in human nature and evolution. It serves the purpose of reinforcing the existing power structures and order of society. This has given stability to society and made progress possible. Structural violence is in its essence accelerated evolution, but at a certain point it becomes an obstruction for continued evolution. As society keeps evolving structural violence in all forms is discontinued as it becomes obsolete.
Examples of structural violence are discrimination of all forms such as racism, apartheid, psychiatry, oppression of women, children, elderly, and handicapped. Apartheid and psychiatry represents structural violence when it has become institutionalised. Bullying is just an example of when the behaviour gets out of control, which might be considered neurotic.
I will look at the root cause of this behaviour and the idea behind it. Finally I will give a solution to the problem.
All forms of structural violence are based on the idea of forcing a group of people to submission. This comes from the idea that humans have different values which supports the idea of submissiveness, which means that we show submissiveness to superiors and require it from those considered inferior. The actual structural violence is the behaviour required to make the subjects submissive.
The following two sentences are the origin of all structural violence: I am better than you. I am worth more than you. This gives rise to the idea that I have a right to force you to become submissive towards me.
Why do we have this thought process? It must be that we dislike that which is different from ourselves. What does different from ourselves mean? It means behaviours that are deviating from our behaviours. What are behaviours? All behaviours are the result of a thought process. This would mean that structural violence has its roots in an inability to accept a deviating thought process in others. This means that the actual root cause might be the idea of conformity.
A group or individual that is being forced into submission will try to adapt. In doing so all behaviours that serve no purpose but to annoy others will be removed and replaced with more purposeful behaviours that aids in adapting. Those behaviours that will be retained are those which make these individuals happy. From this we understand that structural violence eliminates useless behaviours and extracts useful behaviours. In short, submissiveness make us unhappy, so we retain only behaviours that make us happy and we try to replace annoying behaviours with behaviours that make us happy.
The idea of submissiveness is built on the idea of that opposites (dominant-submissive) attract, that is to behave submissive to those considered superior and to require the same behaviour from those considered inferior. Another important part of this idea is that one is never accountable. Ultimately only God or society is accountable. Dominant has normally meant a man with authority. Everyone is submissive, since in western civilizations all of us are submissive towards society. It should be understood that the idea of submissiveness originates out of the false idea that you can assign different value to people. We see that the idea of humansí different value supports the idea of submissiveness or control. All successful behaviours are supported by the idea of conformity.
These individuals interpret having morality as obeying laws and rules. The lack of morality means that we might get reaction formation, meaning that these individuals will chew your ass off if they catch you doing something stupid. The idea of submissiveness permeates all of their behaviours. For example a trivial thing like saying hello to someone becomes important in the sense that whoever says hello first is showing submissiveness according to this idea. Material things reflect your position in life. For example, a Ferrari represents that you are somebody, but to a person that has morality that car represents a piece of art.
People need to adopt the following thought process: We are all unique with special gifts. All humans have equal value. The idea of submissiveness must be abandoned in order to make it possible for us to operate based on the idea of morality. This would remove the root cause, and in doing so all behaviours considered as structural violence. In other words structural violence would cease to exist.
Morality is a thought or belief where the consideration of others take precedence over self interest and when you are always accountable. In contrast the idea of submissiveness is concern about self , while the idea of morality is concern about others. The thought that lay behind morality is that how happy would you be if you were alone in the world? We all know the answer to that, so we better concern ourselves about others, which is the starting point for all morality. We also have to understand that all of our behaviours are to some extent determined either by morality or submissiveness.
Evolution favours behaviour improvments in the majority, because in majority is diversity contained. Diversity and number ensures survival of the species from most plagues and other natural catastrophes. The purpose of the dominant individual is to evolve the behaviour of the species. The majority learns new behaviours from the dominant whereupon that individual becomes insignificant to the species. In return the dominant can choose any breeding partner. These behaviours are stored in the unconscious as models. The soul is a reflection (an idea) of the unconscious and it transfers the idea of the unconscious models into the genes of the sperms and egg. In this way the idea for a behaviour is transferred from one generation to the next. The dominant individual develops new behaviours cognitively or in respons to anxiety. A milestone in evolution will thus be the time when Nature removes anxiety, because it serves no purpose any longer. This might be the state Buddha referred to as Nirvana.
Dominant means that the majority consciously or unconsciously identifies the individual as being happier. Evolution than becomes for the majority to conform with behaviours that make them happier. Notice that behaviour equal thought process.
Reading my description of schizophrenia at the end of this article one can conclude that the schizophrenic is dominant in society starting with the coming of morality, otherwise Japan might go under.
First the individual with the best combination of intelligence and strength would have taken the lead. The next individual to take the lead would be the one who gathers food for bad times. The individual following that would be the individual who gathers material things to be inherited by the male offspring. This is what we call structural violence today. Next society would favour the intelligent individual. That is also a form of structural violence. Today we see the emergence of the talented individual. They are the oneís shaping todayís society. You know nature is at work here by looking at their partners. Notice that itís not the dominantís genes that are of interest to nature, but the individualís behaviour. The behaviour we are supposed to learn is that we become happier by doing what we have talent for. Money and fame is just frosting on the cake. Unfortunately people today believe money and fame is whatís making you happier, hence all reality shows.
For some time now there has been a new force at work in the hands of nature. A force that is ďuniqueĒ to mankind. This force will take mankind beyond the idea of paradise. Iím not saying that poverty and illnesses will be eradicated, but it is still beyond the idea of paradise or what used to be the idea of paradise.
The only problem is that we are about to open Pandoraís box. Iím talking about genetic research and its application. My understanding of evolution says that any man made genes must to any cost be prevented from entering into the evolution of nature.
Itís my understanding that all living creatures have a soul. Itís purpose is to make sure that the idea of the unconscious models go on living. Our unconscious models mold the soul and the soul changes the genes in our sperms and eggs to reflect the unconscious. Each egg and sperm has a part of the soul. Buddha claimed that our final destination is the state called Nirvana. Itís hard to argue with such an enlighted person, but I believe he is wrong. In another sense Buddhism is correct in saying that everything is changing all the time.
Finally I would like to say that nature has used religion to guide mankind towards a better life. To me it seems like mankind has reached a point where it is capable of navigating on its own. Maybe my purpose here is to tell mankind to keep up the good work and it will all turn out fine.
The most obvious fact in support of this theory is that democracy is a better control system than dictatorship. Democracy takes care of and try to increase happiness in the majority of its individuals. That is why democracy is slowly taking over everywhere.
The similarities of identical twins reared in separate environments are explained. The twins have inherited the same ideas for what makes them happy and consequently it does not matter that they grow up in different environments they still develop many of the same behaviours because that is what make them happy.
Why daughters of abused women themselves end up being together with abusers. They have simply inherited an idea of that it makes them happy to be abused from their mother. Obviously the mother must gain something from being in an abusive relationship otherwise she would leave. This is the idea that she passes on to her daughters.
Why offspring to alcoholics are more likely to become alcoholics themselves. The alcoholic gets some pleasure or some kind of happiness out of his/her abuse and this idea is passed on to the offspring.
Cloning would to my understanding produce an animal without soul. As such it has lost its ability to evolve, and if such an animal were to produce offspring it would introduce an error that would propagate through that species and make all animals of that species miserable. Basically this is the problem with genetic engineering that when we change or introduce new genetic material in living creatures itís not in harmony with the existing soul. If such an animal produce offspring this error will propagate and nature can not heal this error. Evolution is perfection, meaning that nature can heal all mistakes except those done using genetic egineering. Genetic engineering only caueses misery.
With plants it seems to be different since I can not percieve them as having a soul, but I guess itís best to be catious anyway. Evolution of plants would for that reason be survival of the fittest.
It seems to me obvious that the more instincts a species have the further it can evolve, since more instincts give rise to a more complex thought process. This is the reason I know mankind as a species will evolve beyond where I am.
The theory of inherited unconscious models and the existence of a soul to make this possible would make causality (karma) a law of nature. This was already concluded by Buddha some 2600 years ago, but I think Iíve added some substance to it.
What is a cell? It's a machine. What is a bunch of cells put together and functioning as a unit? It's an animal. The medical profession still calls it a machine. What is a bunch of animals known as humans when put together? It's a society. But if we are to use the logic used by the medical profession we would still have a machine. Notice that the logic of the medical profession says that a machine can never be anything beyond its smallest part. In line with that type of reasoning society is merely a bunch of atoms. This argument was only done to show that it is a to simplistic thinking to say that anything living is a machine. Myself I would prefer the use of the word organism. Maybe using the definition: An organism is a machine capable of procreating and evolving, which means it has a soul and the sum is always greater than its parts. Lets say that a cell is an organism, than cell-animal-society (country)-nature (earth) represents increasingly higher degree of organism.
Using this kind of reasoning one could say that an individual has a conscience. Society has prisons. Nature has Africa. An individual has a bad conscience. Society has overcrowded prisons. Nature has poverty in Africa.
Society can in this way be viewed as an organism. All organisms have a purpose or do something. So what purpose does society have or what does it produce? I argue that society refines souls. That means society produces beautiful souls from poor raw material. For whom is society producing this? To my understanding society are producing this for Nature. Why? I don't know. That which I denote Nature is known to most people as God.
Using this view of society as an organism one might see HIV/AIDS as a way of Nature to teach homosexuals that one partner is to prefer to several. From this perspective one might also see schizophrenia as an autoimmune disease known to us as structural violence. The medical profession of course being the immune system, trying to program society to respond properly to outside threats. It's my understanding that society is built up by a primary control system that interacts with a secondary control system that is responsible for actual control. This secondary control system is known as capitalism and democracy. It looks to me like society became immune to the schizophrenic with the development of the control system democracy. To continue this analogy with the human body I guess the schizophrenic will serve a purpose in society like any other specialized cell in the body.
Let us give some definitions of democracy and capitalism that make sense in the meaning of being control systems. Capitalism is a system for refining and distribution of energy with power as a bi-product. The energy carrier in the system is money. This system generates some control over the individual. The capitalistic system uses raw material and energy as input. Democracy is a system for distribution of power based on our consideration for our fellow man. First, this is an expression of morality. Secondly, it allows society to distribute its power to the individuals. The individual is to some extent given the power to control his own behaviour. That is if he votes on the ruling party. Democracy is of course the most important of these two control systems, and to my understanding itís here to stay. The reason for this is that democracy is a system that can evolve and adapt to any circumstances. Democracy becomes what the majority wants. Capitalism will remain a functioning control system as long as it adapts to the rules imposed by democracy.
Looking at society from the view point of being an organism for production of beautiful souls one can see the following: Daycare makes sure the souls get good treatment to begin with. The school system is an extremly efficient way of improving the soul. Work is a form of asceticism necessary to keep the organism going and improving. Marriage and having children is of course the climax of a life well lived. Society also has media as a tool for improving souls. Retirement seems to be time for some final refinment of the soul by reflecting over life. Society has in many ways broken loose from nature in its development. It looks like we must find our way back into nature now that we have developed all the tools necessary for refining souls. Animals have souls too so we better take damn good care of them.
If society is an organism with different types of control systems than society is building in an idea of these control systems into the unconscious of man, because we can see that the family is a miniature society. This will lead to that society can loosen its control over the individual since the individual has internalised society's control systems. This will be experienced by the individual as beeing free and will contribute to a feeling of happiness. It sort of looks like society to some extent is making itself redundant. Probably what will happen is that society develops in some direction that I can't predict (or don't want to worry about). This is not to be seen as support of communist theories, which I view as illusions.
I also argue that societies that are prosperous (correct behaviour) produce more talented people than statistics predict. When a society has some major talent such as a star athlete of some kind this will reinforce the current behaviour. This is done using pride (collective emotion). Nature can in this fashion program a society.
I would also like to claim that Nature uses war, religion, climate, natural disasters, and environment as different types of structural violence to improve society and promote diversity. Using this perspective one could explain that 6 000 000 jews were killed in order to teach the Jewish people and the rest of us that life is not about gathering money. This might also be an explanation for some natural disasters, such as the 1976 earthquake in China (Tíang-Shan) that killed 240 000 people and ended the cultural revolution. The earthquake 2003 December 26 in Bam, Iran, and the tsunami 2004 December 26 might be examples of Nature trying to teach mankind a lesson, or is it just a coinsidence that the dates are exactly one year apart.
If Nature is an organism than it is evolving just like any other organism. That would make change the most basic law in the universe. On a molecular scale the entropy is increasing. On a human level we say that happiness is increasing. What property is increasing in Nature is of course something we canít understand. I have suggested that Nature needs our soul for some unknown reason.
We as humans make machines that produce some of what we need. Nature might have made humans and animals to produce what Nature needs, our souls.
Just as a society can tear itself down partially or completely so is also Nature capable of tearing down nature to rebuild it into something that can evolve further. I donít know enough about earth history to know if this makes any sense from a scientific point of view.
In conclusion, just as we as humans become better, so does society improve, and as societies improve that should improve Nature (God). That is a very dynamic way of looking at Nature, which is in line with my theory for evolution that says that everything is changing.
In Buddhism one speak about Four Noble Truth. These deal with aspects of life that need to be addressed in order to live a happier life.
It says that life is suffering. According to my theory this comes mainly from expressing your personality as a result of the instinct to kill for practise, that is taking pleasure in manipulating and controling other peoples lives, since this will enlarge the unconscious entity containing self-hatred. As it grows, our happiness decreases. That is our dissatisfaction with life in general increases. I would like to define suffering as an inability to accept an unwanted situation (condition), which comes from an inability to understand oneís situation (condition). This would make ignorance the root cause of all suffering.
It says that suffering comes from desiring in general. This is correct, but my theory says that we will always desire for something else since our unconscious entity will make the connection between instinct and desire so weak that we donít achieve a good need satisfaction. This result in a search for the things we believe will make us happy. Consequentley we need to dissolve the unconscious entity of self-hatred in order to get a better need satisfaction. How this can be done is outlined in final words about happiness later in this article.
It gives the tool to minimize suffering and in doing so maximizing happiness. Itís called The Eightfold Path. Based on my theory I would like to add a few advice in search of happiness. The first thing one should do would be to minimize or disarm the unconscious entity of self-hatred. Secondly, look at the table of the human nature and see in what areas you are weak. That means the areas where your behaviour is most strongly controlled by your emotions, because these are the areas that contribute to a general feeling of unhappiness (dissatisfaction). To read in some detail about the buddhist approach to life look up: http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/p_truths_frames.htm
Within Buddhism the ability of compassion is held in high regard. Monks who spend a lot of time to improve this capability exercise it. This could be an indication that compassion is the next step in human evolution of consciousness. However, I seriously doubt that.
Mankind has since the beginning of time been in search of everlasting happiness. My review of philosophy has given three approaches that support my theories. These are Buddhism, which is the most developed philosophy with a psychological approach on how to live life to attain happiness. Secondly, Socrates' approach to life as knowing and doing the right thing that we call moral or ethic. To follow Socrates advice has the benefit of giving piece of mind, which is a very solid base to build happiness on. Third, Epicureanism, which in contradiction to modern beliefs not suggest that we indulge in everything. What it suggests is to live a life in moderation. If you have a party you might simply put less water in the wine to get more pleasure out of life. It might even suggest some cheese with the wine. Intellectual pleasure is preferred to sensual pleasures. Finally I would like to define happiness as a state of mind that one achieves as a result of satisfying one or more instincts.
Happiness increases as one move upward in the table over the human nature, see Table 1. There are eleven seperate instincts that develop into different ego needs and as such they are a part of our personality. The instinct to kill for practise develops two different ego needs depending on that it is paired with two strong emotions that both need to express themself. All together we have twelve different ego needs to work with in order to become happier. To move upwards in any of the ego needs means that we increase our feeling of happiness. The move upward in a ego need might be seen as a form of rationalisation that is done when we feel a need to further develop our nature or anxiety pushes us. This rationalisation is done since we desire more out of life, that is more mature ways of expressing the instinct. One should try to reach the level of philosophical insight for the instinct to kill for practise. Since there are no emotions at that level there will be no effect on the unconscious entity of self-hatred.
Entropy is a universal property that measures the order (or degree of chaos) in a system. Increased entropy means increased chaos. I argue that the will to freedom is an expression of entropy in man. A highly ordered system would be equivalent of a society with centralized power and wealth. An increased freedom for the individual is reflected in that power and wealth is distributed out in society to its individuals.
The following would represent increasing entropy (happiness) in man: will to life < will to respect (power) < will to progress < will to individuality < will to freedom. Increased entropy means that the soul becomes more beautiful. Notice that the will to respect (power) initiates structural violence, which is the driving force of evolution. Our increasing happiness means that the property that increases on a lower level from generation to generation is the production of psychic energy, which on an atomic level are neurotransmitter molecules.
The will to freedom becomes possible thanks to morality and with freedom comes the right for all humans equal value. Before all structures were hierarchical with different values at the bottom and top. Up to this point our value has been determined by our position in society with freedom comes equal value.
Lets start by putting forth a basic principle of the moral: Morality is a thought or belief where the consideration of others takes precedence over self interest, which then becomes the thought/behaviour of self interest and where one is always accountable for one's actions. The thought or belief (action) is determined as a compromise between the two conflicting emotions by reason with the intention of doing good. This means that the consequences to your own person are weighed against what might be achieved. One of the two conflicting emotions are, peace of mind, which is put up against one of the other emotions outlined in my human nature. The above said could be considered to be my moral philosophy, the basic idea I have of what moral is. The compromise that reason is supposed to give us is best reflected in Matthew's words (Matthew 7:12): "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them".
Lets take this one step further and say that morality is a thought or belief where the consideration of another creature take precedence over self interest. This can be carried one step further if we say that morality is a thought or belief where the consideration of society take precedence over self interest. Which can be carried one step further if we say that morality is a thought or belief where the consideration of nature take precedence over self interest. Ultimately we can say that morality is that consideration of the universe take precedence over self interest. Self interest can of course mean the interest of a group or country. From this we understand that morality is contextual.
Lets consider the consequences of this. Than UN than becomes a body suiteable for taking decisions concerning the universe and the world (nature). Each country decides how to protect and further the interest of society through its institutions. Within all societies exist organisations that are concerned about certain issues of the welfare of society, such as environmental organisations. Itís the individuals possibility to start or join any organisation that aims at improving society. An individual should primarily be concerned about other people. Itís never an individuals or a groupís right to decide to further the interest of the masses on behalf of a minority. The right to mistreat a group of individuals must be the responsibility of society and preferably a democratic society so that the question can be openly debated.
Lets apply morality to the conversation between two people. Since all of us want people to listen to what we say. Having morality will than means to always try to listen to the person talking to you. I just did this to show that having morality profoundly effects who you are.
Lets try to get a deeper understanding of what morality is. Using my table over the human nature one might argue that morality is the conflict between the instinct hierarchy and one of the others. Depending on how this conflict is resolved we get a certain amount of dignity. Dignity is consequentley the mixed emotion of at least two instincts. Dignity is in that sense a complex emotion just as love is, which is why love and dignity are so powerful. So we have a synergistic effect here.
In other words morality is to consider the happiness of others first. But morality is an uncoscious model in the human nature that make us happy by giving us dignity. This means we become happy by making others happy. That is a good cycle. This makes morality the most important unconscious model we have. Maybe this was the reason for Socrates to say that those who know the right will act rightly.
Lets look on the consequences of such reasoning. Socrates is probably the person throughout history that has had the best understanding of what it means to have morality. Socrates chose to die happy with dignity instead of living a life in disgrace (and unhappiness). His reasoning must have been something like this: If I choose death than I've made my point one final time. That is that a human being must have morality to be happy. Socrates consequentley chose happiness and dignity over life. This is actually very much how people in western societies treat their animals. If an animal isn't happy and there is nothing we can do about it we have the mercy to put it out of its misery. Socrates made that decision for himself. From this we can also understand that morality makes it possible for the individual to seperate himself from the group, which means it might be the final step in the individualisation process. To be an individual means to have a choice. Moral gives us the possibility to make our own choices by giving us the power to walk away from the group. This is probably what Erich Fromm meant with freedom for the individual.
If morality is the key to happiness, as I suggest, than maybe the purpose of Socrates life was to face the people of Athens and choose to die to show the power of moral. We can also learn from Socrates that itís immoral to moralize. One can as Socrates be an example of moral behaviour or one can present and argue oneís stand point. However, Socrates showed us the correct way of teaching a person what morality is. He called himself a midwife. His job was to ask the important questions that made the individual understand what morality meant to him. Like the midwife Socrates helped people during the birth process. The baby is called morality. Any philosophie dealing with morality should the way I see it focuse on the midwife process. That is what questions we need to ask ourself in order for us to understand what morality means to us as individuals in each specific situation. Moral philosophie I see more as a way of putting into words the basic idea of morality.
The single most influential tool that sets the standard for morality in society is the contract between an employee and the employer. 8-hours a day the employer has a major influence on what morality is.
Finally we need to define what respect means to a person having morality. Respect is the feeling you get from being treated as an equal and returning the favour. You get respect by showing respect. From this we understand that respect is a two way street. If we are not shown respect we are not required to respect that person. Respect is something you earn, not demand. It will always be the choice/responsibility of the person having the more powerful position to treat others as equals and he/she should in return expect to be treated with respect. To be polite and considerate are of course the most normal ways of showing someone respect.
To my understanding the only definition of what is good or evil is defined by the one who has power to enforce his interpretation. The most obvious example being USA defining itself as the power of good, and certain other countries as evil.
Based on my previous discussion of what happiness is I would like to make a definition that is independent of who has the power. First however I have to lay a theoretical foundation for my definition. An action is either egoistic or altruistic. Being selfish or unselfish are variations of those behaviours. Being selfish is the intelligent way of being egoistic, which means one subscribes to the idea of submissiveness. Being unselfish is the intelligent way of being altruistic, which means one subscribe to the idea of having morality. Based on this I would like to define good to be that which make us long term happy and evil that which make us long term unhappy. Than to behave according to one's idea of morality would be considered good since one is rewarded with dignity, a very powerful emotion. To behave according to the idea of submissiveness would be considered evil since one will enlarge the entity of self-hatred, thus making us unhappy in general. People who use this last type of behaviour has not figured out that the immediate reward they get comes at a long term cost.
Many people nowadays feel they donít have enough money or time, but my observations of people gives at hand that blue-collar people on average are a lot happier than white-collar people and in particularly compared to those in management. It is a somewhat strange observation, because those I see as unhappy are the oneís with all the signs of success in life, which brings me back to that happiness is a state of mind. However, as soon as white-collar people start adopting having morality there will be a shift in this situation since they have greater possibilities (power) to practically implement the idea of having morality. At the G8 summit at Gleneagles in 2005 the politicians could for the first time be seen to make a decision based on morality to help Africa. A necessity at this time was of course that a plan for how to proceed in fighting poverty existed. Everyone understood that poverty will remain an issue for decades to come, but the concerted effort to do something about it was put in motion at this meeting.
I will shortly discuss each instinct and ego need connected with it and outline some ideas how to approach growing as a human. In this I will assume that most people are at the level of need for appreciation, so I will discuss how to reach the level of self-realization. This is all done from a cognitive perspective.
Physical needs: The approach here is that we have material safety. What we need to do is stop looking at what everyone else have and try to come to the realization that we got plenty more than we need to live a good life. This will end our endless purchase spree for material things and in do so will take a big burden of our shoulders and reward us with increased happiness. Perhaps the biggest gain one gets from being satisfied with what one has is the ability to appreciate the beauty of things.
Self preservation: Most people have good and steady relations with people around them. To improve ourselves as humans we need to try to develop a love relation based on sharing of ourselves. This is a risk taking but it is one we need to take if we want to become happier. Perhaps the biggest gain one gets from being satisfied with what one has is the ability to appreciate the beauty of things.
Conquer/Explore: Most young people have a healthy curiosity about most things. We need to develop this into a desire to acquire knowledge for its own sake. This is best done by not assuming you know everything there is to know about things. This gives you an open mind and it will reward you all through life with happiness.
Group belonging: To not feel liked by your surrounding is probably the number one cause for obsessive-compulsive behaviours, such as drug addiction, food abuse, smoking, and shopping. We need to be kinder to each other. Itís such a small effort, but the pay-off is so big. Everyone has good and bad behaviours. No one is perfect, but we are okay, which does not mean there isnít room for improvement.
Hierarchy: Most people function well in social settings and society, but we need to reflect about higher values to guide us in the world. Life is not about adhering to rules and etiquette without reflecting over the consequences. One day we pass this planet on to the next generation. It definitively improves happiness as well as piece of mind to reflect over these things. Unfortunately a lot of people subscribe to the idea of submissiveness which is all about pleasing people considered superior instead of subscribing to the idea of morality which is about making others happy. Since you canít both eat the cake and have it you got to choose between morality and submissiveness.
I am: People might want more praise than they get. So a good start here is to face reality, kindness and encouragement does not come easy for anyone of us. Accept less and be your own judge. Self-realization is normally considered to be either a hobby or work. What it means is that you do the best you can and pour your heart into what you do.
Kill in self-defence: To most of us sharing comes fairly easy. Giving might be somewhat more difficult. One way of overcoming this barrier might be to adopt a child in a developing country and have some form of contact with the child. This way one gets feedback that what is given comes to good use.
Kill for food: This is the bully instinct. Most people probably already are able to assert oneís view, which is the step above being a bully. Therefore most people might want to reflect on how they would like to be managed. Isnít leadership about guiding people? Isnít that the way to make people perform at their peak? If you agree with me than try to have the self-confidence to guide people instead of controlling them.
Joy: If you some how can make people laugh isnít that a good thing? Humor is a great thing, and do you really mind if people get a laugh at your expense.
Raise children: It is tempting to raise the child to become what you desire. Just think of that you might deprive the child from excelling in some area that you might not find interesting. Ask yourself if you have the child's best interest in mind or your own expactations. Thinking about this it probably makes sense to provide an stimulating environment for the child.
Kill for practise, Self-hatred: We all know we are valuable. Notice that some people get their value from believing in God, so religious beliefs is sometimes put in this place. Society is still struggling with the issue of all humansí equal value. The easiest way to approach this is to see how expendable we are. Look at the president of USA, if he was killed he would be replaced instantly. After a while life just goes on as normal. This is true for every one of us, basically we have no value, which means we all have the same value. Use your own reasoning if you donít like mine. This is absolutely a must, to come to the understanding of all humansí equal value. Even better is to resolve the unconscious entity of self-hatred. How this is done is described below.
Kill for practise, Sensual pleasure: The ego needs in this area expresses themselves as needs to control and manipulate. Taking pleasure in doing this will lead to unhappiness in general, since this will feed the unconscious entity of self-hatred also indulgence here will be contra productive to the idea of having morality. One need to reach the understanding that the only person one is supposed to control is self. In other words mind your own business. That means that we all need to reach the level of philosophical insight for this ego need.
If one feel satisfied and happy with life it might be a good idea to ask oneself some philosphical questions such as, What is ultimate goodness? These are things one might want to go and dwell on for days. Hopefully one comes up with an answer that feels like the truth. No one else but you can decide if the answer truly is a philosphical insight.
The table over human nature is a tool. Your mind has the power to become happy. Teach your mind how to be happy. Man is the animal born with the greatest potential for happiness. Why? As humans we grow in adversity. It is not when life is a smooth ride we develop our potential. Man is from birth equipped with the biggest adversity one can ever come upon, self-hatred. To overcome this would most surely produce an individual of outstanding qualities. The ultimate goal for man is than to come to accept himself. This of course requires grows as a human being in every aspect Iíve mentioned in my table over human nature and perhaps in some aspects that Iíve overlooked. Developing your full potential is best achieved in living life as a part of normal society.
To be able to develop once full potential one needs to disarm the unconscious entity of self-hatred. This can be done by exposing oneself to real or visualized situations where one become hateful. You than have to accept that you are not feeling hatred, but you actually hate yourself for the thoughts you are having. If one keeps exposing oneself to hatred and logically feeds the unconscious with the understanding that the hatred is ment for yourself, than the unconscious entity will disolve. The key is to accept that the hatred is aimed at yourself. It is not dangerous in any way. Itís purpose is to guide you through life. It quite clearly tells you when you are about to do something wrong. Resolving this minor glitsch will allow you to live in harmony with nature.
It should also be noticed that a person with a well developed human nature is capable of experiencing love to its fullest extent. Love is actually the identification of similarities between your own unconscious structures and the unconscious structures in the person you are feeling love for. This makes the idea of love somewhat narcissistic.
This account for personality disorders are based on my theory of human nature which was displayed in the table above.
This is not a disorder in itself, but it will make up a large proportion of individuals considered mentally ill or with deviant behaviour. This personality has as its main characteristics a lack of conscience and identity (personality) and no capacity for empathy. The human nature for this personality is at the level of need for security for all instincts, which means these individuals approach life with an attitude of it is either or, never maybe or perhaps. Consequently they live in a world that is black and white. The reason for this is that they produce very little psychic energy to their instincts. Their behaviour is characterized by a desire for respect, hence their desire for power and to work in a profession with high status. The lack of psychic energy means they do not suffer from anxiety like normal people, which is basically the same as saying that behaviour is an intellectual exercise. Looking at these individuals from a degree of consciousness they have not successfully developed an identity and therefore have no capacity for empathy, which is an obvious shortcoming among medical doctors and psychopaths. These individuals have no personality they have roles that they act in order to get the upper hand, or be socially accepted. Normally you can study a personís behaviour and from this understand his thought process. This is not possible to do with people having infantile personality, for them behaviour (roles) and thought process (who they truly are) are two different things. They pretend to be something they are not, grown-ups. The lack of identity activates the defence mechanism known as reaction formation and creates the delusion ďI am somebodyĒ (maybe Iím the superman that Nietzsche talked about), which also is hubris (grandiose self-worth). Descartes said: ďI think, therefore I existĒ. These people think: ďSomebody is kissing my ass, therefore I must existĒ. This is because they rationally subscribe to the idea of submissiveness or control in order to get respect. The lack of a conscience is an obvious shortcoming among medical doctors and psychopaths. These individuals are also socially incompetent (superficial). Their lack of identity has the effect that they do not respect other people. It seems obvious that they are unhappy and dissatisfied with life in general, which is caused by their lack of psychic energy. Individuals with this personality type are mainly stuck at the basic level where the brain rewards learning facts, which really is a rather childlike quality. A large proportion of people having antisocial personality (psychopaths) would have infantile personality. One might conclude that their behaviour is dominated by their need for respect and that they choose to rebel against society. This will lead to what looks like a lack of impulsivity control and disrespect for others. This causes them to break the law as well as socially acceptable behaviour. One might add that people with infantile personality as a consequence of their lack of human nature know the words but not the music.
The idea of a black and white world makes the more intelligent individuals with this personality highly attracted to become medical doctors. This will give them maximum of respect and the ultimate position of power since they become the ones who control life and death. We, their patients are forced to lay our lives in the hands of doctors so we damn better show them submissiveness and respect. Medical doctors are also in the position to classify everything as healthy or sick, which is another kick these people get. Those who become psychiatrists are probably sadists that use projection when diagnosing schizophrenics. These individuals also invented the IQ-test, which measures the degree of conscious logical thinking and how itís influenced by the unconscious. Actually IQ-tests measures indirectly to what degree one approaches life at the level of need for security. That is lack of human nature or personality. I do suspect that itís this individual who has designed the lie detector, and if that is the case you can bet your last dollar that they can pass the lie-detector test no matter what. The theoretical explanation for this would be that they are emotionally immature and therefore do not respond as a normal person.
A characteristic behaviour among these individuals are that when they are not successful at something they simply switch to something else instead of making an effort of becoming better. This is because of there belief that they somehow should be special and good at something, to them life is supposed to be easy. If things become difficult just do something else. Thatís how they deal with adversity in life, very childish.
Itís also my understanding that these people are not prone to depression. Rarely can any signs of depression be seen in these individuals. This fact would support my theory of depression as being a positive feeling mixed with anxiety, since these individuals have very flat emotions and extremely little anxiety due to little production of psychic energy.
Itís my understanding of history that the more intelligent of these individuals in the past always have tried to uphold the power over life and death in order to get respect, which means that these individuals used to become priests as long as the church had any influence in society. Today they are demoted to the medical profession. What these individuals desire from life is respect.
One way to determine if someone has infantile personality might be to hypnotize the individual. Individuals who canít be hypnotized lack the ability to make unconscious models and therefore have no conscience or capacity for empathy hence they have infantile personality. Roughly 5 to 10 percent of the population cannot be hypnotized. According to Robert D. Hare there exist similarities between the EEG of a normal child and that of a grown person with antisocial personality disorder. This similarity is the presence of theta rhythm (3.5-7Hz), which only should be present up till the age of about thirteen. Theta rhythm has been reported in about 50% of those diagnosed as psychopaths. In homosexuals theta rhythm has been reported in about 30 % of the individuals. Recently it was reported by David Rabiner that 90% of those with ADHD had a EEG marker for high ratio between theta and beta waves. This might indicate that children with ADHD has infantile personality and ADHD might be a sign that people with infantile personality find it increasingly hard to fit in. Also Mu rhythm in the Rolandic area is of interest since it was reported originally by Gastout to be present in about 7% of subjects, which is in line with the 5 to 10 percent who cannot be hypnotized. Wicket spikes was reported to exist only in aging adults in 1977 and is similar to Mu. Maybe Mu rhythm transforms into wicket spikes in aging adults. It should be noted that neuroscientist James Fallon has discovered that PET scan of psychopaths brains show a distinct pattern of activity/inactivity, not to mention the fact that James Fallon's own brain showed exactly the same pattern as that of psychopaths, which lends support to my conclusion of the existence of infantile personality. Being able to use EEG to determine the presence of infantile personality would of course be the fastest and easiest way to confirm this personality type. This would indicate that these individuals move past puberty without maturing emotionally and become adults with higher than normal intelligence, no conscience, no capacity for empathy, very little personality (identity), and the emotions of a twelve year old.
Sexually deviant behaviour might to some part be explained by having an infantile personality. Pedophilia could be explained as love/attraction for another child, using the definition that love is to recognize oneself in another person. Homosexuality could be explained as a low sex drive (sex is to play) in combination with a desire for an identity.
Individuals with infantile personality have a very small human nature (identity) and a large capacity for learning and higher than normal intelligence. Having a small human nature means that these individuals lack conscience, have no intuition, and has no capacity for empathy. Based on these observations and the observation that less intelligent people are happier I propose that intelligence come at the expense of the size of human nature.
The root cause for the manic state seems to be an inflated self. One could try to cure this by repeating (in one's mind) the following statement "I am not special" for four hours (see How to Program Your Unconscious). This might even help for the depressive state. Preferably the programming is done when one is in a normal state.
These patients have a problem with the instinct to kill for practise, and the emotion self-hatred. These disorders arise from an inferiority complex. The inferiority complex stems from that the transition from the level of need for security (superior/inferior) to the level of need for appreciation (Iím valuable) is not achieved correctly. Instead there is bigger and bigger doubts about oneís own value until it becomes a complex through which all incoming information is filtered. This arouses the feeling of self-hatred, which makes the thought process even more negative and self-destructive.
The object to deal with in order to get rid off the disorder is the inferiority complex and at the same time giving the individual a value. In the case of anorexia and bulimia where food is the object of focuse this should be used in the therapie. I would suggest that the patient should be eating very slowly and force themself to think ďIím a valuable personĒ all the time while eating. This will have the effect of repressing the entity of the inferiority complex, and at the same time bring in a positive thought process, and hopefully give the patient a value as a human being and in doing so reaching the level of need for appreciation. It is important to try to get the patient to relax while doing this. It is of course essential that the staff reinforces how valuable the patient is. The patient can later on be asked to only think one thought all day long, ďIím a valuable personĒ. This will initially be mentally exhausting for the patient, which means they might find it nessacary to spend a lot of time in bed. As time goes by it will become easier and the patient should become more active. Slowly the patient should be engaged in serious conversations. This will show the patient that the thought process has been changed and that the patient has recovered.
Self-mutilators need to do the same as above, but one might try to stop the mutilation process altogether and replace it with the thought ďIím a valuable personĒ.
These patients need to continue therapy in order to reach the level of self-realization, which in this case means to come to the understanding of all humans equal value. This will distance them from the inferiority complex as well as feelings of self-hatred.
These patients seem to have a problem with the instincts self-preservation, group belonging, hierarchy, and I am. They seem to be stuck at the level of need for security, not being able to decide what approach to take. That is they are indecisive wether they belong or are outcasts and wether they are needed or rejected.
Any therapie should be designed to give them a rock solid foundation to grow further as humans. That is making them being a part of the process (belonging) and feel needed, while at the same time explaining that no one belongs everywhere and is always needed.
Seems like these individuals are missing the instinct, I am. This makes these individuals to feel like they are different. This feeling might give birth to strange ideas and strange ways of expressing themselves. They are not interested in associating with us who are aggressive (have identity). What might have happened is that the instincts, self-preservation, group belonging, and hierarchy evolved into a feeling of being an outcast and that they have remained on this level of need for security.
Psychologically what happens to the individual is that the unconscious models are slowly destroyed and a lot of phobias might be developed.
In this case one should probably try to work with the family. Make the individual understand that we are aggressive by nature, which is an instinct the individual is lacking. This should move the individual up to a level of need for appreciation. If one continues to talk about relations and how we function this might make it possible for them to reach self-realization, to share their emotions with a loved one.
Iíve included it here since it is similar to schizoid and schizotypal, in that the individual is lacking an instinct. In the case of schizophrenia the instinct to kill for practise is lacking. This is apparent to normal individuals who become somewhat uneasy in their presence. These individuals often grow up as outcast, feeling different, which gives birth to strange ideas. The same instinct seem to be lacking in people diagnosed with autism and Aspergerís syndrome. It is my understanding that as long as the schizophrenicís personality is intact he functions as a catalyst for the development of the unconscious models that makes him happy that he has developed in addition to the oneís inherited.
Psychologically what happens to the individual is that the unconscious models are slowly destroyed and a lot of phobias might be developed. Hearing voices or having a split mind is simply a reflection of that you expect others to be like you (conformity), but your conscious is telling you things that do not agree with your human nature. This conflict between reality and your human nature causes a split, creating two conflicting egos.
The cardinal symptoms of the schizophrenic condition are delusions and hallucinations. These symptoms are caused by extreme anxiety and this is caused by isolation from others. Delusions and hallucinations are a normal reaction to being isolated without understanding why. The schizophrenic has normal production of psychic energy and will respond with anxiety in difference to a psychopath who has little production of psychic energy and therefore do not react to the fact that other people donít interact with them. Actually the aggression that psychopaths are prone to display is a response to the fact that they are being ignored.
The treatment a schizophrenic is subject to in his social setting is a reflection of an unconscious model of how he should be treated that every human is born with and that has been with mankind since dawn of time. This is today called structural violence when there is no obvious reason for why an individual is mistreated. The funny thing is that the schizophrenic himself has this model too.
Since society is so prejudice towards these individuals, which is promoted by the medical profession, which has always persecuted this group due to the fact that these are happy individuals unlike medical doctors suffering from infantile personality who are unhappy, the best solution would be to implement moral treatment as developed by the Quakers in the USA in the 1840th. This would remove psychiatrist and medication from the care of schizophrenics.
It is my understanding that the medical profession is covering up valuable information contained in the EEG, especially theta and Mu rhythm looks like interesting objective indicators for infantile personality. The reason for the cover up is that medical doctors to a majority will have infantile personality and is implicated as being abnormal because of the presence of these findings in mentally disturbed individuals, guilty by association.
Reading my theory for how consciousness is composed one might conclude that there is a lack of identity in many of these disorders. Some of the disorders that Iíve not addressed might be due to that a particular instinct only has reached the level of need for security, and that this is dominating the individualís personality. I will leave it up to others to continue this work and verify the theory of human nature.