Psychology Articles

What is really out there? Why do we think that we think? This article explores some of the classic works on the topic.

Ross and Nisbett argue that our perceptions of ourselves and our casual attributions for our actions are not in fact complete or correct: we are not born tabla rasa, we do not consistently build basic beliefs, and we cannot predict or control the way we will act. Phychologists and sociologists provide support for this through numerous studies that show a basically consistent, unpredicted, and unsystematic patterns of behavior. Some authors begin by breaking down the idea that our opinions or reactions are as independent and systematic as we may believe. Sherif’s “autokinetic” study and the Ash Paradigm study illustrate that we often act differently when in groups (with group norms, pressure, bias, and social factors). We conform to group pressure (Ash), or, even more extremely, shift our perceptions in order to align ourselves with a group (Sherrif). The Bennington studies, which show how our beliefs about the world are deeply and irreversibly influenced by our social surroundings, illustrate that this effect is not trivial or isolated but instead can have far-reaching and self-defining consequences.

Sherif’s later studies on group dynamics similarly show us that our world perceptions (us vs. them, me vs. you, good vs. bad) can be arbitrary. Chapter three expands on this point with a social slant: Our world is constructed in a social setting and so the opinions of others and the judgments of others play a dynamic part in this construction. I.e., our world is not necessarily “warped” by others opinions but others opinions actually play a role in determining what our world looks like. The “attribution theory of emotion” and the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) cognitive process blindness theory take this one step further claiming that we do not really see the world as we think we do at all.

Ross and Nisbett impose their own interpretation on these findings. They repeatedly argue that we interpret and construct the world in a dynamic way, based on the perceptions and influences of our social surroundings, situational factors, and personality characteristics. They then claim that we are overly unaware that we are only seeing one way to interpret the world. “This lack of awareness of our own construal processes blinds us to the possibility that someone else, differently situated, might construe the same objects in a different way… People sometimes construe the same object differently because they view it from different angles rather than because they are fundamentally different people…. The divergence [exhibited in the Asch experiments] may reflect differences not in the “judgment of the object” but in the construal of just what “the object of judgment” is.” (p82). We make the false assumption that we see it as it is rather than as we interpret it. It is not clear here whether the differences in individual interpretations of the worlds are due only to different external factors (social, environmental, etc) or also to different processing factors (i.e. the mental and physical machines with which we process this information).

Ross and Nisbett do not explicitly state what I see as a major consequence, and synthesis, of both their chapters and much of the literature. But perhaps this is because I do not have and have not read their later chapters. With this caveat, Ross and Nisbett (1) begin by attempting to prove that our world is to an extent an arbitrary construction. They continue (2) by showing that it is important to us that out world be in line with others in our group or reference set (social pressure) and they end (3) with the interesting claim that we misunderstand the world in a fundamental way (with mistakes in traits, etc). To me there is a clear logical step that stands between their points (1) and (2). That (1.5) that we are, on some deep unconscious level, insecure and unsure of the ontological nature of the world and thus need to constantly adjust our view of it depending on the situation and context (see they do not take William James’ point on p. 68 seriously enough) or align ourselves with others in order to attempt to interpret it in the best/most useful way.

It helps if we assume for a moment that there is no “correct” way to interpret the world – and Ross and Nisbett I think would agree with this. Perhaps even the idea of a “correct” way to interpret the world is a non-sensical statement. All constructions are heuristics simplifications intrinsically since the world does not have, unlike our constructions of the world, imbedded causality only systematic temporal correlations. An interpretation is meant, therefore, to be useful in our world, which a deeply social and dynamic one. Why is it therefore surprising that we adjust, conform to, and closely monitor others opinions? If our interpretations are wrong, and we know they always are, there is no good reason to stick to them if they are not working. Our perception of length is clearly not functioning correctly if it derives an answer different from everyone else (since deriving an answer that is useful is our goal, not deriving an answer that is true and it is useful to have an agreed upon idea of length).

So the surprising thing is that we ever believe that we are objectively right about things or that we believe our views are “the way things are,” not that we adjust our world-views in the face of social, environmental, or situational pressure (and various evolutionary psychology arguments have attempted to explain this argument on the grounds of efficiency). Bishop Berkeley, Occationalism, and David Hume have all trodden this ground. I do not mean to make the facile claim that we should always give in to social pressure, that we should always tailor our views to match those around us, only that to explain a deviation from this behavior one need to apply to other reasons than one being “correct” or, even, more arguably, perhaps, “truth.” That our views are deeply inadequate and inefficient, as chapter four argues, is a much harsher claim leveled by Ross and Nisbett in this context.

The literature often builds up a model of perception/ internal_world-creation and the later then added a component questioning the element of causality. For example, Straw, Bell, Clausen piece questions the emergent literature on situational attributions to job attitudes in favor of a more dispositional approach. Studies, they claim lay too much emphasis on the social, the interpretational elements of a job, over-stating the role that the work environment that will determine an individual’s happiness in it. Instead, one can correlate the individual’s happiness and job satisfaction in many respects well before he/she enters the work place. Thus, it is the characteristics, attitudes, and nature and the individual who is the prime determinant of whether or not he/she is happy in the job. This research is interestingly interrelated to the previous Ross Nisbett piece, since Ross and Nisbett’s argument that the person interprets the environment lends itself to the conclusion that no matter what environment an individual is put into, he/she will largely affect the way he/she perceives that environment and thus his/her feelings about it.

In contrast to Straw, et al., Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) argue that the dispositionalist argument is deeply flawed. They claim that the individual’s characteristics are dynamic in nature and therefore they change in time and are furthermore deeply affected by their environment. Therefore, one can expect that an employee, especially in the long term, will be very deeply affected by the nature and prevailing attitudes of his/her workplace. They point to the extreme cases of military training facilities, which are able to dramatically affect the psychology of an individual. Sneider (1987) returns fire with a volley that asserts that the “culture” of a firm is simply the people in it. That these people are self-selecting and will tend to attract compatible people, and that the world is a dynamic place of individuals, not forces. The last piece of the puzzle, the piece by Arvey and Bouchard (1994) builds a strong foundation under the dispositionalist camp but also shows the complexity of the problem. It addresses the nature vs. nurture debate by reviewing the literature to show that while it seems that genetics do make some difference (this lends credit to dispositionalists who would like to claim that people have characteristics, genetic or otherwise, that persist over time) environment is also a large factor (situationalists can grab onto this evidence).

This debate, first between situationalists and dispositionalists about the source of ones attitude about the workplace, and then about the source of our personality (nature vs. nurture) have serious consequences which many of the authors discuss. If we are in fact shaped by our environments, then companies might want to invest significant resources into “culture” and creating a productive workplace. But if our attitudes and productivity are a function of our personalities, then companies might want to select those people with attractive qualities for their company. This has troubling moral consequences as some authors point out.

I would like to emphasize how these points are building up a literature that focuses on central questions about why we view the world the way we do, what effects the world has on us, and what the source of our feelings, attitudes and lives are. The battle lines of the difference sides of this debate are, from this perspective, artificially clear.

If, for example, we ask the question of FREE WILL, for example, the sides dramatically shift. The dispositionalist camp splits into two, some taking a deterministic evolutionary view and others taking view that our personalities are developed early by our environment. The situationalists might point out that we CHOOSE our workplaces and thus choose the sorts of influences that will shape our character. So while we are not in total control of what we will feel about our job, our creativity, etc, we can choose what sorts of forces will affect these metrics. Aristotle, who’s view on almost anything is worth looking up, coined the phrase Akrasia, and this phrase can be applied to this bebate with perhaps some fruitful insights. It is Greek for “weakness of will”. He claimed that we are morally responsible for the consequences of a choice in the long term, even if we are not morally free at the time of our choices. The best modern example of this is if one chooses to get drunk one is responsible for one’s actions while drunk even if one does not have the ability to control one’s actions while drunk. So one is responsible for choosing the path that led to an action even if one is not directly responsible for that action. Of course, Aristotle chose the more controversial example of choosing to live a life of moral weakness and moral compromise which weakened the will to the point that one was not a good/moral person. He claimed that one was responsible for immorality not because we choose to become weak enough to do these acts. I think that these different camps might gain some insight into their nature/nurture dispositionalist/situationalist objective/subjective debates if Aristotle’s wisdom were headed more carefully.

Readings:

Ross, L. & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapters 2, 3, & 4.

Asch, S.E. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In E.E. Maccoby; T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (eds.), Reading in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company (pp. 174-183).

Staw, B.; Bell, N. & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.

Davis-Blake, Alison & Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 385-400.

Schneider, Benjamin. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Arvey, R.D. & Bouchard, T.J. (1994). Genetic twins and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 47-82.

Phin Upham has a PhD in Applied Economics from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania). Phin is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He can be reached at phin@phinupham.com

You can find more info here: Phin Upham

The Vision Leadership Style
People with the Vision Style are dynamic, energetic risk-takers who inspire, encourage, and motivate followers with their optimistic commitment to a long-range vision. Vision leaders attract followers with their ability to paint a vivid picture of the future.

Flexible and enthusiastic, individuals with this style tend to be open to new opportunities and courses of action, whatever those may be; for them, the failure of any particular direction, plan, or strategy is only a temporary setback. How they get where they are going is less important than getting there-so they will quickly regroup, find a new plan, and move forward. With their long-term goal constantly in sight, Vision leaders motivate others to join them with, sweeping them up in their excitement and commitment to action.

Examples of Vision leadership in the real world are easy to find because their combination of daring and charisma make such leaders highly visible. In the political realm, Vision leadership can be seen in Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., Ann Richards and Barbara Jordan. Actors George Clooney and Angelina Jolie exemplify Vision leadership, as do military leaders General Douglas MacArthur, Colin Powell, and Sioux war chief Crazy Horse.

The Adjustments Leadership Style
People with the Adjustments Style lead by educating. These leaders tend to possess an enormous catalog of knowledge, which they share willingly when the situation calls for it. Rather than jumping in and taking charge of every situation, individuals with the Adjustments style prefer to sit back and observe until those who need their expertise are ready to receive it.

A great leadership strength of the Adjustments style is the ability to patiently show people how to respond clearly and thoughtfully to events and situations. Adjustments leaders possess a wealth of relevant detail and perceive connections that others almost invariably miss. Their calm and unhurried manner, meticulous research, and dedication to pursuing the wisest course of action attracts followers who appreciate the patient confidence they bring to leadership roles.

Adjustments leaders do not often seek the spotlight, but are propelled into it by their followers. In the political realm, there are three U.S. presidents whose public behavior suggests that they possess the Adjustments style: George H. W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, and Barrack Obama. Other examples of Adjustments leadership include Julia Childs and Meryl Streep.

*It is impossible to determine another’s Perceptual Style (PS) by observation alone. This is especially true for public figures. The examples provided ‘appear’, based on their public behavior, to be the PS for which they are used as examples. However, without a complete Perceptual Style Assessment, their particular PS is simply an educated guess.

Lynda-Ross Vega: A partner at Vega Behavioral Consulting, Ltd., Lynda-Ross specializes in helping entrepreneurs and coaches build dynamite teams and systems that WORK. She is co-creator of Perceptual Style Theory, a revolutionary psychological assessment system that teaches people how to unleash their deepest potentials for success. For free information on how to succeed as an entrepreneur or coach, create a thriving business and build your bottom line doing more of what you love, visit http://www.ACIforCoaches.com and http://www.ACIforEntrepreneurs.com.

The best psychotherapy you can find is given by the wise unconscious mind in your own dreams. No matter what kind of problem you may have, you will surely find the solution you need through dream translation. The unconscious mind that produces your dreams is your natural doctor.

Right now I’m the only professional dream translator who can immediately help you translate the meaning of your dreams, but I’m hoping to form a team of dream translators. If you want to, you can join my group and help me immediately translate dreams for the public. Now that I simplified Carl Jung’s method of dream interpretation, everyone can easily learn the dream language.

I have many excellent students who have easily learned the dream language. I could give you numerous examples. However, they don’t want to work online translating dreams. I also have many lazy students, but I don’t think that I should be blamed because they don’t follow my instructions.

If you want to really learn how to translate the meaning of dreams you must translate many dreams into practice, and not only your own dreams, but many other people’s dreams. Dream interpretation is not a theoretical knowledge.

You must also study the dreamers’ life stories, and relate the messages contained in their dreams to their case. You must give specific guidance to all dreamers after translating their dreams.

Don’t worry because this guidance is clearly given by the wise unconscious mind in the dream images. You only have to help all dreamers understand that they should follow this guidance and change their behavior, become more self-confident, or do something else, depending on their case.

This practice will help you understand your own dreams much better. You’ll have a global vision of the dream language, and easier understand the wise lessons of the unconscious mind in any dream.

The dream language is universal. All dream symbols have the same meaning for all dreamers. Therefore, you only have to study this language once in your life. Then, you’ll have this knowledge forever.

When you’ll master the dream language, all confused dream images will become very clear for you. You’ll know how to make the right associations, since you’ll immediately look at the dream images and scenes like an expert. You’ll immediately identify the most important dream symbols and immediately understand the basic unconscious messages in a dream.

Of course, you have to practice in order to reach this stage. There is an initial difficulty.

Do speak a foreign language?

If you do, you know what I’m talking about, especially if you had to study this language without having previously had any contact with people who speak it everyday in their country. It’s quite hard to learn a different language.

In the beginning of your studies you feel lost in the space. However, the beginning doesn’t last forever. The beginning is an empty and difficult period of time that has a limited duration. Once you get familiar with the dream symbols, the unconscious language becomes simple.

The more you learn about the meaning of dreams and the importance of the unconscious messages, more you’ll desire to learn about this matter. Your dream journal will become your most adored treasure.

You are very lucky because you can easily unlock the treasure contained in your own dreams now that I give you a clear vision of the meaning of the dream images. Carl Jung couldn’t understand a million details that I could discover through my own research, and many comparisons.

I directly tell you in my work that you are crazy because you have inherited an absurd content into the biggest part of your brain. Carl Jung couldn’t simply recognize the general absurdity that characterizes the human being. On the other hand, he didn’t have the same vision I have today, because I was enlightened by many scientific discoveries that happened after his death. These discoveries confirm that we are in fact violent and absurd animals.

We act based on animal instincts, even though we can think. We don’t use our rationalism all the time.

On the other hand, our capacity to think logically is not as helpful as you may imagine. There are many false logic systems that seem to be reasonable, while they are totally absurd.

I show you that you can become even crazier with time, and this is why you must prevent worst craziness. Unfortunately, even if you believe that you are a normal person, you are not balanced because you have inherited an absurd wild conscience that keeps trying to destroy your human conscience.

For example, whenever you show anger, you are controlled by your anti-conscience, which is the wild and violent side of your conscience that didn’t evolve like your human side. You must learn how to be always calm, and never become angry for any reason.

Anger is an animal reaction. It doesn’t matter if you are logically right for becoming angry with someone else’s mistakes. You are always wrong when you act like a monster. You should surely become sad, but without showing anger.

Never let anger control your thoughts and your behavior. Anger can easily lead you to craziness and terror. You have to show compassion, and immediately forgive everyone’s mistakes, without being dominated by hatred. Remember that human beings are imperfect creatures. Compassion and forgiveness will forever protect you from craziness and terror.

I summarize Carl Jung’s work concerning the different psychological types, showing you the absurdity that characterizes each psychological type. You’ll understand what is logical or absurd, and you’ll learn how to find real balance.

Once you become a professional dream translator you’ll understand the general meaning of all dreams only by immediately identifying negative or positive dream symbols in a dream collection.

When you’ll identify many negative dream symbols like the spider and teeth falling out in a dream collection, you’ll understand that the dreamer is losing his/her mental stability.

The spider indicates great danger. The dreamer must urgently do something in order to prevent future problems.

Teeth falling out indicate that the dreamer is losing psychical energy. He is making serious mistakes that are ruining his personality and life.

Positive dream symbols like the empty swimming pool and the bright sun light will show you that the dreamer is passing through an evolutionary process.

Am empty swimming pool indicates maturity. The dreamer finally understood something very important about his life.

The sunlight represents real truth. This means that the dreamer is not being misled by false impressions. He can see the truth as it is.

Only by being able to understand the meaning of the basic dream symbols that appear in each dream you will already understand the psychological condition of each dreamer.

You’ll be able to immediately translate a series of dreams by identifying the basic positive or negative dream symbols in a dream collection. This alternative will be very helpful when you’ll have to immediately translate many dreams for the same dreamer.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness. Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

Whose Feelings Are We Feeling When We Are Feeling What We Are Feeling?

Oh! How our feelings so easily betray us. For no sooner than we establish an idea about our ‘feelings’, then the mountain slide of doubt, confusion and resistance begins. Making it necessary to reestablish the excitement attached to the sublime feelings in the first place; Unwarranted thoughts create the need to continually feed the bull dog his bone of the continual absorbing elevated important sense of worth (desire).

We so value the state of our feelings, we will subject ourselves to countless scenarios in order to evoke certain feelings. We especially like the pleasurable ones but when not available we will feast on whatever shows itself for consumption.

We are so effortlessly influenced by our feelings. We wholeheartedly believe them to be substantial, dependable and accurate. We go so far as to assign certain ‘attrition of benevolence’ to them, so when they begin to wane (and, wane they shall), we boost them with a shot of either guilt, remorse, regret, responsibility, duty and/or the most impressively famous of all, “idolized adoration’. In other words, we like being impressed much more than impressing. It’s so addictive! We want to feel we are involved with the most attractive mates that could ever be found on the planet. (Why else would we invent such outlandish sexual tales wrapped in confrontational intrigue of jealousy, envy and competition?)

Confusing as our feelings may be, the truth is: they fattened enormously over the years due to uninvited, intrusive, mal-aligned invasions of others in our lives that inadvertently showered us with their ingrained notions, beliefs, and emotional biases. Our present emotional states have been fed inconceivable meals, (which we swallowed up without reservation or resistance), prepared from the banquets of others, whose unrealized dreams unconsciously attached themselves to subjugate our feelings, for years without our even realizing what was happening.

This unconscious act of emotional infiltration was in no way intentional or purposeful but nevertheless occurred and as a result we sometimes feel things we have no idea how or why we do. Because those people who projected the early voices were unable to process and depend upon their own capriciously disloyal feelings, too, they released the inordinate pressure experienced by shifting them unto us vicariously. No blame need be dispersed, here; simply cold, hard facts.

Human beings do not know how to deal with feelings so they are sublimated, denied, exaggerated, diminished and repressed. For certain, they are undoubtedly misunderstood and misapplied.

IF it were not so, we would not spend wasted effort, energy and inclination saying one thing and doing another. Feelings we were subjected to, very early in our lives, cause us to take sides in controversies which never before would have concerned us enough to engage our interest, IF it had not been we were conditioned to automatically respond in a certain way in certain circumstances.

The strange phenomenon associated: we believe (so identified with) our strong feelings, at times, enough to disengage ourselves from the people who differ with us, doubt, argue, contend or challenge our illogical reasoning. IF we allow the unruly obsession to take hold, irreparable damage can and does occur. Many a marriage, partnership, friendship, as well as, other social involvements have been shattered on much less.

The vast array of feelings (emotions) is indeed what contributes to our being human. In many ways, they constitute our unique personalities. We could not possibly exist without their inexplicable influence. No doubt, we would demystify life by creating difficult and/or numbed consequences as a result IF we did not have the emotional experiences we go through. Just because emotions, opinions and sentiments are illogical at their best, do not make them unnecessary or undeserved.

The determining factor whether our emotions are, anywhere close to reasonable, or completely fanatically unreasonable depends upon the situation, the encounter, the relationship. In other words, the feelings need something either to conform to or not conform to— an ideal projection or adverse thought (belief). Strange how that works:all the time comparing and contriving.

Feelings are sublime laws unto themselves, not beholding nor directory. Yes, they are that powerful and subservient to the esoteric proprietor of them. They become like a sacred alter upon which the sanctified initiate bares his soul daily. Nothing short of our fickle emotions can teach us as much. Whether they carry us to the heights of unimaginable ecstasy or the perilous catacombs of hell, we learn invaluable lessons that cannot be taught otherwise.

Emotions can never be argued satisfactorily in reason. Emotions are devoid of reason. They show no resemblance to it nor are they interested, inclined or intrigued by its commonsense appeal. They stand upon their own unapologetic refrain. Let us put this matter in the short rows of perception: against the human animal’s emotional instincts, the intellect is not only powerless but superfluous.

On that note alone, we will sing the song of how unpredictable emotions (feelings) betray and beguile. When it comes to the affairs of the heart, we will be cast into the ‘hungry den of the lions’ with Daniel if and when we try to subdue, explain, gauge, control or modify. We possess unfathomable appetites when/where/how sensual emotions come into play. Add our own internal barometer of feelings with those from the past and we have a highly volatile mix.

From the incalculable pleasure associated with soothing, placating, relaxing (at the same time revitalizing) bodily sensations of ingesting delicious food, to the thrill of experiencing an incalculable erotic orgasmic sexual experience, we are able to realize the episodes through the awareness of feelings. But, never are we afforded the presence of mind to be able rationalize our innate feelings. Nor are we in a position to explain, defend or excuse why we feel the way we do.

In no way can we logically defend when, how, what and why we are attracted to the people we invite into our lives. We have no way of interpreting our feelings without the aid of more emotional filtering and processing. But to confuse thoughts with feelings will only bring about a huge battle of irresolvable chaotic dismembering. Simply realize feelings are not loyal, committed or dedicated to any premise by way of morality or dependability. They are raw, rambunctious and revolutionary in nature. Unpredictably ruthless.

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

MODE of Cosmic Therapy Esoteric Psycho-Analytic Observation Application Demonstration

We none know what we are doing. Though we go about our days with full intent, saturated purpose and determined objectives, the real sublime reason why we are motivated to act remains hidden from view. We awake in the morning with a concentrated objective, having calculated the outcome and minimized the barriers; we proceed as if what we will achieve has something to do with us. So much so, we either take blame for the mishaps or bask in the glory of the success. Neither response is accurate or appropriate. “IF at any time, we think we know what we are doing, cease immediately.” In other words, we never know; we only project and in those projections, we are wrong.

There’s much more to the picture left unseen, than seen.

So much is hidden from view. It’s simply amazing how we go about our days denying how much crucial information we don’t have access to. We work with what with have in an obscured partial light; though, we attack the problems as if we have all the goods available. The truth is our present knowledge and insight {no matter how much we’ve paid for the expert guidance} is limited and biased.

Yet, we continue to make all of these unnecessary plans and believe that unless they unfold exactly and precisely as we have ordered (constructed), we have in some way failed to accomplish our preset goals. Needless to say, when it appears as if our specific goals have not been met, we have in no way failed. On the same token, when it appears as if what we set out to do was fully satisfied, the end is not in sight, either.

‘Nothing’ is at it appears to be. And, we have very little to say or do about whatever occurs.

But, ’say’ we do! That falls under the category of tenacious gossip.

There is a subtle esoteric law of inference that is applied to each and every act we undertake: purity of purpose. It’s totally impersonal and some may say, irrational, but none the less effectual. Beyond our physical ability, mind’s intellect, and emotional barrage of thwarted desires (enacted to interfere), a governing hallowed force guides and directs all of our actions. We are not consulted on the matter, nor are we given the privilege to decide if the outcome is needed or not. These sacred acts are decreed from a much higher sphere of authority which bypass the normal functionability of man. Does this mean all of our actions are predestined? In a vehemently resisted word: yes. {Look at it more like we are prodded like cattle into a specific sphere of pre-chosen activity of earth experience.}

We were born with an explicit destiny, a sublimely definitive work to accomplish while on earth. We will achieve that definite purpose. Whether or not, we ever see the picture clear enough to appreciatively discern our personal effort’s output, remains irrelevant. “Purity of Purpose’ determines the result of every single action we administer. IF it falls out of line with that celestially projected intent, it’s simply not going to happen. Now, we may wonder (humans continually question everything; it’s part of our curious nature), if will we be able to discern when we have ‘Purity of Purpose’.

In a definitively resisted word: no. IF we could see ‘IT’, it wouldn’t be ‘IT’.

In addition to the ‘curiosity seeking creature’s mind’ we inherently imbue, we are just as impatient, IF not more so. And, IF we were left to our own gluttonous appetites of unrestrained pleasure, to indulge in so many variant earth experiences, we would certainly move prematurely into areas not necessarily suitable for our evolvement and soul’s preference. Oh. Did I not mention IT is our Precious Ruthless Soul which has the definitive say about what will be and what will not be?

Again, a matter of Semantics, the term ‘SOUL’ can be viewed, argued, and defined in many different philosophical, scientific, religious, ethical, cultural, environmental, psychological, biological and mental constructs.

However, for brevity of purpose: ‘much more remains unseen than seen’.

IF, in fact, we are on earth to make some sort of evolutionary progress (again, we can’t gauge it), we would only be able to do that by and through isolated (personal) incidences where we had no way or knowing, explaining, defending or excusing what took place or did not occur. In other words, it would be in those indescribable times, when and where, we were unable to logically deduce any practical means (commonsense) for what had occurred and were simultaneously driven to find either resolution or solace from within that the inexplicable becomes acceptable.

IF, in fact, we are all on some sort of spiritual journey, the tolerable foundation of our ‘inches in steps’ to our so-called pre-set established directions become vitally necessary discipline. The deal for real is plain and simple. MASTERY. We are working on ourselves, in as much, as we are learning to surrender to a much higher force of operation. {Who incidentally remains privy to much more elaborate information than we are capable of realizing.}

In no way, am I attempting to personify this ineffable energy, I simply am using the restricted barriers of language to convey a point. Through a laborious solitary journey, the seeker (human being) learns as many techniques, practices and skills (much like an adept musician) in order to finely tune, manipulate, orchestrate and demonstrate his enriched abilities. Not without countless hours of careful observation, dedication and consecration of committed study to bring about a much deeper understanding and comprehension of the higher self in operation while alive.

All action, thought and gesture is geared toward breaking through the superficial mask of personality which so easily confuses, disturbs, depresses and overwhelms us.

“Purity of Purpose”, the definitively prescribed apparatus instilled in every Master of Divine Essence (god in the making) who inhabits earth as a human being, resides as the severing mechanism to split open the core. It’s all a matter of becoming conscious of the sacredly inflamed power of sensually inspired, sublimely sexual, creatively artistic talent that lies within. But moreover, with the acknowledgment, embracing and acceptance of these miraculous talents, gifts and abilities, learning how NOT to push circumstances, relationships, situations and events into existence before it is time, simply because we believe we can. {As if we could, anyway.}

It is written in the ancient texts, “above all, get thee understanding.”

To understand that we are not to look outward for the manifestation of results as a sign of our progress but to remain firmly rooted turning away from the distracting voices of either praise or condemnation (filled with fear, regret, remorse and anticipation) to the ’still silent small voice’ of knowing everything is exactly and precisely as it should be for reasons we can’t see propels us to move, breathe and have our being.

Purity of Purpose stimulates us to experience without any trace of a lust of result. Therein lies the secret of man’s esoteric enhancement without a coveted design.

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

It has come to me via suggestion that I would write this paper on my knowledge and understanding of free will. The motivation is, for the most part, to clarify confusion that has generally intoxicated my argument, typically from all of our fundamental bias of things. The first bias seems to come from our inability to see outside ourselves. I will further this argument later, but for the sake of now, we need to understand that there exists a corporeal world outside of our natural understanding. From mankind’s dawn, the stars in the sky as well as the sun and moon were all thought to be angels, gods, or some other supernatural force at work. All works of nature were thought to be so. What we find is that as human understanding increases, so does the works of the supernatural diminish. Why can the same not be for the mind? As it is towards our current understanding our conscious is of supernatural origin. This concept that we are somehow in control of our actions and thoughts suggests an uncaused cause, something that no other tangible object possesses. This would only assume our conscious (including our wills, desires, and behaviors all within it) to be of supernatural origin because nature does not allow for uncaused causes.

My main argument is that free will, in this sense of the term (uncaused cause) is impossible logically, philosophically, and scientifically. However, my pending argument will proceed as follows:

• Prove that mind and body are not separate, but rather the mind is a function of the brain.
• Show that causality rules physical nature and our brains, thus our minds.
• Discern the difference between causality’s determinism and the controversial fatalism and show how the complexities of our mind- and of nature- rule out fatalism.
• Show that free will is a necessary illusion that makes ethics, civilization, and day-to-day life possible.

The main purpose of this essay is to make clearer the ambiguities that follow along with the claim that free will is an illusion. This is a theory of mine that is similar to many scientists’ and philosophers’, but my logical basis has been influenced by facts and theories alone, linked together by my own logical process.

Pt. 1: Mind and Body

An essential item to be fond of here is the computational theory of the mind, for that is where my first argument will spring. The computational theory of mind mixes our sensual gained information with the mind’s ability to compute, much like a computer. However, many psychologists, like Steven Pinker, despise the metaphor comparing the mind to the computer simply because it is clearly a superfluous oversimplification. To fix this logical fallacy, I would like to present a metaphor of the brain as a computer rather an a metaphor. This works simply because with analogies are there proportions. We can then take the vast complexities of the mind, and compare them to the vast simplicities of the computer because we are not then concerned with the specific functions of each, but rather the general functions thereof, and how their situations (not functions) are similar.

The computational theory of mind presents a very interesting solution for many problems, including will, desire, and perception. The solution we will focus on here is the solution to perceptions. If the human mind was a blank slate, and our perceptions were what we received purely from our sensory organs, then we would be nearly incapable of determining between objects in certain situations. What the problem holds here is the discernment of inverse optics. We should all be familiar with optics, that’s the study of how light comes together to make certain objects viewable. Well, our mind deals with just the opposite of that. Our mind sees the light, but must discern what the object it is seeing really is.

This is a major problem in some instances. The difference in lighting could make some objects seem similar; even have a ball of snow seem as black as a lump of coal. What goes on? How are we able to determine one object from another? The computational theory of mind states that the human brain fills in information that is missing when we perceive things. Our brain literally assumes that an object has certain qualities because of the environment of which it’s in. Clearly, this computational trait is evolutionary, for how else would our minds be able to fundamentally “know” what kind of world we live in? But notwithstanding, it is essential for us to even discern objects in day-to-day life.

Before I go on to the implications of this, I would like to make a touch at perhaps clearing some minds that may doubt such a theory. If the theory is correct, then the mind could be fooled by a pre-lit background into thinking objects are there, but in reality they aren’t. Well, this trickery occurs every day when we watch the television. All a television is, is a contrast of different colors that gives our mind the illusion that objects and people are there simply because our mind fills in the missing information on the assumption that they are there. Also, how would optical illusions like those presented in the Gestalt School be possible if our brains just didn’t assume information? This assumption is our mind computing the information from the sensory input, with information already in the brain. This is why it is titled “the computational theory of mind.”

But what does this mean? Well, this is where I bring in the computer analogy that I had mentioned earlier. If the brain computes information, like a computer does, then what we see is only a representation of what’s really there. It’s our conscious understanding of we simply cannot (the computation in our brain). Well, in the computer analogy, the computer screen is a visual representation of what we cannot understand. This brings the analogy that if our brain were a computer, then our mind (or our conscious) would simply be the computer screen. That is the computer screen functions as a part of the computer, and cannot work separate. It’s nearly completely useless when separate from a computational source. When the computational theory of mind is taken into consideration, then so is the analogy. With these two are in mind, we can make the conclusion that mind and body are not separate, but rather together.

Another argument I have comes in the form of correlation:

• The mind begins with the formation of the brain
• It grows with the brain
• Its sole function depends upon the function of the brain
• The maturity of the mind depends upon the maturity of the brain.

I think we find that as all of this is true, the mind must be a function of the brain, rather than the two being separate.

There are other points of view concerning the conclusion I have just recently presented. For example, take the purely fascinating neurological condition known as alien hand syndrome. Alien hand syndrome is the condition where a person literally feels as if he has no control over the usage of his arm. How could this be possible if our conscious was directly the cause of our action? The person with this condition has no conscious of his actions but just know that they happen. He in a sense lost his will to control his arm. Why is this? Because our actions, and our will thereof, are located in the brain (this argument will be held later on in proof of my argument against free will).

I believe it is clearly seen logically that our mind (our consciousness), is not separate from the brain (or body in this sense), but rather it is a function of it. This concludes the first argument.

Pt. 2: Causality and the Impossibility of Free Will

Imagine now stepping on a piece of glass. Where did that glass come from? You look towards your window and you see the glass broken. You then realize that the class came from the window being broken. You just discovered the cause. But what then caused the window to break? Well, on your counter you realize there’s a baseball there that doesn’t belong? Noting previous knowledge of those breaking windows, you then discovered the cause of the broken window. But what then caused the baseball to travel at such momentum to break your window? Well, you know that there’s a baseball park located just across the street. Perhaps a kid hit a well-appreciated home run, and the ball smashed through your window. Well, then, you now have the cause of the balls momentum.

As the previous paragraph shows, our universe is built from the law of cause and effect. Whenever something happens, we know there was something to cause it. Kant says this is a good example of knowledge known a priori. With that notwithstanding, we ultimately know that every effect has a cause, and it is this knowledge that we will never part with. Our universe is a reality ruled by causality. Even the arbitrary actions of the quantum mechanical world are ruled by causality; it may be a different form of causality, one of which we’re not familiar with, but it’s causal nevertheless.

However, it’s this causality that brings us to the purpose of this entire work: what caused the bat to swing? Well, the bat swung by the actions of muscles in the kid’s arms, however, that’s not what we’re focusing on. The bat swung because it was willed to be swung. It was the desire of the young kid to swing the bat, and so it was swung. Any analytical mind would ask the question: what caused one to will? Did the kid will himself to will? Is that even possible to do? If so, then what caused the former will? And then on to the one that caused that! The question we’re seeking is the question that posed this entire work to come about: what is will?

The libertarian viewpoint is that our will is simply ourselves. It is an uncaused cause; something that no other objects in the universe possesses. However, like I mentioned before, this is a quality that no other object in reality possesses. It’s completely incompatible with science, philosophy, and logistics in general. The only accurate means of which we can conclude for the source of such a quality is supernatural means. For the sake of knowledge all together, we must search for a different origin.

This brings us to a second viewpoint: the deterministic viewpoint. Determinism is very simply cause and effect. It’s the idea that we are not in control of our actions, but rather our actions are determined through cause and effect. If our minds are a function of our biological brain, and our biological brain works through causal means, then our mind should also be causal. This is actually shown neurologically. The existence of the very bizarre alien hand syndrome is validation of deterministic will. Alien hand syndrome is the condition where one ceases to be conscious of willing their hand to move. It’s twitching to a whole new level. Their arm moves as if ruled by another mind. You can slap your spouse and not have even willed it to happen. The reason for this is neurological. Neurology also shows us another very interesting phenomenon. As studies show, one’s will to move or act is available, at the most, ten seconds before we become conscious of it (“The Moral Landscape, pg. 103; report found by Soon, Brass, Heinze, & Haynes 2008 “Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain). How is it we can be in control of our actions if clearly our actions are determined by biological means?

The world of determinism brings by consequence another theory. If everything is determined by cause and effect, and the cause was then derived from an effect, then what happens now is caused (by transition) by the very origins of our reality. This is fatalism: the idea that things happen because they have to happen that way. Everything is caused by a prior cause, and in that sense everything is “predestined”.

At first glance, determinism and fatalism seem less like just brethren theories, and more like the exact same thing. However, there is a vital difference between the two. According to fatalism, one cause has one effect. However, there are multiple ways to arrive at the same effect, and also, depending on condition, one cause can have very different effects. What it comes down to is that determinism allows enough leeway for there to be some form of will. Perhaps it’s not in the libertarian sense of the word, but it is will nonetheless.

Behaviorism- however barbaric the theory makes humans seem- is validated in some areas. The theory that we, like other organisms, respond to a stimulus is without a doubt a reasonable theory and also validated in some way by observations (Skinner’s experiments with the baby and the hammer). There cannot exist both libertarianism and behaviorism. By this we can conclude that libertarian free will is not only inapplicable within our philosophy and reason, but within nature itself.

Pt. 3 Why Free Will?:

What we find with all of this is that according to determinism and fatalism, “we” are not in control of our actions, but rather our biology is. What does this mean for crime and punishment? Does this mean that people cannot be punished because they are not in control of their actions? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, when we take behaviorism back into consideration, we find that to respond to stimuli is to learn from said stimuli. Punishing crime is the stimuli, developing social norms to respect morals is the response to thus said stimuli.

“Free will is an illusion that makes the game of ethics possible.” ~Stephen Pinker

Such systems of logic, utilizing psychology and a vast range of science is what is used in modern philosophy. Its what I use throughout all of my philosophies. If one wanted to pursue philosophy without science, whats the point? If one wanted to pursue science without philosophy, then where is it going? Explanations on this an a whole range of philosophy, science, history, and even art can be found, all free, at http://www.philosophicminds.com.

Often, when people talk about introverts and extraverts, they think in terms of whether people enjoy social interactions. In fact, the true definitions of introversion and extraversion have to do with where a person finds meaning – and for this reason, knowing which you are can help you make life decisions that leave you happier and more fulfilled.

I was surfing the web the other day and came across a site that defined introverts as people who do not enjoy social situations and who are more comfortable alone. Now, if the author had prefaced the word ‘introvert’ with the word ’social’, then you wouldn’t be reading this article because I wouldn’t have written it. The site purported to be describing psychological introversion but pitched products and services geared specifically to a social definition of introvert, so my hackles rose and I jumped upon my soap box to address what is one of my pet peeves. To state it clearly and unambiguously:

Psychological introversion and extraversion are not measures of how comfortable you are (or aren’t) in social situations.

The concept of psychological introversion and extraversion was originally described by the Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, to explain two different ways people create meaning in their lives. A Jungian introvert derives meaning from the development of a rich internal life, and it is in the exploration of that internal life that they are most comfortable. To quote the Merriam Webster dictionary: Introversion is “the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life.” A Jungian extravert, on the other hand, creates meaning in the interaction with things in the external world, and it is in the exploration of the external world that they are most comfortable. Merriam Webster again: Extraversion is “the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self.” While this might sound like it is no different from the idea that introverts are ‘people who do not enjoy social situations’ there is a huge difference. In the true Jungian use of the concept, the focus is on where an individual derives meaning not how, and it often has no relation whatsoever to a person’s comfort level at cocktail parties.

The confusion between social introversion/extraversion and psychological introversion/extraversion is fueled by the fact that most examples used to explain the concepts depend on observable behaviors – which are social due to the mere fact that they are observable. And to stress clarity, most examples are presented as polar opposites. So you will see things like “extraverts are gregarious and like parties and community gatherings and political demonstrations” and “Introverts like solitary activities like reading and writing, computer games, and listening to music.” See what I mean? Psychological introverts do indeed have social graces and enjoy parties and can be just as passionate about public demonstrations as the next guy. Psychological extraverts enjoy music, and reading and writing too.

Psychological introversion/extraversion is a continuum within each of us. We all prefer one over the other (deriving meaning internally versus externally), but all of us have the capacity for and often enjoy a wide variety of social introverted/extraverted behaviors. That’s why it gets so confusing when people try to apply a single label to describe someone solely based on observable behavior.

Knowing whether you are a Jungian introvert or a Jungian extravert can be very important in helping you to be more comfortable with yourself. It can help you make difficult decisions about careers, determine what kinds of skills you are likely to excel at and what kinds you are not, understand why some environments are better for you than others, and choose products and services best suited to your temperament. The same can be said about knowing whether you are primarily a social introvert or a social extravert.

If they can both provide the same type of information, why all the fuss? Why is this issue one I am willing to get up on a soap box for? Well, first of all I am a stickler for accuracy, and psychology, particularly styles theory, is a main focus of my company. But just being accurate is not what drives me on this issue. I am passionate about helping people to explore and understand who they are not just for the curiosity of knowing, but so that they can use that awareness to make life choices that fit who they are. This is impossible if the concepts that people use are applied incorrectly. While both concepts provide useful information and knowledge, conclusions drawn about one (Jungian introversion) based on the other (social introversion) are bound to be flawed.

Gary Jordan, Ph.D., has over 27 years of experience in clinical psychology, behavioral assessment, individual development, and coaching. He earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology – Berkeley. He is co-creator of Perceptual Style Theory, a revolutionary psychological assessment system that teaches people how to unleash their deepest potentials for success. He’s a partner at Vega Behavioral Consulting, Ltd., a consulting firm that specializes in helping people discover their true skills and talents, visit http://www.ACIforCoaches.com or http://www.ACIforEntrepreneurs.com.

Good behavioral health and real balance depend on sensitivity and goodness. Human beings don’t become human because they are able to think. What gives us our humanity is our capacity to feel other people’s pain.

We must cultivate goodness in our hearts in order to become really human. Without sensitivity and goodness, we will never attain wisdom, nor will we find peace.

This is why the wise unconscious mind that produces our dreams is constantly trying to help us become more sensitive. All dream messages work like warnings for our human conscience, and at the same time, like stimuli that wake up our senses.

I’m going to explain how I arrived at these conclusions. As a writer, I could study and relate many scientific discoveries that basically showed us the same truths. As a poet and philosopher, I could analyze these findings and sincerely criticize them, without any hypocritical or selfish intention.

However, what really helped me find out the truth about our mental and behavioral health, was the fact that I had to fight against craziness myself. I continued Carl Jung’s research in the unknown region of the human psyche through dream interpretation. This was how I discovered the roots of the human absurdity. After discovering the anti-conscience, the wild and primitive conscience that occupies the biggest part of our brain, I found explanations for all mysteries.

The anti-conscience is our animal and violent personality, which refuses to change its behavior. This is why it generates mental illnesses within the human side of our conscience.

However, the anti-conscience pretends to belong to the human side of our conscience, which it frequently invades, sending us various absurd thoughts. These wild thoughts seem to be generated from our human mind, when in fact, the anti-conscience is not human. It is totally absurd. It is also totally cruel, because it is an indifferent animal.

This is why whenever someone becomes mentally ill they are violent, immoral, and cruel, even when this is not apparent. In grave cases their violence is clearly visible. They are not themselves. They are dominated by their wild nature.

However, they cannot understand that they are under the control of their sneaky anti-conscience. They believe that their horrible actions are the result of their own lack of balance. Everyone around them has the same false impression.

However, the truth is that whenever human beings are violent, immoral, cruel, or totally indifferent to human suffering, they are dominated by their wild conscience. They are not responsible for their actions.

This means that we have to completely change the way our world functions. Nobody should go to jail for committing crimes. Nobody should be condemned by everyone else when they lose their minds. They need psychotherapy. The anti-conscience possesses great negative energy. It can easily destroy a person’s human conscience through craziness.

We must show compassion to those who are controlled by their wild and violent nature. On the other hand, we must seriously face the truth, and care about saving the new generations from mental illnesses and mental disorders.

Now we know that the anti-conscience is responsible for the formation of all mental and behavioral abnormalities observed in human beings. Thus, we must help everyone get rid of this primitive content before losing their human conscience; especially young people.

Dream therapy is a revolutionary healing method that will completely change the way we live our lives. It will put a definitive end to violence, craziness, indifference, and to all the horrors that mark our absurd civilization. This is how we will finally find peace and happiness that last forever.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness.
Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com
Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

Evolutionary psychology is a different discipline compared to other fields of psychology. At the core of evolutionary psychology is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which simply means change over time. I want to be clear and note that this change over time does not mean leaves falling from trees or an infant growing into an adult. This change over time deals specifically with descent through genetic inheritance. For example, the traits we observe in an organism such as blue eyes, an excitable personality, the claws on a lion or even the beautiful feathers on a peacock are related to the genes that organism inherited from its parents. Extrapolating from this principle is the main idea that many of the traits humans possess today are present because they held survival and reproductive advantages for individuals over the course of our evolution. In other words, humans had ancestors with several advantageous traits. The ancestors with the advantageous traits reproduced more and spread the genes that were associated with those traits.

Let me give you a solid example of the type of question evolutionary psychology tries to address. It was noted that male gorillas often engaged in jumping into water and splashing in it from time to time. A casual observer would dismiss such actions as “playful behavior” or the gorilla is simply bathing when in fact it has a distinct purpose. The gorillas that do this are specifically male gorillas and they only splash at certain times. An evolutionary approach would argue that such behavior must have offered some kind of survival or reproductive advantage to male gorillas. The genes that are associated with splashing behavior would spread in the gorilla population. It turns out that Richard Parnell and Hannah Buchanan-Smith proposed the idea that male gorillas engage in water-splashing displays to intimidate other males and keep them away from the females.

After three years of research, the researchers catalogued the splashing activities of gorillas in the Congo. The displays occurred mostly in swampy forest clearings where different groups of gorillas gathered for feeding. A large portion of the displays were by dominant males and could be seen by other males great distances away. Greater than half of the displays happened when absolutely no females were present. This would rule out the possibility that the splashing was directed at females. The behavior is directed at strange males that could pose a threat to the male gorillas control of his group. In summary, males who didn’t prevent other males from stealing females from their group had a lower chance of leaving offspring than males who did prevent this behavior. A countermeasure was adapted in the course of the evolution of male gorillas in the form of splashing to look strong when unknown males are present because genes associated with those behaviors gave an evolutionary advantage to allow them to reproduce and pass on their genes.

Rajendra Narine is a psychology major from Rutgers University and has many different interests including Health, Fitness, Psychology, Philosophy, History, Politics, Business, and Literature.

I will be forever grateful to the extraordinary German behaviorist and biologist Konrad Lorenz. After Carl Jung, who taught me the meaning of dreams and saved me from neurosis and a prominent schizophrenia, Konrad Lorenz is my second savior and big hero.

His detailed research, his conclusions and discoveries, and the valuable knowledge he provided to the world, saved me from the dangerous darkness of ignorance. Only because I studied his books with the same attention I studied Carl Jung’s books, could I trust the unconscious mind as much as I did.

Lorenz received a Nobel Prize in 1974. However, until today the world didn’t recognize the importance of his discoveries. This is why until today many people believe that Charles Darwin’s conclusions about the evolution of the species was correct. Konrad Lorenz and his group of biologists have scientifically proven to the world that Darwin was wrong for believing that the evolutionary process of the animal species depended on their environment.

All animals are previously prepared in order to be able to survive in a dangerous environment before living. They find on Earth many enemies, and many difficult situations for their survival. If they were not previously prepared in order to be able to survive in these dangerous conditions, they would die before being able to learn how to survive. This means that their evolutionary process was already programmed as well. The animals’ evolution doesn’t depend on the environment they find because everything in their formation is already programmed.

All animal reactions are previously prepared in their cognitive mechanism. Their reactions follow chains, which form various behavioral patterns. The cognitive mechanism of all animals is already prepared to help them automatically act in their environment, independently of a learning process. The same happens with us, human beings.

Darwin was correct for discovering that we are primates. Of course his work is valuable, and it enlightened us in many ways. However, many scientific discoveries that happened after his death, like Konrad Lorenz’s discoveries, proved that the evolution of all species was a result of a very well organized plan. As a matter of fact, the entire nature of our planet is very well organized. All this organization cannot be a product of chance.

Lorenz concluded that practically all our reactions are previously prepared in our cognitive mechanism. These reactions start automatically working whenever we receive a specific stimulus from our environment. The same truth is observed in all animals. Their reactions are previously prepared and well organized, so that each animal will follow a precise sequence of movements from the beginning to the end, depending on the stimuli of their environment. This sequence of movements and reactions forms a programmed behavioral chain, which creates a behavioral pattern.

For example, all wild animals know how to kill their prey, and they are able to beat their prey in their first attempts, even before seeing any other animal of the same species doing so. Even animals kept in isolation, far from other animals of their species, were able to do the right movements, in the right sequence, and successfully kill their preys in their first attempts.

This fact proves that everything in the animal nature is previously prepared to follow a determined sequence of movements. Lorenz and his group of biologists give us many more explanations about this matter. I’m only giving you an idea about their research and discoveries.

Lorenz concluded that since all our reactions are programmed and we act without thinking most of the time, we cannot talk about ‘human freedom’. The human being is an animal already programmed to behave in a certain way, the same way that all animals are. In other words, we don’t really ‘decide’ anything.

His conclusions were very unpleasant for those who prefer to consider the human being as a ’superior creature’ who knows what he is doing. This is why until today Lorenz’s work is not taught everywhere. Cognitive therapy, where humans are shown to be able to think rather than just act on animal instincts has replaced behaviorism, even though Konrad’s discoveries were true. Many other scientific discoveries prove that Konrad’s statements were real because our capacity to think logically is too limited. However, these discoveries go against the interests of the world leaders, who would have to admit that human beings cannot be considered responsible for their actions in most circumstances.

There is a part of our brain that can learn, and we can control our behavior and make our own decisions. However, this part will work only if we won’t be automatically induced to behave according to the animal behavioral patterns that predetermine our behavior.

Konrad Lorenz helped me believe that the wise unconscious mind that produces our dreams and regulates the functioning of our body, really has a divine origin. I concluded that all the behavioral programs already prepared in our cognitive mechanism had to be prepared by a wise brain. The entire nature of our planet functions in a very well organized manner because it was organized by a superior brain. The same superior brain that created all behavioral programs (unconscious mind), sends us wise messages in dreams in order to save our mental stability.

I also noticed that the unconscious mind has saintly characteristics, which prove God’s existence. The unconscious words are like the words of a priest, or better saying, like the words of a wise philosopher. When we translate the meaning of dreams according to Jung’s method of dream interpretation we are able to understand the unconscious messages, which really have a divine origin. These messages cure our psyche with their wisdom.

I simplified Jung’s complicated method of dream interpretation, and today everyone can finally understand the precious unconscious guidance contained in the meaning of their dreams. Jung’s method is too complex and time consuming. I transformed it into a fast translation from images into words.

We are absurd and under-developed primates. We must develop our intelligence if we want to become superior creatures, and stop being pre-conditioned animals who merely follow their wild nature. In other words, we must surpass the behavioral programs we inherit in our cognitive mechanism.

The biggest part of our brain remains in a primitive condition because it belongs to the anti-conscience, our wild conscience, which didn’t evolve like our human conscience. This part refuses to evolve. It doesn’t accept changing its behavior or transforming its personality. It is our wild and evil conscience, which leads us to terror, craziness, and despair.

We have to learn many things, and transform our behavior through learning. We should not be accommodated animals who merely follow their behavioral patterns. We must acquire more knowledge and more consciousness, so that we may transform the anti-conscience into a positive component of our human conscience. This is how we’ll become true human beings instead of being wild animals. This is also how we’ll find sound mental health, peace, happiness, and real freedom.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness.
Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com

Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).