Course: Psychology 459, Spring 2007, Generation 26 ((must be left aligned))

Course: Psychology 459, Spring 2007, Generation 26
Instructor: Dr. Leon James
Introduction to Theistic Psychology at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch1.htm
My Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/459s2007/bryan/bryan-home.htm
Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/classhome-g26.htm
Instructions for this Report: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/459-g26-weekly.htm

Final Revelations
by Kyle Bryan
Report 5 For Section 1.5.1 to 1.7

I am answering Questions 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.9 and 13.3, 13.6, 13.7, 13.9

Question 11.4

a. Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a "narrative account" in which there is a discussion with angels about what people on earth know about heaven and hell. What is your impression of this?
b. Give an interpretation of the account as best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.

My answer to Question 11.4

a. Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a "narrative account" in which there is a discussion with angels about what people on earth know about heaven and hell. What is your impression of this?

Quotations from Sacred Scripture

a. My impression of the narrative is that it was an easy read. I think what made it an easy read was because I understood the concepts that were discussed by the angels and Swedenborg. I think that a person who didn’t study Theistic Psychology might not be able to take away the same amount of knowledge from the readings as opposed to someone familiar with the concepts. I see this as a draw back to the narrative.

I noticed some interesting things about the reading. I noticed that the angels knew nothing about life on earth but I thought angels were once humans in the physical world? After thinking about this I realized that it was because the angels were not living in their natural minds but in their celestial mind which didn’t know about the physical world. I found it funny that Swedenborg was talking about the knowledge he was writing about himself. The narrative ends with Swedenborg not performing miracles in front of humans, who I am guessing are in the physical world although it doesn’t say. The narrative talks about a voice coming from above telling him not to perform a miracle but I remember in class we talked about a time when Swedenborg told any old lady about some documents that her late husband had hid somewhere. Swedenborg talked to the man in the mental world. This contradiction confused me because I see this as a miracle.

b. Give an interpretation of the account as best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.

Looking at the narrative from the eyes of an enlightened

b. The account does not say that it is Swedenborg who is the one who is speaking with the angels, but I am guessing it is since it is from his writings. Swedenborg is taken into the sprit world and is asked by the angels what is happening on earth. Swedenborg tells them that humankind has just received knowledge greater than ever before. This knowledge is the knowledge of the Laws of Correspondence. The angels were surprised to learn that humans didn’t know of this. Next he told the angels that the truth about life after death has been revealed to the human in the physical world. This means that the knowledge of the mental world and the mind have been told to humans. The previous sacred scripture didn’t talk about the afterlife. the angels were again surprised by this but Swedenborg talks about what mankind did think, which was that there was an afterlife but the details of it were a little off, mankind didn’t know of the difference between mental and physical substances and that humans thought that after death our souls would float around like the wind. Next the angels ask about humankind’s knowledge of heaven and hell. Swedenborg replies by explaining that humans only knew about heaven and hell from previous Sacred Scripture, and now humans knew about the Spiritual Sun and the different levels of heaven and hell. Next the angels noticed that Swedenborg was saddened because the knowledge that was given to humans was not taken as truth but as untrue. This remark confused the angels. Next Swedenborg talked about conjugial love and how it was now known to mankind. The narrative ends with Swedenborg talking to people in the physical world, I am guessing. They ask him to do miracles and he replied by telling them that he will do it if they with follow the word of god. They tell him that they will follow the word. Before Swedenborg does anything he hears something coming from heaven saying that any miracle that is performed will not make anymore difference in the world than the miracles that have happened in the past.

Question 11.5

a. Summarize what is said in Section 1.6 "Spiritual Psychobiology."
b. How does this relate to what you already know about the field of psychology?

My answer to Question 11.5

a. Summarize what is said in Section 1.6 "Spiritual Psychobiology."

Mind-Body Connections

a. Section 1.6 talks about many different things but I think that the most important part of the section is about how Swedenborg defined the different organs. Swedenborg explains that the mental body is connected to the physical body through different organs that work through correspondences. The mental organs that affect our behavior on earth are the mental affective organ, cognitive organ, and sensorimotor organ. Swedenborg explained that the cause of any action in the physical world is linked to our will and thinking, which correspondences to our affective and cognitive organs, and is acted out by the body which is connected to the sensorimotor organ. This is Swendeborg’s frame work for psychology and he published this knowledge in 1742 and the title of the book was rational psychology.

The Will and Understanding that Swedenborg talks about are substances that are found in the mental organs in the mental world. This is a unique part of the psychobiology of Swedenborg and this is one of the main concepts that separates Swedenborg’s psychology from that of mainstream psychological thought.

The section also contained autobiographical letters about Swedenborg’s dual conscious and life in the physical world. The section also talked about the anatomy of the spiritual world which is in the shape of a human. One interesting thing I noticed is that the section mentioned famous writers and thinkers who have said that they have read Swedenborg but that no scientist have said that they have read him. I don’t know if this fact is good for Swedenborg because it shows that his theory is more valid or if it takes validation away from the theory.

b. How does this relate to what you already know about the field of psychology?

Pioneer in Psychology

b. I think that from reading and studying Theistic Psychology, I can see that Swedenborg did created a type of psychological theory which does look into causal relationships of behavior and ideas of the mind. It is interesting to see that these concepts are similar to those of Freud and the like, but predating any of them. The ego, id and superego are similar to the concepts of the mental organs.

Organicity theory is something that today is a major part of science and psychology. We think of Organicity when thinking about the physical body especially when we look at the brain. Swedenborg’s theory also, I think, can be seen as a type of behaviorism because it gives a framework for no only the cause of behaviors but also a method of changing behavior.

These concepts are important to point out because it shows that Swedenborg’s theory can have a practical application, and that Swedenborg was truly ahead of the time with regards to psychological thought. On the other hand, I think that this does not mean that Swedenborg should not be suspect to claims about the validity of his theory. I think that I look at Swedenborg’s concepts with the same skepticism that I do when looking at Freud, religious thought and philosophical thought.

Modern psychology has its problems with regards to finding a theory that can explain everything and I think that Theistic Psychology has problems also. I think that the repeatable, observable data aspect leads to skeptic thinking along with the fact that the negative bias has to be assumed when looking at the data.

Although I do look at Theistic Psychology with skeptic thinking similar to other ways of thinking I do see the benefit from thinking about life from this perspective.

Question 11.6

a. Study Section 1.6.1 "Three Levels of Behavior." Based on that discussion, and your own limited knowledge of the field, explain the major differences between non-theistic psychology and theistic psychology. You can also consult other Sections, e.g., Section 2.3 "Is theistic psychology really science?" at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch2.htm#Q2

My answer to Question 11.6

Similarities in non theistic thought

a. Section 1.6.1 discusses the three levels of behavior, which are the affective, cognitive and sensorimotor levels. Both non-theistic and theistic psychology incorporate the three levels into their theories and both trains of thought see each level as having a similar function.

The affective level of behavior corresponds to our feeling or our will to act in a certain way. The cognitive level is our understanding of how to actualize our feelings. The sensorimotor level is our body physical acting out our will by using our understanding.

I think that although the two types of psychology both include the three levels, the basic elements are different. Non-theistic psychology sees the affective and cognitive as being of the brain, which is the part of us that “seems to be” the self. Theistic Psychology sees these levels to be real substances and not epiphenomenon. This aspect of will and understanding are seen as being products of the individual’s culture, social situation, education, and environment. If change is wanted than the approach is to change these aspects of the self.

Theistic psychology views our will and understanding to be on a continuum of sorts, with the pro-social and best way being called a heavenly trait and the opposite end being called hellish and any change must come from our understanding of this way of thinking.

This leads me to the next difference that I see in the two psychological thoughts, which is this concept of heaven and hell in the mind.

Theistic psychology sees all behavior as coming from the continuum of heavenly and hellish traits. Behavior is seen as a person who is grounded in a way of thinking that leads to a level of acting. A person who is knowledgeable in theistic psychology can look at their behavior and understand how their behavior fits onto the scale of traits. Theistic Psychology also believes that all of this understanding is in the mind. We know about heaven and hell before we even act out at these levels.

Non Theistic Psychology does not hold on to the view that behavior stems for an inner understanding of right and wrong. This knowledge of right and wrong is thought to come to humans from a few other ways, mostly from social learning, unconscious needs and feelings

and biological aspects of the body.

Any activity that is seen as being maladaptive is thought to be not because a person is stuck in a certain hellish mode of thinking but because they see the world in this way or because of another sometimes physical component such as the brain being the cause.

From this perspective, behavior can be changed by changing the way we learn or by changing our brain chemistry by using drugs.

Question 11.9

a. Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias perspective.
b. Read some of their reports. Do the reports show the same thing as the class discussions?
c. How do you stand relative to others?

My answer to Question 11.9

a. Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias perspective

Generation 26

a. I think that the other students in class are adjusting to the knowledge of the positive bias in a similar way that I am. Recently I have been more conscious of the positive bias in my daily activities but I still think in a negative bias way for the most part.

From talking to other is the class, I get the feeling that they too are able to understand the concepts similarly to me and like myself, they are still using the negative bias in daily life. I see in other classmates and myself a feeling of skeptic thinking about the validity of the concepts and I can also see an ability to understand the rational behind ideas that are presented in class.

I think that it is important to be skeptical of knowledge and being careful when being introduced with new knowledge is something that an educated person should always do.

In class, I sometimes am confused when we talk about certain aspects of the material and I know from talking to others that they feel the same way. although I might question the point of the knowledge and how I can apply the knowledge to my own life when I am in class, I do think about what I have learned and I feel that most others in the class do the same especially since to write the reports we must be able to think critically about the material.

b. Read some of their reports. Do the reports show the same thing as the class discussions?

Reports from others

b. I think that the reports for the most part are consistent with the lecture, all of students seem to be trying to understand the material and then to internalize it into their own mind. personally when I am writing the reports I try to understand the material in a way that it fits into my life. I do this because if the knowledge is supposed to be knowledge that is universal then it should be able to have some meaning to me.

When I don’t fully agree with the information in the reading, I still try to understand it and I try to make my point understood. I can see this similar pattern in the other papers.

I think that we try to understand and reason with the knowledge that we are being presented with in the class.

c. How do you stand relative to others?

My Rational level of thinking

c. From the writings I see that my classmates and I all have the ability to understand the material but are at different levels of willingness to take in the information and apply it. I think that from the times when I talk to other in the class I get that we all have doubt about what we are learning.

So I think with regard to accepting theistic psychology as a science I fall around the same area as most in the class because I get the impression that most in class are not totally convinced that theistic psychology is a science.

I do, however, see theistic psychology helpful with social issues and I think that I might be higher up than others with regards to this feeling. I see theistic psychology as a way of thinking about life and how one should live. I think that others in class get this from their particular religion and also from other aspects of life such as family.

Question 13.3

a. What is the organic basis of human thoughts, emotions, and feelings?
b. Contrast this with the negative bias psychology which "reduces" thoughts and feelings to electricity and chemistry in the neurons of the brain.
c. What is your view on this controversy?

My answer to Question 13.3

a. What is the organic basis of human thoughts, emotions, and feelings?

Mental substances and organs

a. In Theistic Psychology all thoughts, emotions, and feelings have an organic base, which are in the mental organs in the spiritual body in eternity. In order for any form of science to have any creditability, it must hold on to some characteristics that will validate the information. One of the criteria that any science must have is called Organicity. Organicity states that any proposed theory must be biologically grounded. An example from anatomy, we know that blood circulates around the body allowing our physical organs to function. The function of blood circulating around the body is part of science because the heart grounds this function.

Another example dealing with computers shows how the concept works. Computers need parts to function. A computer needs a mother board, processor and memory card or else it cannot hold on to information or express other functions that computers can do. I idea in theistic psychology is that in order for our thoughts, feelings, and other emotions to function like everything else in science, there needs to be a structure that can do this function.

Thoughts and feelings are believed to be creations of the higher consciousness that the human brain produces in negative bias science. Organicity allows theistic psychology to still be able to have validation even if the mental organs that contain all thoughts, feelings and other mental properties are not able to be felt by the senses in the physical world of time and space.

b. Contrast this with the negative bias psychology which "reduces" thoughts and feelings to electricity and chemistry in the neurons of the brain

There is no self

b. In the positive bias of science, substantive dualism holds the concept of organicity as scientific validation of Theistic Psychology. Substantive Dualism states that the reality of our world is that we are dual citizens in two worlds the physical world of time and space and the mental world of eternity which is comprised of mental substance. The mental substances are where our emotions, thoughts and feelings are. The positive bias in science validates that our thoughts and feelings are real and made of mental substances and not created by the brain.

The negative bias in science is at the other end of the spectrum. The negative bias in science states that all emotions, thoughts and feelings are the function of parts of the brain and are not real substances but only results experienced by us because of the brain. My thoughts have no substance to them. The negative bias in science accepts that emotions and thoughts have an effect on the physical world but do not have any “real” component to them. This view is also called the materialistic view in science or monism which is the denial of the mental world and mental substances.

c. What is your view on this controversy?

What is real?

c. My view on whether my thoughts and feelings are real substances is that because the “experience” of joy or sadness or my thinking process is such a strong feeling, it leads me to agree with the concept of the positive bias on a purely philosophical level. Although I feel this way about my feelings, I am still rooted in the negative bias because of my education. I don’t feel that by accepting the negative bias it downplays our ideas of self because expression of a thought which might not be “real” with regards to substance can translate abstractions into a real substance here in the physical world. This leads me to believe in the reality of my self even in negative bias thinking.

Question 13.6.

a. Section 1.6.8 discusses how Divine Speech inflows into the mental world by levels, and each level is lower in rationality than the level above it, until it reaches the natural level of Sacred Scripture in a natural language. Describe this process in your own words, as if you were giving a speech about it to people interested in spirituality.

My answer to Question 13.6

Sacred scripture as physical evidence

a. Sacred Scripture through out history has been rationalized at many different levels. these levels of rationalization have through out history been built on top of one another by god in different ways. All humans in their life time are able to rise in understanding the meanings of the writing. The level of rational that we thinking in are related to the level of heaven with in our mind that we choose to think in. in other words the higher up we choose to rationalize sacred scripture in leads us to a higher level of heaven in our minds and the lowest level of thinking can leave us in a rational which is in the hell of our mind.

As I said earlier, through out history, humans have been able to rise in rational with the increase of sacred scripture. The lowest level of thinking began during the period where the underlying meanings or the hidden correspondences of the old testament are being written. At this level the correspondences are at a natural-corporeal level, which means all meaning within sacred scripture is valued at the natural level. God is seen as an operation of the physical world not part of the mental world. this level of old testament thinking holds on to some false rational like the idea that god can be vengeful but raises our rational because it starts our understanding about the reality that god controls the physical world.

Level two is the new testament mentality which holds on to a natural-sensuous rational of thinking. This level of thinking about God is higher because god is seen as internal and as a divine human. This concept of the divine human is at a greater rational than level one which holds on the idea that God is external from us. At this level a person can rationalize that god is all powerful and perfectly divine in good and truth taking away any vengeful aspects thought about at level one.

The third level of thinking was given to humans with the appearance of the writings of Swedenborg after the scientific revolution. This level of thinking is at the natural rational correspondences because the writings show that God is a divine human who is in the mind and forms all aspect of the mind and the physical world through layers of correspondences. The writings lead to a rational that can conceptualize the ideas of our dual citizenship in the worlds of physical and mental. The writings explain the ideas of rational substances of good and truth and how they control the functions of the world.

The next three levels of rational are all sub-levels of theistic psychology. at this level we rationalize at an even higher level of thinking if we were to stay at the other three levels of thinking. At this level of thinking we are able to understand the correspondences that are hidden in the different sacred scripture. This level of thinking is at the spiritual-natural level because the correspondences between the physical world and the spiritual world are recognized.

The two highest level of consciousness are still higher than level 4 but are at the unconscious level of the mind. This part of the mind can be awoken and we can be in this state only after we die in the mental world. The level are closer to God and the truth which means within the make up of the world puts these levels at a discrete level inward. Another name for level five and six is the second and third heavens.

Question 13.7.

a. Discuss the 6 "Levels of Rational Mentality" in Section 1.6.8. Can you comprehend these levels of thinking about God?

My answer to Question 13.7

a. Discuss the 6 "Levels of Rational Mentality" in Section 1.6.8. Can you comprehend these levels of thinking about God?

Rational about God

a. The levels of rational mentality have to do with a person’s understanding about the nature of this world and the reality of God and the human mind. Of course the base of all rational of Theistic Psychology is the positive bias in science. From this mental state a person is able to rationalize at different levels of thinking about our mentality. Each level of thinking is at a discrete level higher to the truth, which the divine human sends out in the world and allows the world to function.

When taking the positive bias, and accepting that the writings of the old and new testament, and the writings of Swedenborg are sacred scripture which is God’s word descended down the layers of the mind to reality, it is possible for me to rationalize on the lower four levels of thinking. The highest two are unreachable while I am living in the physical world and cannot be reached until I reach the world of eternity and my spiritual mind is awoken.

I can see how each level is more rational then the next. For example the writings of Swedenborg explain that we live in a dual universe. To think about this we must first hold on to truths that are understandable at the lower levels. all people cannot understand levels of rational when they are stuck at lower levels. for instance, when you are at level one dual citizenship is incomprehensible because the mental world is incomprehensible. Only after the realization that god is not in the physical world because he created this world and cannot be part of what he created and that God is within the mental world which we all have within us can a human be able to rationalize the concept of our dual citizenship. The rational need to thinking at these levels are available to use in the old, new testament and writings produced by Swedenborg.

I rationalize this chart by relating it to the concept that the levels of thinking about God are connected together by laws of correspondence going inward, in order to rationalize at any level a person must have master the levels of thinking below that level. the levels are like building blocks that humans can take from the meaning of different sacred scripture and build up their ability to think and rationalize about the truth to the world, God and our existence. This fact can explain that God allows all knowledge that he wants to be expressed to human is available to all in the physical writings and the appropriate levels of the mind capable of accepting the truth.

This theory can explain how all humans are capable of gaining entrance into the higher levels of the mind called the upper heavens.

On fact about this chart, which is similar to many other aspects of theistic psychology is that once the assumed concepts, which cannot be disproved and cannot be proven, are rejected the theory loses most of its scientific validity, which can be seen as a flaw to the theory.

Question 13.9

a. Why is it important for God to talk to or communicate with human beings?
b. What does God intend to talk to us about? Why?
c. How does God talk to us or communicate with us?
d. Is there anything relevant you'd like to say about your relationship to your conscience and to Sacred Scripture?

My answer to Question 13.9

a. Why is it important for God to talk to or communicate with human beings?

Communications

a. The importance of what is communicated to use by God is the character reformation aspect of the communication, which can lead each human to reach the highest level of thinking and to the best possible life in eternity. If God didn’t communicate with us we would not have examples of truth written in sacred writings. We would not have the inner conscious which helps us in our daily lives to make decisions about morality and purpose.

Take away the communication and we are left as irrational creatures that are not different than animals. Humans would have a rational level of the mind but would not be able to use it. the knowledge that God gives to use allows humans to lead an altruistic life in the heavens of the mind. without Gods guidance to keep us in check through our conscious and sacred writings the possibility for humans to simply live a life of heavenly traits will be lowered.

b. What does God intend to talk to us about? Why?

God’s love

b. The intention of Sacred Scripture can be used at different levels of rational. With the recent level of Theistic Psychology and the writings of Swedenborg giving humans a still higher level of rational, we are able to receive the intended message of the writings at different levels. Even if someone cannot rationalize about the concepts about god shown in the writings of Swedenborg, truth is still there for the person to grasp at the literal level.

All levels of Scared scripture lead to a better lifestyle. When we learn from the writings of Sacred Scripture and also from our own inner connection with god called conscious, we become more human and are able to live better in our heavenly traits and caste off our hellish traits. This is the main intention of what God is trying to explain, to live in your heavenly traits and not in your hellish traits. Be altruistic and not selfish. God wants as many humans to be able to live in their heavens.

c. How does God talk to us or communicate with us?

Two ways of Communicating with God

c. God communicates with humans in two different ways, sacred scripture and also our inner conscious. Sacred Scripture is the external, physical evidence that God communicates with us. It allows humans to see the knowledge of the divine human in our natural languages. An example would be the story of Moses and the ten commandments. In the story God gives to the people rules to live by. When people read this story they are reading a physical description of the right way to live life given to us through the layers of the mind into the physical world as a story.

The other way that God communicates with us is through our conscious, which is a mental communication with god. it is through this connection with god and the way that our mental organs function that the truth is shown to us. Our mental organs are how we rationalize with our conscious and the organs are kept functioning by god and his mental substances of good and truth.

d. Is there anything relevant you'd like to say about your relationship to your conscience and to Sacred Scripture?

Relationships to my inner thought

d. I do not read scared scripture often enough to be able to say that the meaning behind most of the writings is rationalized by me. I do know some aspects of the old and new testaments but at a very elementary level. although I don’t study the writings, we have discussed in lecture that the knowledge is still shown to others by way of social practices that are common in our society. This makes me happy to learn that I still gain some knowledge about how to live in my heavenly traits even though I don’t read the bible regularly.

with regards to my conscience, I believe that I use my conscious most of the day, but I am sure that my hellish traits come in and cloud this judgment which leads to many missteps. I am relaxed with the knowledge that my conscious is a product of my connection with God and makes me happy knowing that I can rely on my inner voice to guide me in the right direction in life. My goal is to distinguish the difference between my conscious and temptations to do wrong.