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/lastname/lastname-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
by William Isaac Hatch
Report 1 For Section 1.0 to 220.127.116.11.1
I am answering Questions 3.1,3.2, 3.4,3.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6
(a) Describe your educational experience regarding the positive and negative bias in science.
(b) Describe your reaction to what this week's readings say about science education.
My Answer for 3.1:
(a) Negative Bias: My education was filled with negative bias when considering the definition as we have read it 1.0.1 . All of my science classes were taught with a complete exclusion of God and any spiritualism. I have always been taught that science can only deal in a very tangible world and that any spiritualism can not be included because we can not measure it. This is how it was in every science class up through class and in all my psychology classes up to this point. I have never been very religious so I never had a problem keeping science and God separate but I did often have a problem with the restricted answers that we got.
I always felt as though science could only go so far to explain everything that exists in the world and there was always something lacking for me. I felt that as far as we could trace back the natural creation of the world it was always being confined to some unknown finite date and that never sit well for me. For these reasons I had some problems with what I was taught in all my science classes. We are taught to just except that there was some big bang that created the first materials that slowly led up to creating our world; but my question was always what was before that. The same is with what I am still taught in psychology and other related subjects.
Positive Bias: I am new to the idea of a positive bias in science. I have had some contact to the ideas of a spiritual world, but only in the terms of there being a heaven that is described by religious writings. This is the first time that I have been exposed to the idea of being part of a tangible world while my thoughts and consciousness are dynamics of a spiritual world as was said in the redings1.0.1. I have always kept science and spirituality separate. Also, it has always seemed that in society, science and spirituality have been separated. I believe that in my psychology preceding this class there has been a great lack of the positive bias in science as I learn that it is electrical pulses that transmit chemicals that create all my thoughts and feelings. I have only been taught to look at physical reasons for how we behave and how we perceive.
(a) My reaction to the reading and what it has to say about science is not one of complete surprise. I definitely see that there is a bias in science that keeps spirituality out of any possible explanation of our existence. I was intrigued to learn about another way of looking at science and opening my mind to alternative explanations on life and our existence. I agree with the fact that the negative bias of science has limits in explaining our existence and the world around us. I really liked the idea that what we see and feel is not confined to simple tangible explanations. This opens us all too alternative ways of thinking that I think are crucial in trying to find progressive answers.
In reading about the positive bias I was surprised though to find that the negative bias is really only a contemporary train of thought. It was very interesting to me to learn that many great minds in history like Galileo and Einstein opened their minds to the positive bias. I believe that this should show us all that we can not limit our mind to one concrete way of thinking. I think that we can only find answers by taking risks and opening our selves up to alternative sometimes uncomfortable ways of looking at existence. I believe that the first part of this reading about the positive and negative bias of science has primed me for the rest of the content in this course.
(a) Describe your reaction to discovering that you are a dual citizen.
(b) Is this difficult for you to go along with as part of the positive bias?
(c) Describe the reaction of your friends and family with whom you discussed the course.
My answer to 3.2:
(a) When I first started reading about the being a dual citizen I was a little confused but intrigued 18.104.22.168. I believe that the reading really helped preface the idea let keep an open mind. I have always considered my brain and mind being the same thing, or at least that my conscious mind was a result of my brain function. The concept that my brain and mind are two different things belonging to two different worlds in the same schematic was very extraordinary to me. I was hard pressed to believe that I had a mental body that was separate—yet connected—to a “real-time” physical body. Confusion hit me when I read the description of different organs being connected to my thoughts, emotions and experiences through a spiritual force. I would have never considered the idea of having a mental body that had an affective organ connected to my heart, or a cognitive organ being affected by my lungs in this spiritual blueprint of my mental and physical body.
I never considered that my mind would continue on in some other plain after my body had died. Being born into this dual citizenship until my physical body died and I could awaken in the mental world where my mind would live and be part of the awakening that happens after physical death was almost too much to take at first. I never really considered the fact that my thoughts where different from where they seemed to occur but then I found that the fact that my sensorimotor organ would correspond to my brain that it was possible that there is an illusion that my thoughts and will would be in the same place my first perceptions are linked to. This is all very hard for me to comprehend right now but I feel as though I have made some progress towards opening my mind to the idea.
(b) This idea of dual citizenship is not for me to go along with as part of the positive bias. I believe that learning about the positive bias has helped open my mind to other ways of thinking. With this openness it was easier for me accept this idea. I have always felt that my thoughts and emotions are somehow detached from my physical brain. I did have problems though with thinking of this idea as part of God’s doing considering what I have learned about the doctrines of most religions. I do feel though that Swedenborg should be considered as reputable a prophet as any other that has been sited in religious scripture. I think that this idea fits in with the idea of the positive bias in where we accept that God is real and should look to every possible explanation of our existence under his omnipresence’s.
(c) The reactions of my friends and family where mixed when I spoke to them about what I have learned about the positive bias and our dual citizenship. There where many who buy exclusively into the negative bias and discredit this all as a bunch of junk ideas. There are others that are religious and see this as sacrilege to the Bible and what they believe to be true. And then there are others who are opened minded to all sorts of ideas and explanations of life and the processes of being but would not commit to anything with out researching it them selves. I found it interesting to see the diverse reactions from a group of people that I always thought where very similar in how they viewed the world.
(a) Explain the idea that there is only one mental world in the human race.
(b) How was this proven by Swedenborg?
(c) What are the potential consequences of this discovery for you and society once it becomes known?
My answer to 3.4:
(a) The idea that there is only one mental world in the human race is just that, that there is only one mental world in the human race 22.214.171.124. Swedenborg believed that in all of existence that there is one “afterlife” referred to as the spiritual world that we are all a part of. This is where we awaken in after our death in the real world. This is the afterlife for all of God’s conscious beings in existence that includes all races and cultures that we know no matter what their belief system is. We all co-habitat in this one spiritual world, after our mental awakening. We are all attached to this one spiritual world through God and his design.
This one mental world is created by God and centered around the spiritual sun, which is the ultimate sun. We all function mentally to this world and our thoughts and feeling in consciousness add to the mental world—and in ways the physical world. This all comes from the one creator and God created all religions in a way that the sacred scripture could be expressed to all cultures and people to give the same basic ideas of life and humanity. We all co-habitat in this one mental world where we are not bound by physical operations, and our minds can realize the possibilities of eternity. This is why Swedenborg describes hell as different from what the Bible says. We don’t go to a separate place; it is all the same place we just mentally create a schizophrenic world for our selves in the mental world that we live in for all eternity. This is what the mental world is, what we experience becomes a by product of our minds and not of a restrictive physical body and rational.
(b) The way this was proven by Swedenborg is nothing short of remarkable. Swedenborg was “chosen” in a way to be a prophet or the sacred scripture. Swedenborg in his life was able to lift his mentality to a spiritual level which allowed him to exist in both the physical world and the mental world before his death. I guess we can say Swedenborg had an early awakening. There in the mental world he was able to speak to many people in the mental world who had died and awakened. At one point Swedenborg was brought to a great height above the mental world to see that it was all one. He also learned through speaking with people all about the mental world.
(c) The potential consequences for my self and society once it becomes known are huge. This problem could spring forth many problems from people not being to understand the truth of us all being part of the same plan resulting in people acting out in defiance. To this point we have all lived in this world in sects living our lives separately, and even though the same messages have been there in seemingly different belief structures don’t mean that people see it. I think that there will be many people who reject these claims even in the face of evidence as valid as any other. We all live in different groups in life. We group our selves using belief systems, and even though all religions may contain the same message humans don’t often like to change our ways of thinking.
On the other hand though there could be great things that come from people accepting this idea. If people are able to except the idea of the positive bias and the fact that we all belong to the same mental world then many problems could be solved. Thinking of each other as one group with separate mental processes but connected by one overarching power we could truly look at each other as equals. We could see how we are all interconnected and how both worlds that we will live in are so dependant on all of us and how all of our emotions and thoughts affect them.
(a) What does it mean that we are born into eternity?
(b) How does this relate to God and the afterlife?
(c) How does it relate to the anatomy of our mental world?
My answer to 3.5:
(a) The concept of being born into eternity has to so with our dualism as described by the positive bias Born Into Eternity. We are all born with a mental body and a physical body. We are limited to the rational truths that make up the physical world and our bodies can not go on for ever. Our mental bodies are not controlled by the limitations of the physical world. We have a hard time comprehending eternity in our natural mind but when we “wake up” after the physical death we are opened up to all these abstract ideas we could not comprehend before. We awaken into a world that is not bound by our physical selves in a world where our minds can exist and grow separate from the body and without the limitations.
Our mental body is with us from birth. It is not fully consciously developed yet but it has the potential for growth and is only confined by the limitations of the physical body. After death our mental mind is no longer limited by the physical world and can keep developing. This means that even infants may awaken in the physical world and have there minds mature. We do not grow older though because our mental minds are immortal and this is what is meant by being born into eternity. We are temporarily attached to the mortal physical self but our mental bodies will live for ever, we are born into this dualism and therefore immortal.
(b) This relates very much so to God and the afterlife. God is the creator of all of this, and he/she is the omnipotent one so he/she is apart of everything including all of us. Nothing can happen with out God and he/she is eternity God is our mental body and without God nothing would be possible. This relates to God in the simple fact that none of this would be possible without God and we are all connected to God. God is the beginning and the end.
This is all related to the afterlife because that is the place that eternity takes place. Eternity is taking place all around us but we are only in the physical world for a limited amount of time. The afterlife is where we awaken and begin our lives in eternity. This is the more natural realm for our mental bodies that are the true bodies of our eternal selves.
(c) In the scheme of the mental world anatomy it is a beginning step in the processes. It is the first thing that happens being born into eternity; that is our first privilege. We are then part of the physical world for a relatively very short period. It is not until we have shed our natural minds that we can finally be able to comprehend the true nature of our immortality. Now I said that being born into eternity is a first step to the anatomy of the mental world but that is because I am focusing on the being born part. The fact of the matter is that being born into eternity has to do with every part. We are born into eternity and God is eternal and everything so we are in essence born into.
(a) Describe the mental physiology of men and women.
(b) How do you relate to the anatomical difference? Will it make a difference to your life in any way?
My answer to 4.1:
(a) The physiology of men and women in the positive bias was a very interesting point to me. It seemed as though there where some ideas of it that reminded me of some of the scripture about the creation of both in the Bible. This said it was also very different than anything I have seen before. I think that in the positive bias there is a very romantic and nice description of the male and female physiology of mind. It seems that though we are similar in ways we are very different from each other in the way of our mental physiology as single beings. For men our affective is our deepest natural mind organ and the cognitive organ more peripheral. For women it is the opposite having an inward and closer relationship with the cognitive organ and the affective being on the outside of the natural mind.
This made it seem to me as though men have a possibly more developed relationship with their emotions and personality compared to women, but I can't imagine being as simple as that. But I did get the sense that men and women are opposites mentally and that this is one reason why we can not look the same. There was a way that men and women can become closer to each other mentally and be more connected. This is through the union of marriage. Men and women need to commit to each other spiritually and eternally then an extraordinary thing happens. They actually start a real reaction in the natural mind that brings there make up closer to each other.
As men and women live together in a true union of minds and spirit they start a process that conjoins them mentally, this is the conjoint self which is another mental organ. The first stage is the external marriage. Man's external truth is combined with the wife’s external good. Then the second part is the internal marriage where their internal part of the conjoint self comes from the internal cognitive organ of the women and the internal cognitive organ of the man. I am still really confused by this but it sounds like a very nice process. In the spiritual world conjoined man and women operate together with total cohesion of thoughts. They have stepped away from their own personal mind and agreed to be conjoined.
(b) Right now I do relate to the anatomical difference in the sense that I can really see it because I am not married. I have not taken part in the union so I fall into the example of a single man that has a very different natural mind than the women around. I do see where this idea cam from though. Even in the negative bias you can see a difference in men and women mentally-- heck, there have been many many books written about it. I think that there is a difference between men and women mentally in only the sense or our affect and such. I don’t have an explanation for this difference between the two sexes so I am inclined to the idea of the mental physiology of men and women according to Swedenborg and the positive bias.
I do believe that it will make a difference in my life in a few ways. I think that understanding this concept can help in understanding the dynamic that exists between the two sexes. I think that this can be a very helpful understanding to have to aid in communication of the two sexes. Also I am planning to get married some day and I will hopefully find the right girl that I can become conjoined with for eternity because it sounds pretty cool.
(a) Explain why the mental body of men and women have to be reciprocals of each other in order to achieve conjugial unity.
(b) How do you assimilate this piece of knowledge in the positive bias?
My answer to 4.3:
(a) The mental body of men and women has to be completely reciprocals of each other to achieve conjugial unity because women and men mentally are differentiated from each other meaning that they are not like each other Male Mind, Female Mind. Men are full of truth and women are full of warmth and good. This is how we are designed according to the readings. So the fact that we are that different we have to be completely reciprocal to go through this process of conjoining and becoming one. We have to be accepting of each other to ever reach the real union. We can not get to the spiritual level of being conjoined if our mental bodies do not receive each other. If the women accepts the mans truth the unite assimilate with but the man does not want to change and assimilate tot the women’s warmth and cognitive mental organ then it is not a real union and the human heaven can not be formed.
The women’s mental body is often much more inclined to conjunction with the mental body of the man she chooses. This is often more difficult for men. I see this in life all the time examples of this point. Women seem to be more nurturing and giving. Men often have a hard time changing there ways and being open to accept the wife completely. In the afterlife men and women have reached the full spiritual conjoining and Swedenborg described them not thinking without each other. This shows that there need to be major reciprocity because you are going to be conjoined to this person like a Siamese twin for all of eternity.
My Impression: I believe that everyone should strive for this, but unfortunately there are a lot of people that do not make it to being spiritually conjoined. I was a little confused by the readings though. I wanted some more explanations to whether there are certain people that we are more likely to have this union with. And if there are people that we should be with, but we don’t find them in the physical world, is it likely that we might find them in the afterlife? Also if you do find someone in the afterlife can you begin the process if you have moved passed your natural mind?
(b) I was having a hard time completely assimilating a lot of things to the positive bias, but I can give a shot (this I only because I am still new to the concept). I think that we can assimilate this information how we have other things that have come from the readings and Swedenborg. I feel as though if we look at the world in the positive bias of science and we are saying that God exists and that he/she is omnipotent then it should make sense that he/she would be apart of this. We can not be allowed to go through the steps of conjoining with the opposite sex in any way with out the help of God. I feel that using the positive bias in science we need to look at everything and that we need to do that with the understanding that we are part of God.
(a) Do a Google search on marriage. What impressions do you get from this? Summarize the ideas and trends that seem to dominate this topic.
(b) How would theistic psychology fit into this?
My answer to 4.5:
(a) I was a little bit surprised when I looked up information on marriage, but I already knew a little about the current trends. When looking at the statistics of marriage alone you get encouraged and discouraged at the same time. It seems that the marriage rate is pretty high—especially compared to fifteen years ago. It has hit some valleys but has pretty level and is still higher than the divorce rate. But that divorce rate is very high though. It seems that almost half the people getting married are getting divorced I am always shocked to see that. Another interesting point to this is that people are getting married at older ages and men have always been older when they get married. Also the rate of unmarried men is pretty high. Out of all this it is most saddening that there are so many divorces going on. I can’t believe that these people can’t find happiness with each other, but I think at least now they aren’t stuck being un happy. Also I can’t believe that some many people are getting so impetuously married. I think that a lot of time people infatuations can be mistaken for love.
I believe that people often believe that they can force them selves to care for someone and that sometimes this leads to all these marriages. People often believe that a marriage will make their feel s for someone more real and finite, but it often only leads to resentment. This I believe is one of the reasons that there are so many divorces and I think that it is a perfect example of people’s mental bodies not being reciprocal of each other.
(b) I think that theistic would fit in to these trends with the explanation of spiritual conjoining. I feel as though in many of these relationships that failed it was because of the incompatibility. I don’t think that it is easy to find someone whom your mental body would reciprocate well with and I believe these people that are getting divorced are forcing it and then find out that they are not willing to join with the other spiritually. If we can not except the warmth of the women or the truth of a man then we will be doomed to not finding the joy of this human heaven.
Theistic Psychology fits in because it so poignantly describes the physiology of the mental minds of men and women and how different we are in the single form. I think the trends that we see in marriage are reflection of this idea. It is not easy to become compatible enough to really give your self to someone that is so different from you. I think that we can learn from the fact that theistic psychology shows how difficult this union is that we take it for granted in our negative bias. I think that an understanding of the ideas of theistic psychology would greatly help people in need of some help in their relationships with the opposite sex.
(a) Describe the mental physiology of men and women.
(b) Discuss it with a friend or two. What difficulties do you encounter when explaining this to them?
(c) What is your conclusion?
My answer to 4.6:
(a) I described before men and women have very different mental physiologies. Men have a cognitive organ more outwardly expressed and an affective organ that is more introverted; the women’s physiology is very much the opposite of this. This generally makes women more warm and good where men are more “truthful” and subject oriented. Because men and women are so different in the base mental aspect of their being then they have to be manifested as physically different. This is what I took from the description given in the readings. I think that it is an interesting way of looking at how men and women are composed and I think that it may help explain a lot of the differences that are easily observable between the two. Also I believe that this fits in well with the design of the positive bias.
(b) I tried to explain this to a few of my friends and family to see if I could affectively do it. I don’t know if my grasp on the subject matter is yet strong enough to really give a comprehensive fluent explanation but I gave it my best. I talked to two of my friends, my girlfriend and my brother and I don’t think I did very well because I don’t think they understood what I was saying. My girlfriend thought that I was making it up and did not want to get in to any in-depth conversations about it. My brother was intrigued, but I don’t think I explained it well enough to really make sense of it for him and my friends just kind of made fun of me.
I think the main problem was that they had not had the introduction to theistic psychology and the positive bias that I did. They where still thinking in the negative bias and could not see how the spiritual nature could be included with physiology. I believe that there minds where not open to the idea of accepting that God existed if not for just arguments sake. Also my limited understanding got in the way. I think that with a concept as in-depth and confusing as this you really need to be an expert and I’m just not there yet. I think I need to increase my knowledge base regarding these topics before I can be effective at explaining them to others.
(c) Making someone open up to new ideas is really hard. Finding some way to explain the what if of the positive bias is even harder. I think that I tried my best but that these ideas might to far out there for many people and that for the most part until they experience it them selves I don’t think they can accept. Now I don’t know if I believe this stuff or not but I am at least trying to adopt the positive bias so I can at least try to really learn about it. That said I still think that it all very interesting.