Some Notes on Field Theory, Albert’s Mind,
and the Status Quo:
The Necessity of Contextualism in Psychology
Years passed. Man remained ignorant of Man. Psychology was one day, many days, born. Man applied past skills to present whims. Psychology was oriented towards ideas and systems which were additive in nature, these seeming the most secure means of study. Or was additive in the sense that cause and effect were very Apparent, and quite easy to discuss and observe.
However, this very accepted view lead some to feel uneasy and to question the basic concepts as to their dimensionality within the ‘context’ of their daily life; and then, came the behavioral mechanisms: some precepts in Psychology had not held up under intense scrutiny.
Up to this time, around 1900, Philosophy had followed itself, with some guidance from its kin science, Physics. Thus, when the great upheaval occurred within Physics, it was not too difficult to conceive of a similar upset within the field of Psychology, it being so closely tied to Philosophy from its beginning.
Out of Germany, at the end of WWI, came Albert Einstein’s revolutionary field theories, and brought with them the field theory of Gestalt thought as well.
Simply stated, Gestalt psychology is concerned with the whole of something being different than the sum of its parts; for the most part, greater.
In discussing sight, for instance, a basic element of Gestalt is the visual element, which is, according to Zakea, “any kind of a visual stimulus that is readily seen as a discrete unit.” Visual elements vary in size, shape, color (hue, chroma, value), texture, mass, time, and others; they can be similar, or dissimilar.
Initially, one starts with that is called Ganzfeld, a situation wherein the visual field is a homogeneous one. Consider this condition as one in which a person cannot make visual discriminations, as can happen when one looks into a deep fog. The item to be added to the homogeneous field is considered the figure; while the field itself, is now denoted ground. There exists a definite separation between the two. The individual observing a figure-ground gestalt is the only one able to relatively define which is figure and which is ground in a pattern.
There are four basic principles that help a person to see objects as patterns, or as a ‘good’ figure. These are:
1) Proximity
2) Similarity
3) Continuity
4) Closure
In proximity, the closer two or more visual elements are, the more probable that
a group or pattern will be observed. Similarity indicates that items seen as related are usually similar. Continuity is the concept that visual elements which require the least number of defining components will be organized so that continuous straight or curved lines are formed. Lastly, and most importantly, is closure: familiar lines and shapes which are nearly complete are more readily observed as complete, or closed, and not as incomplete, as one may expect.
Another concept, or Law of Gestalt, is that of Pragnanz. Koffka indicated that “psychological organization will always be as ‘good’ (properties that minimize stability are considered as good), as the prevailing conditions allow (or stimulus pattern: more broadly, it refers to the perceptual environment). In spite of the differences among us, there are some basic similarities, and these influence how we organize things.
In the early 1900’s, Gestalt Laws were generated to allow study of how humans tend to group visual elements. By the mid-1900’s, visual elements were considered as informational elements, thus the information, or communication theories; e.g., a great redundancy of information on one side of a symmetrical figure is quite predictable from the opposite side’s redundant information.
In contrast to this is the opposite of figure-ground perception, called camouflage. If you wish to hide something, manipulate it in such a way that:
A) The object that is figure blends into the background; or:
B) The object is put in close proximity to other objects that are similar in shape, size, color (hue, chroma, brightness); or:
C) The object is put in close proximity and aligned in such a way as to provide continuity of line.
These few assignments will help the grouping of visual elements and induce closure. These are the common devices of Gestalt Theory; but, what allowed this tremendous ‘insight’ (also important in Gestalt) to trigger the onslaught of a wealth of rich, deep, meaningful information and attitudes, within the field of Psychology?
These laws, theories, and conceptions came from somewhere: Germany was the spawning ground and Albert Einstein had more than a lit6tle to do with it, though he may not have realized how his field theories would be used outside realm of physics.
As Wertheimer has been called the Father of Gestalt Psychology, and one of his disciples, another founding member of Gestalt, Kohler, along with Einstein, were students of Planck, surely, their absorption of similar ides came from a “common speculative atmosphere”, as Zakia note in “Perception and Photography”.
Kohler’s Isomorphism Hypothesis made it possible “from observation of perceptual facts, to make hypothesis about…corresponding neurological events”, blending both physics and psychology in a most dynamic and efficacious design.
As WWI ended, German scholars were once again permitted to visit foreign shores, and with them came the most “outstanding intellectual triumphs” of this century’s first quarter: that of the theories of Einstein, and that of Gestalt. The basic field theory which allowed for both the theory of relativity and that closely aligned concept of Gestalt, was Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Hartmann (1935) reflecting, felt that “man and cosmos are governed by the same rules and not just the same kind of rules.” He also saw that, be it a gravitational field or a human being, all natural, measurable and observable phenomena are simple or complex differentiations of a pre-existing organic system. This lends itself to an informational overlap of physics, straight to Gestalt Psychology, and is one example of the ways in which Einstein’s physical theory was intertwined with psychological theory.
One other example which Hartmann associated to Reiser (1930), was that of relating Einstein’s humble example of a person experiencing the change of the pitch of a ringing bell, from high to low, when approaching it from on a train, while in passing and when moving away from it, respectively. Reiser felt that change in the relative velocities of an observer and the object observed, produced the same effect as an objective variation of a stimulus when the observer is at rest with respect to the source of the stimulus. This is an obvious cross-reference between physical science and psychology.
M. Merleau-Ponty on the connection and relationship of physical science and
Psychology:
“…consciousness remained the analogues of a force. This was clearly seen when it was a question of explaining its action on the body and when, without being able to eliminate it, the necessary ‘creation of energy’ was reduced to a minimum: the universe of physics was indeed taken as a reality in itself in which consciousness was made to appear as a second reality.”
Merleau-Ponty also indicated that Freud applied “metaphors of energy to consciousness and accounts for conduct by the interaction of forces…”. There are the initial outlines of the field theories which evolved from them, as well as the basis for development of related ideas, revolutionary in that era’s scientific community. This is leading us back further to Einstein’s conceptualizing through the older brother of Psychology, that of Physics.
Just how did Einstein think up the grounds of his revolutionary theory? What made, or allowed him to conceptualize and construct his theory; and how did he perceive these concepts, complex axioms and formulas? Let’s take a look at how this all came to be.
Wertheimer felt that Einstein’s thought surely did not put ready-made axioms or mathematical formulas together. He saw the axioms as not the beginning, but the outcome of the process of conceptualization. Before they appeared in the state of formulated propositions, the accepted theory of the velocity of light and relative topics had structurally been questionable to Einstein; they had, in some respects, become inadequate to him and therefore, kept him in a constant state of transition over the matters of these theories. His axioms were formulated after his actual discovery experience. This is substantiated by Einstein himself. He had this to say about it:
“During all those years there was a feeling of direction, of going straight toward something concrete. The axioms express essentials in a condensed form. Once one has found such things, one enjoys formulating them in that way; but in this process they did not grow out of any manipulation of axioms.
“I very rarely think in words at all. [When told many people claim their thinking is always in words, Albert only laughed.] A thought comes, and I may try to express to in words afterwards.”
-from R.W. Clark’s “Einstein, the life and times”
So it seems that to like back into Gestalt’s past, one must constantly ‘flip’ back and forth, repeatedly, from Physics to Psychology. Einstein was sure Physics lacked something, which was common knowledge among some scientists around the years of 1890-1910. Such was the case with Max Planck in 1900 when he wrote to a friend saying that “classical physics was not adequate, that was clear to me….”
From whence Planck formulated his theories, is somewhat outside the scope of this article, though many had their effect on him: Huygens, Fresnel, Newton, Wien, Lord Raleigh, Faraday, Maxwell, etc. Einstein too felt the effects of these scientist’s beliefs, but he also subsequently denied some of their results as coming short of actuality, and thereby leaving the scientific community with a lack of knowledge and direction.
Since then, information has been available, but few acquire a grasp on the problems and considerations of field theory, so as to advance it beyond this present stage of scientific development. Nevertheless, the main purpose of this paper is to institute knowledge where before there was only curiosity, to disseminate information to interest others, and to provoke insight, or perhaps, if I may be so bold, even some bit of wisdom.
Also, it is necessary to reinforce any belief systems relating to the circumstance one may find oneself in, when some necessary system of procedure, appears to an individual to be inadequate, or perhaps just sub-standard (relative to whatever seems most relative, and least relative). That is, to be satisfied with the status quo is typically lazy, cowardly and wrongful. No one avoids being this way some time or another.
For many of us, this is a daily struggle, for others a way of life. One should reflect, devise, and persevere. Time and again, this has been substantially proven to be correct by people such as Kohler, Wertheimer, Einstein, Planck and others, and is desperately needed. There are so few, to help so many! And we need all the help we can get.
The problem here is that the human race is organized to produce these bright lights by the nature of genetics and evolution. However, society is arranged as such to extinguish irritations. The brightest lights are the greatest irritations, and not a few noted this.
Einstein’s famous quote that “great spirits are always condemned by mediocre minds” is a prime example of this. Why proceed against society’s admonitions to not rock the boat? My only answer to this is: Einstein was told he was stupid at gymnasium as a child. He constantly fought against established thought. He struggled, and won. And whether he had won the battle or not, he had only himself to face in the end. He had the answers, and he knew it. The broken ones are those who knew, and never tried.
*
I have merely used Gestalt Psychology as an example to show the contrast between The traditional forms of Psychology, and the less traditional types, which are in many cases, the more reasonable one to my mind. To these must we all now turn our attention, and as well, institute a change in the paper’s format. From here on I will not delve as far into any one topic as I have into Gestalt. Progress will be swift, somewhat convoluted, evolving and open ended.
*
Perseverance. Continuing onward. Trying to ‘see’ beyond the usual scope. “Field” is an attempt, but it does not end there.
*
Behaviorism has now run rampant for many years. Psychobiology is an understandable progression of those branches of science available. Humanistic and Existential Psychology are fine examples of ‘feeling psychologists’ rebelling against a discipline which forces one into being a number, or a piece of mechanical interweaving. But I must say here, that Existentialism leaves much to be desired in the way of satisfaction; for I believe, they also are missing much that goes on around them, and in much the same way that the Behaviorists do.
*
But, are not all these ways useful within ‘context’ of what they propound? At very least, are they useful to each other in any way at all? Why, yes, certainly.
In an ever-increasingly more complex World (or Universe), this is the reason for
a form of thought such as Contextualism. This may well be the new master control program. The Zeitgeist, the temporary outlook of this generation of psychologists, is, for the time being, satisfied. Therefore, all disciplines become relevant, one truly not more, nor less important than any other, unless it is out of its own context; then perhaps, inequality could, and should, exist.
So, I cannot disagree with the other Disciplines of Psychology. I can only say what is right for me to involve myself in, and what I would willingly spend by time and energies on.
*
According to Allport (1966), Psychology structures came from, and have followed Philosophy since the beginnings of Psychology. However, of late (1900) Philosophy has taken data from Psychology and incorporated it for their own use. A field emerges. An agreement follows. Psychology’s importance gains in stature. No longer important only to itself, as some have claimed. It now becomes more important to a larger group of people, and therefore, it must broaden in scope.
Allport (1966) believed that the goal of psychology was to: “reduce discord among our philosophers of Man, and to establish a scale of probable truth, so that we may feel increasingly certain that one interpretation is more true that another.”
We now have reciprocity between Philosophy and Psychology.
Allport’s argument of the sciences states: “The [behavioral sciences] provides us with a picture of the political man in relation to a political system, or of the economic man in relation to the economic system, but not of the whole man in relation to his own individual system.”
A blow to field theory…or not?
*
Where to go from here. Which direction? Humanism? Phenomenology? Existentialism?
Why not? Indeed! Why not.
*
Here are Bugental’s (1967) six fundamental points that distinguish psychology from behaviorism:
1. Adequate understanding of human nature cannot be based exclusively (or even in large part) on research findings from animal studies. Again, a human being is not “a large white rat,” and a psychology based on animal data obviously excludes distinctly human processes and experiences. (!)
2. The research topics chosen for investigation must be meaningful in terms of human existence and not selected solely on the basis of their suitability for laboratory investigation and quantification. Currently, topics not amenable to experimental treatment tend to be ignored.
4. The continuing mutual influence of the so-called pure psychology and applied psychology should be recognized. The attempt to divorce them is detrimental to both.
5. Psychology should be concerned with the unique individual case instead of the average performance of groups. The current group emphasis ignores the atypical, the exception, the person who deviates from the average. (!)
6. Psychology should seek “that which may expand or enrich man’s experience…”
Just some more support for myself, thank you.
*
Humanistic, Existential and Phenomenology all agree that the human species is unique in the Universe (this bothers me, personally; it smacks of egocentrism) and should be ‘analyzed’ in a special way to explain, or understand humans. Existentialists focus on the function that demonstrates human singularity. Phenomenologists however, develop categories and tools for both types of analysis with no commitment regarding human nature (whatever that is) of the character or the character of Human existence.
Contextually speaking, I see that Phenomenology fits the best. The humanists seem to be crying out against the dehumanizing qualities of behaviorism and such
‘hard’ psychologies, while Existentialism is these same people crying out in the dark for some form of superior, qualitative function which they perceive to be a factor which separates humans from ‘something’. Both of these, Humanism and
Existentialism, seem to be overreactions to a problem in the science of our species in which we have devalued certain items due to our ignorance and lack of a better way to proceed.
Phenomenology (true Psychology to my thought) on the other hand, exhibits a belief that knowledge about a person can be acquired through analysis of his perception, symbolic activities, ability to abstract, and imagination. An individual’s behavior is considered to be subordinate to these combined experiences, and so emerges the person’s ‘phenomenal state’. Since this is an area difficult to examine, introspection into consciousness and experiences are the main windows into the person, and therefore, goes the proposition, a clearer picture of humans is obtained. The only goal is to understand.
Existentialists, on the other hand, study consciousness; the Zeitgeist, their current strain and fashion of endeavor: to meet the needs of `contemporary’ men and women, due to their detriment and alienation from themselves and their lack of meaning in life, through the study of our `being in the moment’. This sounds beautiful: to make life better; to understand; to assist the subjects in their inspection, and introspection. Very noble.
But they miss the relativeness of Einstein’s model of the train and relative sounds; Reiser’s theory of the stimulus changing with respect to the observer’s position in the situation, due to the observer being in constant change himself, and the fact that once an observer is brought into the picture, the relationship between observer and observed becomes more complex than can be described in the traditional veins of behaviorists theory. The Behaviorists are only a holdover from the old fashioned medical models of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries. They ignore the subjective observations of the researcher, and therefore lose very valuable information. Information considered `soft’ and unusable since it is not mainline in the Behaviorist’s method of operation.
As a chief method of objectifying their findings, statistical analysis has in some sense, crippled our study into the area of what the human condition is, and has indeed, in many cases, lead researchers to state very simply, that there is no human condition at all, separate from that of lower order animals. Surely, one may claim that any intelligence is due respect equal to any other intelligence, but, let us not put the animals aside from humans in the same category we are in. As a case in point, and using their methods of objectification, just consider our achievements in contrast to the achievements of any other life form on Earth. Also, this more open minded approach will allow the better understanding of the other life form’s intelligence and lead us away from looking on them as `lower’ orders of life. This phenomenal view will allow us the freedom to view better the alternate forms of life available to us in our studies, and indeed, perhaps one day, allow for our easy assimilation of life forms now unknown to us.
So, should one study consciousness with a purpose, or simply with a desire to understand? To indicate purpose seems to indicate drive, which (and I use `drive’ loosely) indicates a narrowing of focus, perhaps too much, and eventually an alteration of the original definitions of the discipline’s reason for being. At very least, a warping of the faculties will most likely appear.
Phenomenology, lacking that purpose, may also lack the eventual alteration of definition of being. Is this lack of a problem; or, is it still there?
Charles Eric Levy said that, “By placing these truths in a more proper perspective, we have moved closer to a reflective articulation of that `primordial human reality’ which we all live” in reference to Mearleau-Ponty’s “basic, primordial” reality. Sounds almost like a kind of God ideal to the uninitiated.
Kenneth J. Shapiro to the elusive in experience says:
“Elusiveness is born of the structure of experience. When we fail to live with that atmosphere as it is, we in effect seek a change in that structure. What is missing in experience is an end to something being missing-a completion, a perfection, a transparency that it does not posses. Yet, ad the structure of the phenomenon we have called `elusiveness’ reveals, although it does not posses or permit its own perfection, it continually limns it. This perfection is one we cannot obtain but can only know in a certain way-precisely at the atmosphere of the elusive.”
Here it is shown that with all the deterministic sciences, a fault is found. If you have to describe something that cannot be, then you’re going about it incorrectly. The mere thought of this disturbs some, but exhilarates others. An example of this elusive quality which traditional science fails to deal with is exposed by Alphonso Lingis’ idea of exhilaration:
“Exhilaration is the feeling of the resurgence of force, the feeling of the now as a resurrection, and it feels its own abundance in discharging itself, in the full thrust of its transience. It produced more than an assent to its transience: a will to it. And it can will a landscape of things that are singular, passing, surprising.
The moment of exhilaration is to be sure itself passing, essentially ephemeral, and it does not resolve, as though definitively, the undercurrent of anxiety out of which it emerges. Only the void itself, perhaps for the next moment, will resolve that anxiety in the pulse of life, by dissipating it. But if for only a moment, the moment of transport, life can will transience.”
The gap widens between Behaviorism and the Human Oriented Psychologies. One way to fill in this gap, is to use all available data, in `context’, to gain a `whole picture’ type insight, or Gestalt.
As J.J. Barrell and J.E. Barrell point out, four approaches are available:
1. Behaviorism
2. Inferential
3. Empathetic
4. Introspection by Subject-Investigator
For quite some time it has been known that we need to understand environmental and behavioral contexts of experience prior to understanding experience (Koffka, 1935).
A place for everything, but not necessarily everything in its place, you might say.
All schools of Psychology are needed (and then some) but as Koehler (1938) has stated: “Never, I believe, shall we be able to solve any problems of ultimate principle until we go back to the source of our concepts, in other words, until we use the phenomenological methods, the qualitative analysis of human experience.”
Furthermore, Van Kaam (1959) saw the importance of experiential definitions for the terms we use in psychological research, for without that the terms become meaningless abstracts unrelated to matters of everyday life.
I’ve just skirted around the main bodies of various problems, disciplines, and schools of thought in Psychology. A correlation, at very least, has been drawn between many of the Sciences, and inference has been made of the need for some which are yet to exist.
*
To one wishing to enter `The Discipline” of Psychology, I would offer this: Beware. The obvious is tricky, and occasionally treacherous. John Derrickson McCurdy (1964) gives a good example of what Psychology has to deal with beyond what most think it should:
From over there in the world, the sensibles range all the way to the hither side. The world generates things, and the things decompress as layers; these laminations disperse into the atmosphere around the things and my body. The circum-ambient seeps inside; the atmospheric layers invade my inner space; I inhale the surroundings with the sir I breathe. The overlapping layers shade from my body unto the things themselves, and from the things to my body. Layers unpile from the things, and float free, letting the things breathe. Inspirational nature heaves a sigh and becomes efflorescent with dreams. Our stimulated senses reach into the background, along the sensory range; in the middle distance we synergistically perceive a solid reality which incorporates the imaginal media.
The question here deals with how most forms of Psychology can deal with all that is mentioned above? The answer is of course, obvious: It cannot.
So, why try?
Leave me to my foolishness if you feel that way. Otherwise….
*
Just what IS after field theory? Usually, I believe, inter-relational theories of Physics are included next in that discussion. But, what is just after (or perhaps between) them? I don’t know and I do not pretend to. But, I do intend to find out. Or, at least I will try.
*
I would like to mention here, something that has been bothering me. Now, granted, this is mere gratuitous speculation on my part; however:
Nowadays…few can even partially control their conscious body, quite like they could be controlled if attention were to be given to the immediate, rather than that which does not even exist as of yet. Presently, one would have to quit consuming coffee, various other drugs, many foods, spices perhaps, complex sugars, concentrates, preservatives, etc. Only then could one differentiate between separate foods and their specific effects. This would be similar to one quitting smoking, and then realizing `new’ odors, tastes, and experiences. These would all again be `visible’ to one’s consciousness. Although a chef MAY seek strongly spiced foods, due to a tolerance factor, there is another reason that people may seek this stimulation.
One of the reasons people like spices, for example, may be that they have a smothering effect. The spices are so overwhelmingly strong (concentrated) that they make it (perhaps impossible) to differentiate between the separate foods eaten. Just as one feels poison, in every cell-if you’ve ever been poisoned, in one’s body; so too, could one `feel’ a carrot and its own metabolic effects; or, a blade of grass, a bit of salt, a touch of sugar, fruits, etc. After all, why would one wish to savor the being of the dead and decomposing flesh of say a chicken?
The point: that being so very aware is simply too much stimulation, and we do not have the time anymore to pay attention to all these perceptions. Therefore, people tend to want to `numb’ (or smother their senses) in some spice, etc. This will so alter their metabolism (in intensity) as to allow the observance of one or a few sensations, relative to the eating of foods; rather than an overwhelming multitude of apprehensible, cataloged, chemical compounds, enzymes, proteins, etc.
Ridiculous? Yes…Perhaps. But, what if this did hold for Science, for Psychology? Look, we may have had the `truth’, thousands of years ago; but, being too sensitive, too sensitized to it, we perverted and diluted it, to get away from it: perhaps a natural inclination to avoid stimulation which is too intensely local. Or perhaps, it is another way of achieving a higher step in an overall natural hierarchy of understanding human experience. I can’t help but feel that even though we ARE advancing, that somehow, we have been here before: a better view now, but, the same place. As if we were ascending an ever escalating spiral of relative evolution.
Cycles? Do we merely go around the same circuit forever-each time seeing clearer and clearer? Or, clouded, and more clouded? Are we on a spiral of evolution, or on a series of spirals? As the general nature of this paper indicates (being on History and Systems of Psychology), I am attempting to disseminate knowledge, and hopefully inspire some amount of that most choice of conditions in human nature, without the need for the reader to expiate energies through the tedious job of accruing this state by finding the correct circumstances, with the correct responses, which has cost so many, so much to eventually arrive at, over such a long period of time.
Wisdom: knowledge, cultivated through experience. A difficult thing to do through the limitations of an informational paper. And surely it has been frequently noted that only experience will convince. However, I find it necessary to follow this format to do just this, and allow the reader to test for them self whether these truisms are simply that, or whether they are in reality, the best path to follow in the pursuit of pure realism.
Furthermore, the forms of the structure, and information involved, that is, the general essence of this paper, is one that not only allows, but indeed, demands, that the ending be not absolute; except in the concept of it having, or being, and end to something (preferable itself). It should end at the beginning and always be at the middle, as does so much phenomenological thought.
Therefore…
It has been shown how closely tied Physics, Philosophy, and Psychology have been tied in the past. Also, how field theory came to be (to some degree); the `birth grounds’ of Gestalt; the obvious conclusions past scientific endeavors have given us; and the outcry from the humans involved within the sciences, against dehumanizing, and `incorrect’ thoughts. Humanistic Psychology was pushing into the `hard’ science of Psychology from the very beginning. Existential Psychology and Phenomenology ARE reasonable extensions, or siblings, of our past endeavors into the mind, and human experiences. And it has been shown, as well, though only by inference, that Psychobiology is reasonable in its own right.
Contextualism requires we use all resources to study all the angles, planes, vibrations, dimensions, interactions, fields, etc., within the relative realms.
Indeed, this has been the downfall of many; for they feel this means that there is simply too much to consider. Therefore, they abandon all hope of utilizing these very profound methods. This is not Paradise Lost, and we do not have to consider that phrase of “Abandon all Hope, Ye who enter Here.” For Man has fought against himself for far too long already; has gnashed his teeth in frustration at the complexity of existence for more time than has been necessary. The experience of growing must continue, unhindered, to the next step in the evolution of Man, and the study of himself. And that, you say, is exactly…what?
When reading through new Journals of Phenomenology, one almost gets a curious sense of mysticism. Only, not of a kind relative to primitive man, but rather of an understandable, complex, and yet wondrous assortment of ways to view, understand, compare, and `analyze’ experience (if you’ll excuse that Reductionistic term).
So, the next time you are confronted with an observation to note, realize that you are only experiencing the situation as if from a `room with a view’, and pull in all applicable measures and devices required to fulfill the task at hand, and not merely consider what has already been accepted by an incompetent few. There is always so much more to see and consider than is usually believed to be. Do not be fooled by the Zeitgeist of the moment, for it a temperamental wife, at the best. Transcendent Contextualism is the requirement for the present, and the great hope for the future.
In following with contextual thought, the future, as well as the past, and the present, should be considered. Therefore, if there were to be a second part to this paper, it will have to continue along the subject line of `Synergistic Perception’.
