More on the Nature of Humans

In my last blog, I ruminated around the main psychological theories regarding the nature of human nature. In this blog, I want to examine official Consensus Beliefs in this regard.

Dictionary.com gives two definitions for, "Human Nature": one "the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things," and, two "Sociology(:) the character of human conduct, generally regarded as produced by living in primary groups."

In other words: Human Nature is the qualities humans possess as compared to other creatures, and the way humans conduct themselves in groups. As noted, the first definition refers to the, "psychological" qualities. As I have pointed out previously, Psychology is the only Science which denies the existence of that which it purports to study--the psyche! The psyche is non-physical! As a result, those non-physical qualities which humans' possess, generally, are not discussed in the Scientific literature. In his early work, Freud used hypnosis with his clients, but he was so disturbed by what he learned, he ceased using it as a tool.

Additionally, as time has gone by, Ethology, the scientific study of animal behavior, has discovered more and more ways animals exhibit behavior which was formerly thought to be specific to humans. A major non-physical aspect of human nature are the human emotions. Complicating matters currently is the discovery that animals, at least certain animals, exhibit what can only be interpreted as emotions, which previously have been considered unique to humans, along with the opposable thumb.

It must be stated that this writing has to do with the definition of Human Nature the Sciences of the Western World have developed in the recent past--125 years at most. The main problem, as I perceive it, is that of the concentration by those scientific fields which purport to deal with the nature of humans--Sociology, Psychiatry, Psychology and Anthropology--is their primary focus on behavior. This, of course, is the net result of all of Western Sciences' stance that all of reality is physical, and only physical, in its nature.

Human Sciences, for example, have no explanation for such abilities as visualization, dreaming, and extra-sensory perception, to name a few. It was only in the '60s that attention began to be paid to such things as bio-feedback as a way of changing behavior. Some other confounding non-physical human phenomena, not dealt with by official Science, are the instances of split-personalities cohabiting within one individual, as well as the phenomenon of amnesia, whether medically induced, or spontaneous. Also, how it is that we humans can be made, "unconscious" in order to be operated on; it is just accepted, not understood. This is clear evidence that humans are far more than physical creatures, that is, evidence of the actual existence of a non-physical-self cohabiting with the physical self.

Another major aspect of human nature are the, undeniably, non-physical human emotions--love, hate, fear, jealousy, greed, etc., etc. The human sciences prefer to ignore these kinds of indicators that humans are much more than physical beings.

Another non-physical aspect that is recognized, to some degree, by the psychiatric community is the existence of the Unconscious. Some practitioners of some types of Psychology have begun to use hypnosis in their practices. Only a few of those who use hypnosis in their practice, however, are willing to pursue its use in areas they are unwilling to acknowledge, such as past-life recall. A contributing factor in this reluctance is the prior official AMA position that hypnosis may only be used as a palliative; i.e., to help a person to lose weight, stop smoking, etc. (I believe these strictures have been loosened somewhat, however, I do not know the current laws regarding the use of hypnosis in the practice of Psychology.)

Another factor contributing to a reluctance to investigate alternative avenues to alleviate human dis-ease is the long-standing position of the AMA that anything having to do with healing the physical through the non-physical aspect of humans is that all of it is quackery. The possibility of legal prosecution, as well as loss of the license to practice, is still a realistic concern for many who have healing abilities.

Until the Sciences, one, acknowledge the reality of the non-physical, as well as physical, nature of humans, as well as animals, they will continue to draw-a-blank as to the true nature of humans. Given that the Scientific Belief System is wedded to the idea that, not just humans, but all of reality is made up only of what can be considered physical, the odds are that the Consensus Scientific Belief System will remain stuck.

With that, I end this blog.

Shirley Gallup