Abraham H. Maslow The Farther Reaches Of Human Nature - Penguin (non-classics) (1993)
The FartherReaches ofHuman NatureABRAHAM H. MASLOWIIIIUINCOMPASS
PENGUIN 800KSPublished by the Penguin GroupPenguin Group (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New Yurk, New York 10014, U.S.A.Penguon Book. Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R OR!., EnglandPenguin Book. Australia Ltd, 250 Camberwel1 Ro.od, Camberwel1, Victoria 3124, Auit..li.Penguin Book. Canada Ltd, 10 Alcorn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V ]82Penguin Book. India (P) LId, I I Community Cenlre, Panch.heel Plrk, New Delhi - 110 017, Indi.Penguin Book. (N.Z.) Ltd, Cnr Rosedale and Airborne Road., Albany, Auckland, N.w ZealandPenguin Books ISouth Africa) (Pry) Ltd, 2� 5,urdee Avenue,RO<ebank, johanneshurg 2196, South AfricaPenguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, I.ondon WC2R OR!., EnglandFirst published in the United States of America by The Vikin. PRss, 1971Viking Compass Edition published 1972Published in Penguin Books 1976Published in Arkana 199320 19 18 17 16 15Copyright e Benha G. Maslow,197 1All righls reservedThe following two pages constitu!e an e�tension of this copyright pip.LtBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOOItiO IN PlJBUCATION DATAMaslow, Abraham H. (Abraham Harold)The fanller JUChes of human natuRlAIinham H. Mulow.p. cm.Originally published: New York: Viking PRss, 1971, in series: An Esalen 11001<.Includes bibliographical ",ferctICeS and inde�.ISBNO 14019.4703I. Self-actualization (Psychology) 2. Humanislic Plychology. I. Title.BF637.S4M368 1993150.198-<lc20 93-23973Prinled in the Uniled Slates of AmericaSet in Times RomanE�cept in the United Slates ofAmerica, this book is sold subject to the conditionthat it shall nOl, by way of trade orotherwiac, be lenl, "-IOId, hired out, or otherwisecirculated witllout the publishers prior consent in Iny form of binding or coverother than that in which it is published and without I similar conditionincludingthis condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS7", AntHINm JOfImIII oj Pr.1fhotIIM(IJ1r. "Fillion or FKtI .nd Vilha.- RepriftIId by pemliIIIon or Ihc Editor or 71w A"""tM ./oIImIIl of h.Imo.n.(IIII.1963. Vol. 23. No. 2. 117·ll.A...nc.n PaychoI0P:81 Au0ci8lion. Inc.: "TOW8rd • HUllwlilcic Bio•.-JuwMI. Au.... 1969.Volume 24. NUlllber 8. pqa 724-35.0e0rJe Bruiller, Inc.. Studio Vim Umited ud EdidOlll de .. Coaaaisunce.$.A.: From "llOIIIOIphic Interm.tiomllipe between Knower a Known." from-.. I"..". s1.",bo/ edited by OYOllY Kepa; Copyript • 1966 by OeorpBruJller. Reprinted by permIuion.Irwin Doney. Inc.: Reprinted by permlaioa from Eup8,Ithllul M.".""".,:II .JountJ1 (Homewood. IlL: Rich8rd D. Irwin. Inc.). pp. 236-46.HMpeI .1Id Row Publlahen. Inc.: From "Adolacence .net Juvenile Delinquency.. Two Different Cuhu...... from Fmu-#ufft lor Gttrtltw Murph.... John Pat·IUn UId E. M. H.ntey. Edlto....IIfInwd EiJIKtlIIoMI RlY#tIil: "Some EduCluioul Implic8tionl of the HumanlatlcPlycholotlel." H.fWlfd &i1Ktl11olM1 /ltvWM. lB, F.u 196B. 685-96. COPYriaht• 1968 by Praldent .1Id Fellow. or H.lY8rdCo",IIIIRIM#I.: "Neuroail u • F.UUR of Penon8I Orowth.- HumtIIIll.,. F.11 1967,Number 2.JUWMI oj HIIIPWIItI4IIC Pr.1fhololl.l: "Not. on Belna-PIychoIOlY," 1962. 47·71:"SollIe Fundlllleftl8l Quelliona "t FIICe the NOllDlltive Soci81 Ptycholopt.-1968. 8. 143-53: -SYUIlOll .nd Eupaychi8." 1967. 7. 21-35; "A Theory of MetaIIIOIlwtlon: The BioIotimI Rootln, of the V.lue urc.- 1967.7.93-127: "AbraMIIIH. MaIow: A Bibllopaphy." 1970. 10, 98·110.JuwttIII oj ItidMdwl Pr.IfIto/of.I: "Emotional Blocka to Crelltlvfty," 1958. 14.SI� "Syneray In the Society .1Id In the IlIdlvIdU81." 1964. Volume 20. 1Sl-64.JowtMI uJ 1,."..".,./ h.IfItoIoJ.I·: -neory z." Volume I. No. 2. 1969.pp. ll-47: "VuiouI MlUlinp of TralllClelldence.- 1969. Volume I. No. I.pp. 5M6.McOraw-HIII Book Company: "SeIf·ActU8liutlon .DCI Beyond.- from CIttIIWrwnoj Hlllflllllww h.ICItoIoca, J.F.T. au.enl8l, edilor. CoPYriaht • 1967 by Me-
Oraw-HOI Book COIDpaDY. from "- IlMllotu., Wcri by IttItII DIva. u.d .wltb Jllllllialoa of McGraw-HOI 800k Compuy.Millie Ed_ton NalIoaaI CoIIfemIce: "Millie Educatloa aad Pllil Expert-." CopyrWill - "/Ilk Ellllcwtors JowMJ. Febnary 19M. ReprDIIIa wItbpermllllon..� Pn-. Inc.: "A Holiltic AppnIICh to Cr.dvIty" from A �/OrCr.N/"".I·: Reporu of tile Sewath Natloall R...-dI Coal_ 011 CnatIvIIy.CaIvIa W. Taylor. editor. Copyript - 1971 by PqImoa "., Inc.�I AdmlllIII,.,IM:"" Need for Cr.tlYe People," 1965. May-June.7/W SlrvrlII1I#: ..". Cr.t1w Attkulie: Number 3, 1963. pubIIIIed by tiltUniveniay of Sukatchewu. SukatOOll, Suklttcbnu. CaaIda.Unlwnlty of Nebrulll Pr.: "CrIteria for JudJlna Needa to Be 1natJDctoId:from /It,_,1oM1 MOIIIltllIoIr .s:1mpaIIiIm. A.M. JOIICI, "Itor. 1964.JWIIjrjIr h.ltItoIoP: -N0IeI 011 IIIIIOCeII1 Copitioo."The VIkiDa "., Inc.: "Pm.."to tile Com,... ..ltIOn of RIt/tJIM. v••ad 1NIt.�,. CDPYriIht - 970 by The Villa. "., lac. (,."",.,V.rlwl .. 1WIc·� orillna1ly publilbed by Kappa Delta PI. C..,·rlPt - 1964 by Kappa Oehl Pi.)W__ llebaYiorai sac- ....bate: "Commen"" IIId "Introductloa� byUWftDOe N. Solomon from a S)IIIpoUIIII 00 Hwun Value from WftMWIItMvIoNI sn-. ha,IIII "pan NIIIfflwr 11.The WOIIami A Wllldlll Company; "Some Plrallell 8etwIea Suual and Dom-1_ Behavior of IDIra-H_ PrimIte .ad the Fill..... of Pallenta ID�herapy." from ."" JOfIffftII of ,.,..... MIl MnrI.1 �. Copyript- IMO. The Williallll A WUllilli Co. ReprodllClld by pennlllion.AU anlda lie by Abrabam Mun. unIea otber.w_ indicated.
PrefaceIn 1969 A. H. Maslow selected the articles which now compri.the chapters of thit volume. His plan for the book included theaddition of new material, an elaborate pRface and epilope.and a thoroulh rewritin, and updatinl of the entire manUicripLIn the eatly months of 1970 Miles Vich served as consultin, andtechnical editor during the initial pRparation of the manulCripLThe new material wu about to be written when AHM suffereda fatal heart attack on June 8, 1970.In the faU of 1970 I was faced with a choice between substantial editinl of AHM. idiosyncratic style or the publicationof the orilinal articles as a collection of papers. I decided on thelatter. At my request Mile. Vich resumed work on the manuICript and has provided aeneral editorial usiatance durina thepreparation of the book. Editin, has been limited to the nec:esMrytechnical corRctions, deletions of occasional Rpetitive statements. and the combination of two articles to form Oaapter 13(u oriainaUy planned by AHM).Althoulh the publishers of the original articles aR acknoNICdged elsewheR, I want to thank especially Miles Vich (formereditor of the Journal oj Humanistic Psychology), who wasmuch more than an editor for thia volume. and Anthony. Suticb(editor of the Journal oj Tra�rsolltll Psychology), for .rantina permission to ute a si,nificant number of titles.I also appreciate the assiJtance of Michael Murphy andJel
xii Pre/aceStuart Miller of the Esalen Institute, and Richard "Grossman ofthe Viking Press. I especially want to thank Kay Pontius. personal secretary to AHM while he was a Resident Fellow at theW. P. Laughlin Charitable Foundation. She has been extraordinarily helpful. W. P. Laughlin, Director of the Foundation andChairman of the Board of the Saga AcJministrative Corporation,along with William J. Crockett of Saga, provided encouragement, friendship, and practical support.A. H. Maslow believed that Henry Geiger was one of the fewindividuals who understood his work in depth and I am pleasedthat he could contribute the Introduction to this volume.Palo Alto. CaliforniaJune 1971BERTIIA G. MASLOW
ContentsPreface, by Bertha G. Maslow xiIntroduction: A. H. Maslow, by Henry Geiger xvPart I. HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYI. Toward a Humanistic Biology 32. Neurosis as a Failure of Personal Growth 243. Self-Actualizing and Beyond 40Part II. CREATIVENESS4. The Creative Attitude5. A Holistic Approach to Creativity .6. Emotional Blocks to Creativity7. The Need for Creative PeoplePart III. VALUES5S6978928. Fusions of Facts and Values 1019. Notes on Being-Psychology 12110. Comments from a Symposium on HumanValues 143Part IV. EDUCATIONII. Knower and Known 14912. Education and Peak Experiences 16213. Goals and Implications of Humanistic Ed-ucation 173
X;" ContentsPart V. SOCIETY14. Synergy in the Society and in the Individual 191IS. Questions for the Nonnative Social Psycholo-gist 20316. Synanon and Eupsychia 21617. On Eupsychian Management 22718. On Low Grumbles. High Grumbles and Meta-grumbles 229Part VI. BEING-COGNITION19. Notes on Innocent Cognition20. Further Notes on CognitionPart VII. TRANSCENDENCE AND THEPSYCHOLOGY OF BEING2 1. Various Meanings of ·Transcendence22. Theory ZPart VIII. METAMOTIVATION23. A Theory of Metamotivation: The Biological241249159270Rooting of the Value-Life 289APPENDICESAppendix A: Comments on Religions. Values.and Peak-Experiences 331Appendix B: Some Parallel� Between Sexualand Dominance Behavior of Infrahuman Primatesand the Fantasies of Patients in Psychotherapy 338Appendix C: Adolescence and Juvenile Delin-quency in Two Different Cultures 355Appendix D: Criteria for J",dging Needs to BeInstinctoid 365Appendix E: Abraham H. Maslow: A Bibliogra-phy 376Bibliography 393Index 401
Introduction: A. H. MaslowAn indisputable fact about the work of A. H. Maslow is that itJives off sparks-very nearly all his writing gives off sparks.An attempt to understand this by thinking of him as simply apsychologist would probably prove futile; he must first bethought of as a man, and then as one who worked very hard atpsychology, or rather, who rendered his growth and maturity asa man into a new way of thinking about psychology. This wasone of his major accomplishments-he gave psychology a newconceptual language.He tells us that early in his professional life he found that theavailable language of psychology-its conceptual structure,that is-WOUld not serve the direction of his research, and bedetermined to change or improve it. So he began inventing. Ashe put it:·"1 was raising legitimate questions and had to inventanother approach to psychological problems in order to dealwith them." The key terms of the language he developed aR"self-actualization," "peak experience," and "the hierarchy ofneeds," ranging from "deficiency-needs" to "being-needs."There are others, but these are probably the most important.It seems necessary t9 say that the core of what Maslow foundout about psychology he found out from himself. It is evidenttrom his writins that he studied himself-wu able, as we say,to be "objective� about himself. "We must remember," he saidin one place, "that knowledge of ones own deep nature is also
xvi Introduction: A. N. Maslowsimultaneously knowledge of human nature in Jeneral." As anaside. one might add here that Maslow WII truly a man withoutvanity. He knew what he was doing and that it was important,but he maintained the sturdy humbleness he admired in othersthroughout his life. ("Humility" doesnt have the naht rilll inrelation to him.) And he had that wonderful corrective humorthat spiced all his relationships with other people as well a.. nodoubt. with himself.One of the papers in this book tells how Maslow happened tobegin his studies of self-actualization. He had two teachers he"could not be content simply to adore, but soulht to understand." Why were these two "so different from the run-of-themill people in the world"? The resolve to seek answers to thiaquestion. it becomes clear. set the direction of his research inpsychology, and disclosed, as well, his sense of the meaning ofhuman life. Being a scientist, he sought a generalizing accountof the excellences he had discovered in these two teachers. Hebegan to collect other such subjects for study-and went onidentifying and studying these people for the rest of his life.This sort of research. he often pointed out, aives you a fresh andencouraging view of mankind. It shows you what can bt."Healthy people" is the way he described thele subjects. and.later spoke of them as embodying "full humanness."The climax of self-actualization is the peak experience."Peak experience" is a Iplendidly nllturallstlc idiom, hospitableto all the similar meanings in the vocabularies of religion andmysticism. yet confined by none of them. A peak experience iswhat you feel and perhaps "know" when you pin authenticelevation as a human beina. We dont know how the peak experience is achieved; it hal no simple one-to-one relation withany deliberated procedure; we know only that it is lomehowtarnrd. It is like the promise of the rainbow. It comes and itgoes and it cannot be forgotten. A man lomehow knows betterthan to try to hold on to a state or condition of awareness that ianot meant to last except in penistent recollection of the totalacceptance that it brinas. A peak experience is a comina intothe realization that what "ought to be" Is. in a way that requires no longing. suUests no straining. to make it so. It telllhuman beings something about themselves and about the world
Introduction: A. H. Maslow xviithat is the same truth, and that becomes the pivot of value andan ordering principle for the hierarchy of meanings. It is themerging of subject and object, involving no loss of subjectivitybut what seems its infinite extension. It is individuality freed ofisolation. An experience of this sort gives the idea of transcendence an empirical ground. Its typical recurrence for his selfactualizers became for Maslow scientific evidence of what maybe the normal psychological or inner life of persons who arefully human. The normative element in Maslows thinking andtheory was now present in principle, it remaining to check andfill out the pattern of how self-actualizers behave. He wanted tobe able to say: "This is how people who are self-actualizingact and react in a wide gamut of situations, difficulties, and confrontations," and to demonstrate the psychological (educational) importance of such research. Many of his papers spell outthese findings. Out of this work grew a psychology ordered bythe symmetries of fully human health, intelligence, and aspiration.-there is no neglect of weakness, badness, or what used to becailed "evil," in Maslows work. It was natural for him to reacha Socratic position-the view that most if not all the evil in human life is due to ignorance. His principles of explanationdeveloped from the "givens" of self-actualization and the peakexperience-were useful for understanding weakness. failure.and meanness. and he had no inclination to· ignore theserealities. He was not a sentimental man.One may. however. encounter certain difficulties in Maslowsbooks. especially if the reader comes to him fresh from studiesthat are purely analytical and descripJive. Things that are quiteclear to Maslow-or have become quite clear to him-may notseem so to the reader. He leaps along. apparently sure of hisfooting and where he is going. while the reader is peering forfamiliar landmarks 9f meaning. Is all that really there? he maygrumble to himself. At this point it seems fair to urge that theinternal connections of a lot of things about human natureand possibility were clear to Maslow because he had beenthinking about them and working with them for a long. longtime. And at the level of his work. the level which makes it val-.uable. the connections are internal. The unities he speaks of,
xvi;; Introduction: A. H. Maslowone might ·stipulate. are there. but to see or feel as he did requires that you do the same kind of homework. pursue the sameline of independent and reflective research. Yet all through .hiswork one finds exposed nodes open to intuitive verification,good enough for any man of hungry commo!,) sense. In fact, itis those points of exposure-"insights," we call them-thatmake people keep on reading Maslow. that have given hisbooks their popularity and long life. (University presses had ahard time understanding this. They would print three thousandcopies of a Maslow book and regard their job as done. But Maslows books would sell fifteen or twenty thousand in hardcover, and go a hundred thousand and more in paperback. People who read him understand why. He has a psychology thatapplies to them.)There isnt a great deal more to say. with hundreds of pages·of the man himself awaiting the reader-pages in which Maslows later thought reaches beyond the accustomed limits ofpsychology. even his own psychology. But something might beadded about his way of writing. What he wanted to write wasnot easy to express. He would stand back and send "waves" ofwords at the reader. He shed fresh idioms as easily as Bachwrote original tunes. He played with words. bouncing themaround until they serv�d his meaning exactly. You would notcall what he d id tricks. of the trade of writing; they were neVerreally tricks. but rather intense efforts to make himself understood. Intensity did not make him ponderous. So he succeededpretty well. and the fact that he took pleasure in words and expressions makes reading him a delight. That anyone so muchfun to read has to be worth understanding is a legitimate conclusion about Maslow. Among psychologists. you could say thisalso of William James and Henry Murray. but of very few others.One other comment seems important. There are two ways toarrive at a difficult but valuable conclusion. You can climb up aladder of related syllogisms. tightening the rungs as you go bythe use of precise language. The other is simply to be up there,high above d istracting obstacles. seeing the final stages of thelogical climb. but seeing also d07ens of other passages of ascent. all reaching the same real place. the same exalted height-and. being there. freely able to look in all directions instead of
Introduction: A. H. Maslow xixhaving to cling insecurely to the ladder of reason, hoping itwont topple over. A lot of the time, you have the feeling thatMaslow was already there, had been there for quite a while,until he felt at home, and was using the logical approach as akind of "exercise." or for heuristic purposes.Wel. has a scientist any business getting to where he gets bysuch private or inexplicable means? Maybe; maybe not. But ifthe subject of his inquiry-man-moves forward in that waywhen he is at his best. how could you practice human sciencewithout yourself performing or at least attempting such exploits? Maybe Maslow could not help himself. He found himself up there. Maybe it is of the essence of a basic and necessaryreform in psychology to declare and demonstrate that such capacities are necessary. and to be soug"t after, however mysterious. After all, what is culture at its best but the tone andresonance of a consensus of rarely accomplished human beings-self-actualizers-the people flom whom one can learn mosteasily, and even joyously? And if these are the kind of peoplethe best men are. any psychology that does not struggle to reveal the fact will be some kind of fraud.A great orchestra is a combination of rare skil1s, a companyof musicians who have learned to play their instruments and t,oknow music better than most other people. If you listen to themtalkmusic among themselves, you will not understand half ofwhat they say. but when they play. then you will know that,whatever they said to each other, it wasnt just idle chatter.It is so with any distinguished human being. He speaks, inrelation to his particular attainment. from a height. The meaning of what he says may not always be immediately plain, butthe height, the attainment, is real. You feel it even if you cannotarasp it to your satisfaction. A fuly human man is likely to havesimilar obscurities about him. And a psychology devoted tofully human beings-which is competent to speak of them, insome ways to measure them, appreciate them, tell somethingabout the dynamics of their qualities-is bound to parti�ipate insome of this-d�pth. rather than obscurity. Now and then readen may feel a little lost Why not? Perhaps a psychology thatdoes not have partly this effect on the student will never get offthe around.
xx Introduction: A. H. MaslowOne aspect of Maslows later thought deserves attention. Theolder he got, the more "philosophical" be became. It was impossible, he found, to isolate the pursuit of psychological truthfrom philosophical questions. How a man thinks cannot beseparated from what he is, and the question of what he thlnlC3he is, is never independent of what he is in fact, even thoughthis, intellectually, may be an insoluble problem. At the beginning of an inquiry, Maslow held, science has no right to shutout any of the data of experience. As he said in 1h� hychologyoj Science, all the deliveries of human awareness must be aece�ed by psychology, "even contradictions and illogicalities,and mysteries, the vague, the ambiguous, the archaic, the unconscious, and all other aspects of existence that are difficult·to communicate." The inchoate and by nature imprecise isnonetheless part of our knowledge abOUt" ourselves: "Knowl-edge of low reliability is also a part of knowledge." Mansknowledge of himself is mainly of this sort, and, for Maslow,the rules for its increase were those of an "explorer" who looksin every direction, rejects no possibilities. "The beginningstages of knowledge," he wrote, "should not be judged by tbecriteria derived from final knowledge."This is the statement of a philosopher of science. If, indeed,the task of the philosopher of science is to identify the appropriate means of study in a given field of research, Maslow wasmore than anything else a philosopher of science. He wouldhave wholly agreed with .H. H. Price, who, thirty yean ago, ina discussion of the potentialities of mind, observed: "In theearly stages of any inquiry it is a mistake to lay down a hardand-fast distinction between a scientific investigation of thefacts and philosophical reflection about them. . . . At.the laterstages the distinction is right and proper. But if it is drawntoo soon and too rigorously those later stages will never bereached." Indirectly, a large part of Maslows work involved removing the philosophical barriers that stood in the way· of theadvance of psychology to its own "later stages."Of Maslows inner life, of the themes of his thought, and ofhis inspiration, we know only what he has told us and what maybe deduced by inference. He was not a great letter-writer. Yetit is evident that his life was filled with humanitarian concem,
Introduction: A. H. Malow xxiand in his last years with continuous reflection on what mightmake the foundation of a social psychology that could pointthe way to a better world. Ruth Benedicts conception of· asynergistic society was a cornerstone of this thinking, as hislater papers show. There is, however, something in one of hisinfrequent letters to a friend that sugests how his private hourswere spent. He is speaking of a difficulty in remembering wherehis ideas came from, wondering, perhaps. if his delight in them.his working them· over and developins their correlates, badsomehow displaced recollection of their orisin. Sometime between 1966 and 1968-the letter is undated-he wrote:Im still vulnerable to my idiotic memory. Once it frightenedme-I had some of the characteristics of brain tumor, butfinally I thought Id accepted it. . . . I live so much in myprivate world of Platonic essences, having all sorts of conversations with Plato & Socrates and trying to convince SpinOla and Bergson of things, & getting mad at Locke andHobbes, that I only tlpptar to others to be livins in the world.Ive had so much trouble . . . because I seem to mimic beingconscious & interpersonal, I even carry on conv�rsations andlook intellectual. But then there is absolute and completeamnesia-and then Im in trouble with my familylNo one can say that these dialogues were "unreal." They boretoo many fruits.HENRY GEIGER
1Toward a Humanistic BiologyIMy adventures in psychology have led me in all sorts of directions. some of which have transeended the field of conventionalpsychololY-at leas� in the sense in which I was trained.In the thirties I became interested in certain psychologicalproblems. and found that they could not be answered or manqed well by the classical scientific structure of the time (thebehavioristic. positivistic. "scientific." value-free. mechanomorphic psychology). I was raising legitimate questions and had toinvent another approach to psychological problems in order todeal with them. This approach slowly became a general philosophy of psychology. of science in general. of religion. work. management. and now biolol). As 8 matter of fact. it became aWtltGJUchauu",;Psychology today is tom and riven. and may in fact be said tobe three (or more) separate. noncommunicating sciences orI This is excerpted from a series of memoranda that weR written durinlMarch and April 1968. at the request of the Director of the Salk In.tituteof BiolOJicaI Studies in the hope that they milht help in the move.awayfrom a value-fRe tec:hnololizinl toward a humanized philosophy of biol-01). In these memoranda I leave aside all the obvious frontier questionsin biolOl) and confine myself to what I think is beinS neatec:ted or overlooked or misinterpRted-all this from my special standpoillt as a paycholoaiit.J
4 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYgroups of scientists. First is the behavioristic. objectivistic. mechanistic. positivistic group. Second is the whole cluster of psychologies that originated in Freud and in psychoanalysis. Andthird there are the humanistic psychologies. or the "ThirdForce" as this group has been called. a coalescence into a singlcphilosophy of various splinter groups in psychology. It is forthis third psychology that I want to speak. 1 interpret this thirdpsychology to include the first and second psychologies. andhave invented the words "epi-behavioristic" and "cpi-Freudian"(epi = upon) to describe it. This also helps to avoid the"Sophomorictwo-valued. dichotomized orientation. for example. of beingeither pro-Freudian or anti-Freudian. I am Freudian and 1 ambehavioristic and I am humanistic. and as a malter of fact1 am developing what might be called a fourth psychology oftranscendence as well.Here 1 speak for myself. Even among the humanistic psychologists. some tend to see themselves as opposrd to behaviorismand psychoanalysis. rather than as including these psychologiesin a larger superordinate structure. I think some of them hoveron the edge of antiscience and even antirational feelings intheir new enthusiasm for "experiencing." However. since 1 believe that experiencing is only the beginning of knowledge(necessary but not sufficient). and since I also believe that theadvancement of knowledge. that is. a much broadened science.is our only ultimate hope. I, had bmrr speak only for myself.It is my personally chosen task to "speculate freely." to theorize. to play hunches. intuitions. and in general to try to extrapolate into the future. This is a kind of deliberate preoccupationwith pioneering. scouting. originating. rather than applying. validating. checking. verifying. Of course it is the latter that is thebackbone of sCience. And yet 1 feel it is a great mistake forscientists to consider themselves mrrr�" and only verifiers.The pioneer. the creator. the explorer is generally a single.lonely person rather than a group. struggling all alone with hisinner conflicts. fears. defenses against arrogance and pride. evenagainst paranoia. He ha$ to be a courageous man. not afraid tostick his neck out. not afraid even to make mistakes. well awarethat he is. as Polanyi (126)2 has stressed. a kind of gambler whocomes to tentative conclusions in the absence of facts and thenspends some years trying to find out if his hunch was correct.If he has any sense at all. he is of course scared of his own ideas.�Numbers in purentheses refer to the Bibliography beginning on p. 393.
Toward a Humanistic Biology Sof his temerity. and is well aware that he is affirming what hecannot prove.It is in this sense that I am presenting personal hunches. intuitions. and affirmations.I think the question of a normative biology cannot be escapedor avoided. even if this calls into question the whole historyand philosophy of sc,ence in the West. I am convinced that thevalue-free. value-neutral. value-avoiding model of science thatwe inherited from physics. chemistry. and astronomy. where itwas necessary and desirable to keep the data clean and alsoto keep the church out of scientific affairs. is quite unsuitablefor the scientific study of life. Even more dramatically isthis value-free philosophy of science unsuitable for humanquestions. where personal values. purposes and goals. intentionsand plans are absolutely crucial for the understanding of anyperson. and even for the classical goals of science. prediction.and control.I know that in the area of evolutionary theory the argumentsabout direction. goals. teleology. vitalism. final causes. and thelike have raged hot and heavy-my own impression. I must say.is that the debate has been muddled--but I must also submitmy impression that discussing these same problems at thehuman psycholoaical level sets fonh the issues more clearlyand in a less Ilvoidable way.-It is still possible to argue back and forth about autogenesis inevolution. or whether pure chance collocations could account forthe direction of evolution. But this luxury is no longer possible- when we deal with human individuals. It is absolutely impossibleto say that a man becomes a good physician by pure chance andit is time we stopped taking any such notion seriously. Formy part. I have turned away from such debates over mechanicaldeterminism without even bothering to get into the argument.The Good Specimen and "Growing-Tip Statistics"I propose for discussion and eventually for research the use ofselected good specimens (superior specimens) as biologicallSSIys for studying the best capability that the human specieshas. To give several examples: For instance. I have discovereain exploratory investiptions that self-actualizing people, that IS,psychologically healthy, psychologically "superior" people arebetter cognizers and perceivers. This may be WUe even at the
6 HEALTH AND PA THOLOGYsensory level itself; for example, it would not surprise me ifthey turned out to be more acute about differentiatinl finehue differences; etc. An uncompleted experiment that I onceorganized may serve as a model for this kind of "biololicalassay" experimentation. My plan had been to test the whole ofeach incoming freshman class at Brandeis University with thebest techniques available at the time-psychiatric interviews,projective tests. performance tests. etc.-and select the healthiest2 per cent of our population. a middle 2 per cent. and the leasthealthy 2 per cent. We planned to have these three groups take abattery of about twelve sensory, perceptive. and cognitive instruments. testing the previous clinical. personological finding thathealthier people are better perceivers of reality. I predictedthese findings would be supported. My plan then was to continuefollowing these people not only through the four years of collegewhere I could tben correlate our initial test ratings with actualperformance. achievement. and success in the various depanments of life in a university. I also thought that it wouldbe possible to set up a longitudinal study carried out by alongitudinally organized research team that would exist beyondour lifetimes. The idea was to seek the ultimate validations ofour notions of health by pursuing the whole group throughtheir entire lifetimes. Some of the questions were obvious.for example. longevity. resistance to psychosomatic ailments.resistance to infection. etc. We also expected that this followup would reveal unpredictable characteristics as well. This studywas in a spirit similar to Lewis Termans when he selected.about forty years ago. children in California with high IQs andthen tested them in many ways. through the succeeding decadesand up to the present time. His general finding was that children chosen because they were superior in intelligence weresuperior in everything else as well. The great generalizationthat he wound up with was that all desirable traits in a humanbeing correlate positively. . What this kind of research design means is a change inour conception of statistics. and especially of sampling theory.What I am frankly espousing here is what I have been calling"growing-tip statistics," taking my title from the fact lhat it isat the growing tip of a plant that the greatest genetic actiontakes place. As the youngsters say, "Thats where the action is."If I ask the question. "Of what are human beings capable?"I put the question to this small and selected superior grouprarher than to the whole of the population. I think that the main
Toward a Humanistic Biology 7reason that hedonistic value theories .and ethical theories havefailed throughout history has been that the philosophers havelocked in pathologically motivated pleasures with healthily motivated pleasures and struck an average of what amounts to indiscriminately sick and healthy. indiscriminately good and badspecimens. good and bad choosers. biologically s.lund and biologically unsound specimens.If we want to answer the question how tall can the humanspecies grow. then obviously it is well to pick out the oneswho are already tallest and study them. If we want to knowhow fast a human being can run, then it is no use to average outthe speed of a "good sample" of the population; it is farbetter to collect Olympic gold medal winners and see how wellthey can do. If we want to know the possibilities for spiritualgrowth. value growth. or moral development in human beings.then I maintain that we can learn most by studying our mostmoral. ethical. or saintly people.On the whole I think it fair to say that human history is arecord of the ways in which human nature has been sold short.The highest possibilities of human nature have practicallyalways been underrated. Even when "good specimens." thesaints and sages and great leaders of history. have been availablefor study. the temptation too often has been to consider themnot human but supernaturally endowed.Humanisti( Biology and the Good Societ),It is now quite clear that the actualization of the highesthuman potentials is possible-on a mass basis-only under "goodconditions." Or more directly. good human beings will generallyneed a good society in which to grow. Contrariwise. I think itshould be clear that a normative philosophy of biology wouldinvolve the theory of the good society. defined in terms of "thatsociety is good which fosters the fullest development of humanpotentials. of the fullest degree of humanness." I think this mayat first sight be a little startling to the classical descriptivebiologist who has learned to avoid such words as "good" and"bad." but a little thought will show that something of thesort is already taken for granted in some of the classical areasof biology. For instance. it is taken for granted that genes canbe called "potentials� that are actualized or not actualized bytheir immediate surroundings in the germ plasm itself. in the
8 HEALTH AND PA THOLOGYcytoplasm. in the organism in general. and in the aeo....phicalenvironment in which the organism finds itself.To cite a single line of experimentation (I I) we can say forWhite rats. monkeys. and human beings that a stimulatinl environment in the early life of the individual has quite specificeffects on the development of the cerebral c:onex in which wewould generally call a desirable direction. Behavioral studiesat Harlows Primate Laboratory come to the same conclusion.Isolated animals suffer the 1051 of various capacities. and beyonda cenain point these losses frequently become irreversible. Atthe Jackson Labs in Bar Harbor. to take another example,it was found that doSS allowed to run loose in the fields andin packs. without human contact. lose the potentiality for becoming domesticated. that is. pets.Finally. if children in India are suWerinl irreversible braindamage through lack of proteins in their dietary. as is now beilllreported. and if it is agreed that the political system of India.its history. its economics. and its culture are all involved in p�ducing this scarcity. then it is clear that human specimens needgood societies to permit them to actualize themselves as goodspecimens.Is it conceivable that a philosophy of biology could develop insocial isolation. that it could be politically entirely neutral. thatit need not be Utopian or Eupsychian 01 reformist or revolutionary! I do not mean that the task of the biololist needgo over into social action. I think this is a matter of personaltaste and I know some biologists will. out of their anser at seeinltheir knowledge unused. go over into political effectuation oftheir discoveries. But quite apan from this. my immediateproposal for biologists is that they recolnize that once theyhave swallowed the normati� approach to the human species, orany other species. that is. once they have ac:c:epted as their obligation the development of the good specimen. then it becomesequally their scientific obligation to study all those conditionsthat conduce to the development of the good specimen. and tothose conditions that inhibit such development. Obviously. thitmeans emergence from the laboratory and into society.1hr Good Specimrn tlS Ihe ChooRfor the Whole SpeciesIt has been my experience through a lonl line of exploratoryinvestigations goins back to the thinies that the healthiest peG-
TowardII HlIInIlItI.ftk BIology ,pie (or the most c�tive. or the strongest. or the wisest. orthe aiintlieat) can be used a bioloSical assays. or perhaps Icould say. as advance scout.. or more sensitive perceivers. totell us lea .enaitive ones whaf it is that we value. What Inlean is somethins like this: It is easy enoush to select out.for instance. persons who are aesthetically sensitive to colorsand forms and then learn to submit ourselves or to defer totheir judament about colors. forms. fabrics. furniture. and thelike. My experience is that if I set out of the way and do notintrude -upon the superior perceivers. I can confidently predictthat what they like immediately. I will slowly set to like in perhaps a month or two. It is as if they were I. only more sensitized.or as if they were I. with less doubt. confusion. and uncertainty. I can use them, 10 to speak, as my experts. just as artcollectors will hire art experts to help them with their buying.(This belief is supported by the work of Child (22). which shoWithat experienced and expert artists have similar lUtes. evencrOSKulturally.) I hypothesize also that such sensitives are lesasusceptible to fads and falhions than averase people are.Now in this .me way I have found that if I select psycholo&ically healthy humans what they lib is what human beinaswill come to like. Aristotle is pertinent here: "What the superiorman thinks is lood, that is what is mlll) goOd."For instance. it is empirically characteristic of self-actualizinlpeople that they have far leas doubt about riSht and wronathan averase people do. They do not set confused just because95 per cent of the population diaasrces with them. And I maymention that .t least in the sroup I studied they tended toqree about what was risht and wrons, as if they were perceivina somethina real and extrahuman rather than comparinllUtes that miaht be relative to the individual person. In a word,I have used them as value ....yen. or perhaps I should bettersay that I have learned from them what ultimate values probably are. Or to say it in another way, I have learned that whatJICIt human beinp value are what, I will eventually qreewith, what I will come to value. and I will come to see as worthyof, as valuable in lOme extrapenonal sense, and what "data"wiD eventually IUpport.My theory of metamotivatioD (Chapter 23) ultimately restsupon this operation, namely. of takina superior people who arealso superior perceivell not only of facts but of v.luCl. andthen usins thei� choices of ultimate values as possibly the ultimate values for the wbole species.
10 HEALTH AND PA THOLOGYI am being almost deliberately provocative here. I couldphrase it. if I wished. in a far more innocent fashion simply byasking the question. "Supposing you select our psychologicallyhealthy individuals. what will they prefer? What will motivatethem? What will they struggle or strive for? What will theyvalue?" But I do think it best to be unmistakable here. I amdeliberately raising the normative and the value questions forbiologists (and for psychologists and social scientists).Perhaps it will help to s� these same things from anotherangle. If. as I think has been demonstrated sufficiently. thehuman being is a choosing. deciding. seeking animal. then thequestion of making choices and decisions must inevitably be involved in any effort to define the human species. But makingchoices and decisions is a matter of degree. a matter of wisdom.effectiveness. and efficiency. The questions then come up: Whois the good chooser? Where does. he come from? What kind oflife history does he have? Can we teach this skill! What hunsit? What helps it?These are. of course. simply new ways of asking the oldphilosophical questions. "Who is a sage? What is a sage?"And beyond that of raising the old axiological questions. "Whatis good? What is desirable? What should be desired!"I must reassen that we have come to the point in biologicalhistory where we· now are responsible for our own evolution. Wehave become self-evolvers. Evolution means selecting and therefore choosing and deciding. and this means valuing.The Mind-Body CorrelationIt seems to me that we are on the edge of a new leap intocorrelating our subjective lives with external objective indicators. I expect a tremendous leap forward in the study of the nervous system because of these new indications.Two examples will be sufficient to justify this preparation forfuture research. One study by Olds (122). by now very widelyknown. discovered by means of implanted electrodes in theseptal area of the rhinencephalon that this was in effect a"pleasure center." When the white rat was hooked up in such afashion as to be able to stimulate his own brain via these implanted electrodes. he repeated again and again the self-stimulation as long as the electrodes were implanted in this particularpleasure center. Needless to say. displeasure or pain areas were
Toward a HurruznLstlc Bl%gy IIalso discovered. and then the animal. given a chance to stimulate himself. refused to do so. Stimulation of this pleasure centerwas apparently so "valuable" (or desirable or reinforcing orrewarding or pleasurable or wha,tever other word we use todescribe the situation) for the animal that he would give upany other known external pleasure. food. sex-anything. We nowhave sufficient parallel human data to be able to suess for thehuman beinS that there are. in the subjective sense of the word.pleasure experiences that can be produced in this fashion. Thiskind of work is only in its beginning stages. but already somedifferentiation has been made between different "centers" ofthis sort, centers for sleep. food satiation. sexual stimulation.and sexual satiation. etc.If we intesrate this kind of experimentation with another kind.for instance that of Kamiya. then new possibilities open up.Kamiya (S8). workins with EEG and operant conditionins. pvethe subject a visible feedback when the alpha wave frequencyin his own EEG reached a certain point. In this way. by permittins human subjects to correlate an external event or sisnaland a subjectively felt state of affairs. it was possible forKamiyas subjects to establish voluntary control over their ownEEGs. That is. he demonstrated that it was possible for a person to bring his own alpha wave frequency to a particular desired level.What is seminal and exciting about this research is thatKamiya discovered quite fortuitously that brinsins the alphawav� to a particular level could produce in the subject a stateof serenity. meditativeness. even happiness. Some follow-upstudies with people who have learned the Eastern techniques ofcontemplation and meditation show that they spontaneouslyemit EEGs that are like the "serene" ones into which Kamiyawas able to educate his subjects. This is to say that it is alreadypossible to teach people how to feel happy and serene. Therevolutionary consequences. not only for human betterment. butalso for bioloSical and psychological theory� are multitudinousand obvious. There are enough research projects here to keepsquadrons of scientists busy for the next century. The mindbody problem. until now considered insoluble. does appear tobe a workable problem after aU..Such data are crucial for the problem of a nonnative biolol).Apparently it is .now possible to say that the healthy orpnismitself gives clear and loud siSruils about what it. the orianism.prefers or chooses. or considers to be desirable states of affairs.
12 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYIs it too big a jump to call these "values"? Biologically intrinsicvalues? Instinct-like values? If we make the descriptive statement. "The laboratory rat. given a choice between pressing twoauto-stimulus-producing buttons. presses the pleasure centerbutton p�ctically 100 per cent of the time in preference to anyother stimulus-producing or self-stimulus-producing button." isthis different in any important way from saying. "The rat prefersself-stimulation of his pleasure center"?I must say that it makes little difference to me whether I usethe word "values" or not. It is certainly possible to describeeverything I have described without ever using this word. Perhaps as a matter of. scientific strategy. or at least the strategy ofcommunication between scientists and the general public. itmight be more diplomatic if we itOI confuse the issue by speaking of values. It does not really matter. I suppose. However. whatdoes matter is that we take quite seriously these new developments in the psychology and biology of choices. preferences.reinforcements. rewards. etc.I should point out also that we will have to face the dilemmaof a certain circularity that is built into this kind of researchand theorizing. It is most clear with human beings. but myguess is that it will also be a problem with other animals. It is thecircularity that is implied in saying that "the good specimen orthe healthy animal chooses or prefers such and such." How shallwe handle the fact that sadists. perverts. masochists. homosexuals. neurotics. psychotics. suicidals make different choicesthan do "healthy human beings"? Is it fair to parallel thisdilemma with that of adrenalectomized animals in the laboratory making different choices from so-called "normal" animals?I should make it clear that I do not consider this an insolubleproblem. merely one that has to be faced and handled. ratherthan avoided and overlooked. It is quite easy with the humansubject to select "healthy" persons by psychiatric and psychological testing techniques and Ihm to point out that people whomake such and such a score. let us say in the Rorschach test. orin an intelligence test. are the same people who will be goodchoosers in cafeteria (food) experiments. The selection criterionthen is quite different froin the behavior criterion. It is alsoquite possible. and as a matter of fact in my own opinion quiteprobable. that we are within sight of the possibility of demonstrating by neurological self-stimulation that the so-called"pleasures" of perversion or murder or sadism or fetishism are
Toward Q Humanistic Biology 13nat "pleasures" in the same sense that is indicated in theOlds or Kamiya experiments. Certainly this is what we alread)know from our subjective psychiatric techniques. Any experienced psychotherapist learns sooner or later that underlyingthe neurotic "pleasures" 9r perversions is actually a great dealof anguish. pain. and fear. Within the subjective realm itself.we know this from people who have experienced both unhealthyand healthy pleasures. They practically always report preference for the latter and learn to shudder at the fonner. ColinWilson (161) has demonstrated clearly that sexual criminals havewry feeble sexual reactions. not strong ones. Kirkendall (61 )also shows the subjective superiority of loving sex over unlovingsex.I am now working with one set of implications that are generated by a humanistic-psychological point of vIew of the sort Ihave sketched out above. It may serve to show the radical.consequences and implications for a humanistic philosophy ofbiology. It is certainly fair to say that these data are on theside of self-regulation. self-govemQ1ent. self-choice of the organism. The organism has more tendency toward choosinghealth. growth. biological success than we would have thoughta century ago. This is in general anti:authoritarian. anticontrolling. For me it brings back into serious focus the whole Taoisticpoint of view. not only as expressed in contemporary ecologicaland ethological studies. where we have learned not to intrudeand to control. but for the human being it also means trustingmore the childs own impulses toward gwwth and self-actualization. This means a areater stress on spontaneity and on autonomy rather than on prediction and external control. To paraphrase a main thesis from my Psycholog) of Scien� (8 1 ):In the lisht of such facts. can we seriouslycontinue to definethe goals of science as prediction and control? Almost onecould say the exact opposite-at any rate. for human bein...Do we ounelves want to be predicted and predictable? Con-. trolled and controllable? I wont go so far as to say that thequestion of free will must necessarily be involved here in itaold and classical philosophical form. But I will sa) that questions come up here and clamor for treatment which do havesomething to do with the subjective feeling of being freerather than determined. of choosing for oneself rather thanbeina, externally controlled. etc. In any case. I can certainlysay that descriptively healthy human beings do not like to becontrolled. They prefer to feel free and to be free.
J4 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYAnother very general "atmospheric" consequence of thiswhole way of thinkins is that it must inevitably transform theimase of the scientist. not only in his own eyes but in the eyes ofthe Jeneral population. There are already data (115) which indicate that. for instance. high school girls think of scientists asmonsters and horrors. and are afraid of them. They do not thinkof them as good potential husbands. for instance. I must expressmy own opinion that this is not merely a consequence of Hollywood "Mad Scientist" movies; there is something real and justified in this picture. even if it is terribly exaggerated. The factis that the classical conception of science is the man who controls. the man who is in charge. the man who does things topeople. to animals. or to thinss. He is the master of what he surveys. This picture is ev!:n more clear in surveys of the "imaleof the physician.1t He is generally seen at the semiconscious orunconscious level as a master. a controller. a cutter. a dealerout of pain. etc. He is definitely the boss. the authority. theexpert. the one who takes charge and tells people what to do. Ithink this "image" is now worst of all for psychololists; collesestudents now consider them to be. very frequently. manipulators,liars. concealers. and controllers.What if the organism is seen as having "biological wisdom"?If we learn to give it greater trust as autonomous. self-governinl. and self-chooSinl. then clearly we as scientists. not to mention physicians. teachers. or even parents. must shift our imageover to a more Taoistic one. This is the one word that I canthink of that summarizes succinctly the many elements of theimale of the more humanistic scientist� Taoistic means askinlrather than telling. It means nonintruding. noncontrollins. Itstresses noninterfering obserVation rather than a controllingmanipulation. It is receptive and passive rather than active andforceful. It is like saying that if you want to learn aboutducks. then you had better ask the ducks instead of tellins them.So also for human children. In prescribinl "what is best forthem" it looks as if the best technique for finding out what isbest for them is to develop techniques for letting them to teUus what is best for them.In point of fact. we already have such a model in the loadpsychotherapist. This is about the way he functions. Hisconscious effort is not to impose his will upon the patient,but rather to help the patient-inarticulate. unconscious. semiconscious-to discover what is inside him. the patient. Thepsychotherapist helps him to discover what he himself wanta
Toward a Hunumlstic Biology ISor desires. what is good for him. the patient. rather than whatis lood for the therapist. This is the opposite of controlling.propagandizing. molding. teaching in the old sense. It definitelyrests upon the implications and assumptions that I have alreadymentioned. although I must say that they are very rarely made.for example. such implications as trust in the health-movingdirection of most individuals. of expecting them to prefer healthto illness; of believing that a state of subjective well-being is apretty good, guide to what is "best for the person." This attitudeimplies a preference for spontaneity rather than for control.for trust in the organism rather than mistrust. It assumes thatthe penon wants to be fully human rather than that he wants to,be sick. pained. or dead. Where we do find. as psychotherapists.death wishes. masochistic wishes. self-defeating behavior. selfinfliction of pain. we have learned to assume that this is "sick"in the sense that the person himself. if he ever experiencesanother healthier state of affairs. would far rather have thathealthier state of affairs than his pain. As a matter of fact.some of us go so far as to consider masochism. suicidal im..pulses. self-punishment. and the like as stupid. ineffective.clumsy gropings toward health.Something very similar is true for the new model of theTaoistic teacher. the Taoistic parent, the Taoistic friend. theTaoistic lover. and finally the more Taoistic scientist.Taoistic Objectivity and Classical Objectivity3The classical conception of objectivity came from the earliestdays of scientific dealing with things and objects, with lifelessobjects of study. We were objective when our own wishes andfears and hopes were excluded from the observation. and whenthe purported wishes and designs of a supernatural god werealso excluded. This of course was a great step forward and mademodern science possible. We must. however, not overlook thefact that this was true for dealing with nonhuman objects orthings. Here this kind of objectivity and detachment works prettywell. It even works well with lower organisms. Here too we aredetached enough, noninvolved enough so that we can be rela-• For a fuller treatment of this topic see 1hI Psychology of Sci�na: A#WcoMllwana (8 1).
16 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYlively noninterferinl IpectatOR. It does not millI" to us to anysrcat delfee which way an amoeba loes or what a hydra prcfehto insest. This detachment -sets more and more difftcult as we10 on up the phyletic acale. We know vel) well how easy it is toanthropomorphize, to project into the animal the observer1human wishes, fean, hopes, prejudices if we are dealina withdOli or cats. and more easily with monkeys or apes. When weset to the Itudy of the human bein... we can now take it forIlInted that it is practically impossible to be the cool, calm,detached. uninvolved. noninterferinl lpectator. PsycholOlicaldata have piled up to such a point that no one could conceivablydefend this position.Any social scientist who il at all sophisticated knows that hemust examine his own prejudices and preconceptions Mlo,", ping in to work with any society or a subcultural aroup. This is oneway of lettina around prejudaments-to know about them inadvance.But I propose that there il another path to objectivity, that is.in the sense of greater penpicuity, of areater accuracy of perception of the reality out there outside ounelves. outside theobserver. It comes originally from the observation that lovinaperception. whether as between sweethearts or as between parents and children. produced kinds of. knowledge that wert notavailable to nonlovers. Somethinl of the sort seems to me to betrue for the ethological literature. My work with monkeys. I amsure, is more "true," more "aCcurate," in a certain llense, moreobj��I;wl) true than it would have been if I had disliked monkeys. The fact was that I was fascinated with them. I became fondof my individual monkeys in a way that was not pouible withmy rats. I believe that the kind of work reported by Lorenz. Tinbergen, Oooddall, and Schaller is as good as it is, as inltructive,illuminating, true, becaulle thelle investipton "loved" theanimals they were invcstiptinl. At the very least this kind oflove produces interest and even fascination. and therefore greatpatience with lonl hours of obllervation. The mother, fascinatedwith her baby, who examines every square inch of it apin andagain with the greatest absorption, is certainly loin, to knowmore about her baby in the most literai llense than someone whois not interested in that particular baby. Somethina of the sort.I have found, is true between sweethearts. They are so fascinatcd with each other that examininl. looking. listening, and exploring becomes itself a fascinatina activity upon which they can
TowQrd Q HumQnistic Biology 11lpend endless hours. With a nonloved person this would hardlybe the case. Boredom would set in too rapidly.But "love knowledge," if I may call it that, has other advantages as well. Love for a person permits him to unfold, toopen up, to drop his defenses, to let himself be naked not onlyphysically but psychologically and spiritually as well. In a word.he lets himself be seen instead of hiding himself. In ordinaryinterpersonal relations, wt are to some extent inscrutable toeach other. In the love relationships, we become "scrutable."But finally, and perhaps most important of all, if we love orIre fascinated or are profoundly interested, we are less temptedto interfere, to control, to change, to improve. My finding is that.that which you love, you are.prepared to leave alone. In the extreme instance of romantic love, and of grandparental love, thebeloved person may even be seen as already perfect so that anykind of change, let alone improvement, is regarded as impossibleor even impious.In other words, we are content to leave it alone. We make nodemands upon it. We do not wish it to be other than it is. We canbe paasive and receptive before it. Which is all to say that we canICC it more truly as it is in its own nature rather than as we wouldlike it to be or fear it to be or hope it will be. Approving of itsexistence, approving of the way it is. as it is, permits us to benonintrusive. nonmanipulating, nonabstracting, noninterferingpen:eivers. To the utent that it is possible for us to be nonintrusive. nondemanding. nonhoping, nonimproving, to thatextent do we achieve this particular kind of objectivity.This ii, I maintain, a method, a particular path to certainkinds of truth, which arc better lpproac,fted and achieved by thispath. I do not maintain thlt it is the only path, or that all truthsIre obtainable in this way. We know very well from this verysame kind of situation that it is also possible via love. interest.fascination. absorption. to distort certain othtr truths about theobject. I would maintain only that in the full armamentarium ofscientific methods, that lov.� knowledge or "Taoistic objectivity"has its particular advantages in particullr situations for p.rticular purposes. If we are realistically aware that love for theobject of study produces certain kinds of blindness as well alcertain kinds of perspicuity. then we are sufficiently forewarned.I would go as far as to say this even about "love for the problem." 011 the one hand it is obvious that you have to be fascinated with schizophrenia or at least interested in it to be able to
/8 HEALTH A ND PATHOLOGYstick at it and to be able to learn about it and to do research withit. On the other hand we know also that the person who becomestotally fascinated with the problem of schizophrenia tends todevelop a certain imbalance with reference to other problema.The Problem oj Big ProblemsI use here the title of a section in the excellent book by AlvinWeinberg (152). Reflections on Big Science. a book which implies many of the points that I would prefer to make explicit.Using his terminology I can state in a more dramatic form thepurport of my memorandum. What I am suggesting is Manhattan-Project-type attacks upon what I consider to be the trulyBig Problems4 of our time. not only for psychology but for allhuman beings with any sense of historical urgency (a criterion ofthe "importance" of a research that I would now add to theclassical criteria).The first and overarching Big Problem is to make the GoodPerson. We must have better human . beings or else it is quitepossible that we may all be wiped out. and even if not wiped out.certainly live in tension and anxiety as a species. A sine qua n01lprerequisite here is of course defining the Good Person. and Ihave made various statements about this throughout thesememoranda. I cannot stress enough that we already have somebeginning data. some indicators. perhaps as many as were available for the Manhattan Project people. I myself feel confidentthat the great crash program would be feasible. and I am surethat I could list a hundr09. or two hundred. or two thousand partproblems or subsidiary problems. certainly enough to keep ahuge number of people busy. This Good Person can equally becalled the self-evolving person. the responsible-for-himself-andhis-own-evolution person. the fully illuminated or awakened orperspicuous man. the fully human person. the self-actualizingperson. etc. In any case it is quite clear that no social reforms.no beautiful constitutions or beautiful programs or laws will beof any consequence unless people are healthy enough. evolvedenough. strong enough. good enough to understand them andto want to put them into practice in the right way.The equally Big Problem as urgent as the one I have alreadymentioned is to make the Good Society. There is a !rind of a4 I keep Weinbergs meaningful way of capitalizinl.
Toward a Humanistic Biology 19feedback between the Good Society and the Good Person. Theyneed each other, they are sine qua non to each other. I waveaside the problem of which comes first. It is quite clear thatthey develop simultaneously and in tandem. It would in any casebe impossible to achieve either one without the other. By GoodSociety I mean ultimately one species, one world. We also havebeginning information (83. see also Chapter 14) on the possibility of autonomously societal. that is. nonpsychological arrangements. To clarify. it is now clear that wi-th the goodness of theperson held constant, it is possible to make social arrangementsthat will force these people into either evil behavior or into goodbehavior. The main point is that social institutional arrange�ments must be taken as different from intrapsychic health, andthat to some extent the goodness or badness of a person dependsupon the social institutions and arrangements in which he findshimself.The key notion of social synergy is that in some primitive cultures. and within the large, industrial cultures, there are somesocial trends that transcend the dichotomy between selfishnessand unselfishness. That is, there are some social arrangementsthat set people against each other necessarily; there are othersocial arrangements in which a person seeking his own selfishgood necessarily helps other people whether he wishes to or not.Contrariwise, the person seeking to be altruistic and to help .other people must then. necessarily reap selfish benefits. A singleexample of this would be, for instance, the economic measureslike our income tax that siphons off benefits for the generalpopulation from any single persons good fortune. This is by contrast with sales taxes that take away proportionately more frompoor people than they do from rich people and have. instead of asiphoning effect. what Ruth Benedict called a funneling effect.I must stress as solemnly and seriously as I can that these arethe ultimate Big Problems. coming before any other ones. Mostof the technological goods and advances that Weinberg speaksabout in his book, and that other people have spoken about,can be considered essentially means to these ends and not endsin themselves. This means that unless we put our technologicaland biological improvements in the hands of good men, thenthese improvements are either useless or dangerous. And I include here even the conquest of disease. the increase of longevity. the subduing of pain and of sorrow and of suffering ingeneral. The point is: Who wants to make the evil man livelonger? Or be more powerful? An obvious example here is the
20 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYuse of atomic energy and the race to achieve its military UIIbefore the Nazis did. Atomic enerlY in the hands of a Hitlerand there are many in charge of nations today-is certainly noblessing. It is . a sreat danser. The same is true for Qny othertechnolosical improvements. One can always alk the criterionquestion:, Would this be good for a Hitler or bad for a Hitler?A by-product of our technological advance is that it is quitepossible and even probable that evil men are mor� danseroua.more a threat today than they ever have been before in humanhistory simply because of the powers siven to them by advanced1echnolosr. It is quite probable that a totally ruthless manbacked up by a ruthless society could not be beaten. I think thatif Hitler had won, that rebellions would not have been pollible.that in fact his Reich might have lasted a thousand yean ormore.Therefore I would urge all biologists. as I would Ul1e all otherpeople of goodwill, to put their talents into the service of lbaetwo Big Problems.The above considerations have stronsly supponed my fcelinathat the classical philosophy of science as morally neutral, valuefree, value neutral is not only wrons, but is extremely dangerousas well. It is not only amoral; it may be antimoral as well. It mayput us into great jeopardy. Therefore I wpuld stress again thatscience itself comes out of human beings and human passiouand interests, as Polanyi (126) has so brilliantly set fonh. Scienceitself must be a code of ethics as Bronowski (16) has so c0nvincingly shown, since if one grants the intrinsic wonh of truth,then all sons of consequences ar.e senerated by placing oWselves in the service of this one intrinsic value. I would add as athird point that science can seek valUes, and I can uncover themwithin human nature itself. As a matter offact, I would claim ithas already done so, at least to a level that would make thisstatement plausible, even though not adequately and finallyproven. Techniques are now available for finding out what iIgood for the human species, that is, what the inirinsic values ofhuman beings are. Several different operations have been usedto indicate what these built-in values in human nature are. Thilis, I reiterate, both in the sense of survival values and also in thesense of growth values, that is, what makes man healthier, wiler.more vinuous. happier. more fulfilled.This sugests what I might alternatively call strategies offuture research for biologists. One is that there is a syneraic
TowtUd II HumtI1Iutlc Biology 21feedback between tbe pursuit of mental health and physical.health. Most psychiatrists and many psychologist. and biologistsnow have come simply to assume that practically aU diseases.and perhaps even all diseases without exception, can be calledpsychosomatic or organismic. That is. if one pursues any"physical" illness far enough and deep enough, one will findinevitably intrapsychic. intrapersonaJ, and socia] variables thatare also involved as determinants. This definitely is not toetherealize tuben:ulosis or broken bones. It simply means that inthe Itudy of tuben:ulosis one finds that poverty is also a factor.As far as broken bones are concerned, once Dunbar (30) usedfracture c:aacs as a control group, assuming that h�Tt certainlyno psychological factors could be involved, but found to heramazement that they were indeed involved. And we arc now asa consequellce very sophisticated about the accident-prone personality, as well as-if I may call it so-the "accident-fosteringenvironment." Which is to say that even a broken bone is psychosomatic and "sociosomatic," if I may coin that term as well. Thisis all to say that even the classical biologist or physician or medical researcher. seeking to relieve human pain. suffering, illness,is well advised to be more holistic than he has been of thepsychological and social determinants for the illnesses that hehas been studying. For instance. there are already enough datatoclay to indicate that a fruitful broad spectrum attack uponcancer should also include so-called "psychosomatic factors."To say this in another way. the indications are (this is mostlyextrapolation rather than hard data) that making the Good Persons. increasing psychological health, through, for example.psychiatric therapies, can probably alsq increase bis longevityand reduce his susceptibility to disease.Not only may lower-need deprivations produce illnesses thatmust be called in the classical sense "deficiency diseases." butthis seems also to be true for what I have called the fMlaptllhologirs in Chapter 23, that is, for what have been called .hespiritual or philosophical or existential ailments. These too mayhave to be called deficiency diseases.To summarize briefty. the loss of the basic-nced satisfactionsof safety and protection, belongingness. love. respect. selfesteem. identity. and self-actualization produces illnesses anddeficiency diseases. Taken together. these can be called theneuroses and psychoses. However. basically nced-satisfied andalready self-ectualizing people with such metamotivCl as truth.
22 HEALTH AND PA THOLOGYgoodness, beauty, justice, order, law, unity, etc., may sufterdeprivation at the metamotivational level. Lack of metamotivegratifications, or of these values, produces what I have describedas general and specific metapathologies. I would maintain theseare deficiency diseases on the same continuum with scurvy, pellagra, love-hunger, etc. I should add here that the classical wayof demonstrating a body need, as for vitamins. minerals. basicamino acids, etc., has been first a confrontation with a diseaseof unknown cause, and h�n a search for this cause. That is tosay, something is considered to be a need if its deprivation produces disease. It is in exactly this same sense that I would maintain that the basic needs and metaneeds that I have describedare also in the strictest sense biological needs: that is. theirdeprivation produces disease or illness. It is for this reason thatI have used the invented term "instinctoid" to indicate my firmbelief that these data have already proven sufficiently that theseneeds are related to the fundamental structure of the humanorganism itself, that there is som� genetic basis that is involved,however weak this may be. It also leads me to be very confidentof the discovery one day of biochemical, neurological. endocrinological substrates or body machinery that will explain at thebiological level these needs and these illnesses (see Appendix D).Predicting the FutureIn the last few years there has been a rash of conferences,books, symposia. not to mention newspaper articles and Sundaymagazine sections, about what the world will be like in the year 2000 or in the next century. I have glinced through thi!: "literature," if one could call it that, and have generally been morealarmed than instructed by it. A good 9S per cent of it dealsentirely with purely technological changes. leaving asidecompletely the question of good and bad. right and wrong. Sometimes the whole enterprise seems almost entirely amoral.There is much talk about new machines. prosthetic organs. newkinds of automobiles or trains or planes-in effect. bigger andbetter refrigerators and washing machines. Sometimes. ofcourse, this literature frightens me as well when there is casualtalk about the increased capacity for mass destruction. even tothe possibility that the whole human species might be wiped out.lt is itself a sign of blindness to the real problems that Ireinvolved. that practically all of the people who get involved in
Toward a Humanistic Biology 1.3these conferences are nonpersonal scientists. A huge proportionare physicists and chemists and geologists, and of the biologistsa large proportion are of the molecular biology type, that is, not10 much the descriptive but rather the reductive type of biological worker. The psycholosists and sociologists who occasionallyare chosen to speak on this problem are characteristically technologists, "experts" committed to a value-free eonception ofscience.In any case, it is quite clear that the questions of "improving"a� very much a question of the improvement of means withoutregard to ends. and without regard to the clear truths that morepowerful weapons in the hands of stupid or evil people simplymake for more powerful stupidity or for more powerful evil.That is. these technological "improvements" may be in fact dangerous rather than helpful.Another way of expressing my uneasiness is to point out thatmuch of this talk about the year 2000 is at a merely materiallevel. for example, of industrialization. modernization, increasing affluence, greater possession of more things. of increasingthe capacity to produce food perhaps by farming the seas, orhow to handle the population explosion by makin. more efficient cities. etc.Or still another way of characterizing the sophomoric natureof much of the prediction talk is this: Large portions of it aresimply helpless extrapolations from what exists today, simpleprojections of the curves onward from where we are. At thepreent rate of population .rowth, it is said in the year 2000there will be so many more people; at the present rate of thearowth of the cities, there will be such and such an urban situation in the year 2000, etc. It is as if we were helpless to master orto plan our own future-as if we could not reverse present trendswhen we disapproved of them. For instance. I would maintainthat plannin. for the future ought to decreftse present worldpopUlation. There II no reason in the world, or at least nobiololical reason. why this couid not be done if mankind wishedto do it� The same would be true for the structares of the cities.the structure of automobiles. or of air travel, etc. I suspect thatthis kind of prediction from what is the case today is itself aby-product aenerated by the value-free, purely descriptive conception of science.
2Neurosis as a Failure of Personal GrowthRather than trying to be comprehensive. I have chosen todiscuss only a few selected aspects of this topic. partly becauseI have been working with them. partly also because I think theyare especially important, bllt mostly because they have beenoverlooked.The frame of reference taken for granted today considers theneurosis to be, from one aspect. a describable. patholoaicalatate of affairs which presently exists. a kind of disease or sickness or illness. on the medical model. But we have learned tosee it also in a dialectical fashion. as simultaneously a kind ofmoving forward. a clumsy groping forward toward health andtoward fullest humanness. in a kind of timid and weak way.under the aeais of fear rather than of courlae. and now involvina the fut!lre as well as the pr:esent.All the evidence that we have (mostly clinical evidence. butalready some other kinds of research evidence) indicates thatit is reasonable to assume in practically every human being.and certainly in almost every newborn baby. that there is anactive will toward health. an impulse toward growth. or towardthe actualization of human potentialities. But at once we areconfronted with the very saddenina realization that so fewpeople make it. Only a small proportion of the human population gets to the point of identity. or of selfhood. full humanness.24
Nturosis as a Failurr of Personal Growth 25self-actualization, etc., even in a suciety like ours which isrelatively one of the most fortunate on the face of the earth.This is our great paradox. We have the impulse toward full development of humanness. Then why is it that it doesnt happenmore often? What blocks it?This is our new way of approaching the problem of humanness, i.e., with an appreciation of its high " possibilities and,simultaneously, a deep disappointment that these possibilitiesare so infrequently actualized. This attitude contrasts with the"realistio" acceptance of whatever happens to be the case, andthen of regarding that as the norm, as, for instance, K.insey did,and as the television pollsters do today. We tend then to getinto the situation in which normalcy from the descriptive pointof view, from the value-free science point of view-that thisnormalcy or averageness is the best we can expect, and thattherefore we should be content with it. From the point of viewthat I have outlined. normalcy would be rather the kind of sickness or crippling or stunting that we share with everybody elseand therefore dont notice. I remember an old textbook ofabnormal psychology that I used when I wa� an undergraduate,which was an awful book, but which had a wonderful frontispiece. The lower half was a picture of a line of babies. pink,sweet. delightful, innocent, lovable. Above that was a picture ofa lot of passengers in "a subway train, glum, gray, sullen, sour.The caption underneath was very simply, "What happened?"This is what Im talking about.I should mention also that part of what I have been doingand what I want to do here now comes under the head of thestrategy and tactics of research and of preparation for researchand of trying to phrase all of these clinical experiences andpersonal subjective experiences in such a way that we can learnmore about them in a scientific way, that is, checking and testing and making more precise, and seeing if its really so, andwere the intuitions correct, etc. , etc. For this purpose and alsofor those interested in the philosophical problems I would liketo present briefly a few theoretical points which are relevantfor what follows. This is the age-Old problem of the relationshipbetween facts and valUes, between is and ought. between thedescriptive and the normative-a terrible problem for the philosophers who have dealt with it ever since there were any philosophers, and who havent got very far with it yet. Id like tooffer some considerations which have helped me with this old
26 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYphilosophical difficulty. a third horn to the dilemma. you mightsay.Fusion- WordsWhat I have in mind here is the general conclusion whichcomes partly from the Gestalt psychologists and partly fromclinical and psychotherapeutic experience. namely. that, in akind of a Socratic fashion. facts often point in a direction. i.e.,they are vectorial. Facts just dont lie there like pancakes, justdoing nothing; they are to a certain extent signposts which tellyou what to do, which make suggestions to you, which nudgeyou in one direction rather than another. They "call for," theyhave- demand character, they even have "requiredness," asK6hler called it (62). I get the feeling very frequently thatwhenever we get to know enough, that then we know what todo, or we know much better what to do; that sufficient knowledge will often solve the problem, that it will often help us atour moral and ethical choice-points, when we must decidewhether to do this or to do that. For instance, it is our commonexperience in therapy, that as people "know" more and moreconsciously, their .solutions. their choices become more andmore easy, more and more automatic..I am suggesting that there are facts and words which themselves are both normative and descriptive simultaneously. Iam calling them for the moment "fusion-words," meaning afusion of facts and values. and what I have to say beyond thisshould be understood as part of this effort to solve the "is" and"ought" problem.I myself have advanced, as I think we all have in this kind ofwork, from talking in the beginning in a frankly normativeway, for example, asking the questions-what is normal, what ishealthy? My former philosophy professor, who still feels fatherly toward me in a very nice way, and to whom I still feel filial.has occasionally written me a worried letter scolding me gentlyfor the cavalier way in which I was handling these old philosophical problems, saying something like. "Dont you realizewhat you have done here? There are tWO thousand years ofthought behind this problem and you just go skating over thisthin ice so easily and casually." And I remember that I wroteback once trying to explain myself, saying that this sort of thingis really the way a scientist functions, and that this is part of his
Neurosis as a Failure o/.Persona/ Growth 27strategy of research. i.e.• toskate past philosophical difficultiesas fast as he can. I remember writing to him once that my attitude as a strategist in the advancement of knowledge had to beone. so far as philosophical problems were concerned. of "determined niivet�." And I think thats what we have here. I feltthat it was heuristic. and therefore all right. to talk about normal and healthy and what was good and what was bad. andfrequently getting very arbitrary about it. ) did one research inwhich there were good paintings. and bad paintings. and with aperfectly straight face ) put in the footnote. "Good paintingsare defined here as paintings that ) like." The thing is. if ) canskip to my conclusion. that this turns out to be not so bad astrategy. In studying healthy people. self-actualizing people.etc. • there has been a steady move from the openly normativeand the frankly personal. step by step. toward more and moredescriptive. objective words. to the point where there is today astandardized test of self-actualization ( 1 37). Self-actualizationcan now be defined quite operationally. as intelligence used tobe defined. i.e.. self-actualization is what that test tests. Itcorrelates well with external variables of various kinds. andkeeps on accumulating additional correlational meanings. As aresult. ) feel heuristically justified in starting with my "determined naivetE." Most of what ) was able to see intuitively. directly. personally. is being confirmed now with numbers andtables and curves.Full HumannessAnd now ) would like to suggest a further step toward thefusion-word "fully human." a concept which is still more descriptive and objective (than the concept "self-actualization")and yet retains everything that we need of normativeness. Thisis in the hope of moving thus from intuitive heuristic beginnings toward more and more · certainty. greater and greaterreliability. more and more external validation. which in turnmeans more and more scientific and theoretical usefulness ofthis concept. This phrasing and this way of thinking was suggested to me about fifteen ot so years ago by the axiologicalwritings of Robert Hartman (43). who defined "sood" as thedegree to which an object fulfills its definition or concept. Thissuggested to me that the conception of humanness might bemade. for research purposes. into a kind of quantitative con-
28 HEALTH AND PATHOLOG Ycept. For instance. fuIl humanness can be defined in a cataloguing fashion. i.e.• full humanness is the ability to abstract. tohave a grammatical language. to be able to love. to have valuesof a particular kind. to transcend the self. etc.. etc. The complete cataloguing definition could even be made into a kind ofchecklist if we wanted to. We might shudder a little at thisthought. but it could be very useful if only to make the theoretical point for the researching scientist that the concept ("anbe descriptive and quantitative-and yet also normative. i.e. • thisperson is closer to fuIl humanness than that person. Or even wecould say: This person is more human than that one. This is afusion-word in the sense that I have mentioned above; it isreaIly objectively descriptive because it has nothing to do withmy wishes and tastes. my personality. my neuroses; and my unconscious wishes or fears or anxieties or hopes are far moreeasily excluded from the conception of full humanness thanthey are from the conception of psychological health.If you ever work with the concept of psychological health-orany other kind of health. or normality-you will discover what atemptation it is to project your own values and to make it into aself-description or perhaps a description of what you would liketo be. or what you think people should be like. etc.• etc. Youllhave to fight against it all the time. and youlI discover that,while its possihle to be objective in such work. its certainlydifficult. And even then. you cant be really sure. Have youfallen into sampling error� After all. if you select persons forinvestigation on the basis of your personal judgment and diagnosis. such sampling errors are more likely than if you selectby some more impersonal criterion (90).Clearly. fusion-words are a scientific advance over morepurely normative words. while also avoiding the worse trap ofbelieving that science must be on(1 value�free. and non-normative. i.e.• nonhuman. Fusion concepts and words permit usto participate in the normal advance of science and knowledge from its phenomenological and experiential beginningson toward greater reliability. great validity. greater confidence.greater exactness. greater sharing with others and agreementwith them (!!2). ,Other obvious fusion-words ate such as: mature. evolved. developed. .vtunted. crippled. .luN.. functioninK. Kraceful. awkHard. dums.l. and the like. There are many. many morewords which are less obviously fusions of the, normative and thedt:scriptive. And we may one day have to get used to thinking
Neurosis (IS a Failure ofPersonal Growth 29of fution"Words as paradigmatic. as normal. usual. and central.Then the more purely descriptive words and the more purelynormative words would be thought of as peripheral and exceptional. I believe tbatthis wilt come as part of the new humanistic Weltanschauung which is now rapidly crystallizing into astructured form. For one thing. a s I have pointed out (95). these conceptionsare too exclusively extrapsychic and dont account sufficientlyfor the quality of consciousness. for intrapsychic or subjectiveabilities. for instance. to enjoy music. to meditate and contemplate. to savor ftavors. to be sensitive to ones inner voices. etc.Geung along well within ones inner world may be as important as social competence or reality competence.But more important from the point of view of theoreticalelegance and research strategy. these concepts are less objective and qUantifiable than is a list of the capacities that makeup the concept of humanness.I would add that I consider none of these models to be opposed to the medical model. There is no need to dichotomizethem from each other. Medical illnesses diminish the humanbeing and therefore fall on the continuum of greater to lesserdegree of humanness. Of course. though the medical illnessmodel is necessary (for tumors. bacterial invasions. ulcers,etc.). it is certainly not sufficient (for neurotic. characterological. or spiritual disturbances).Human DiminutionOne consequence of this usage of ....ull humanness" ratherthan "psychological health" is the corresponding or paralleluse of "human diminution." instead of "neurosis." which isanyway a totally obsolete word. Here the key concept is theloss or not-yet-actualization of human capacities and possibilities. and obviously this is also a matter of degree and quantity.Furthermore. it is closer to being externally observable. i.e.• behavioral. which of course makes it easier to investigate than.for example. anxiety or compulsiveness or repression. Also itI I cOnsider the -degree of humanness� concept to be more useful alsothan the concepts of "social competence." "human effectiveness." andlimilar notionl,
30 HEALTH AND PATHOLOGYputl on the same continuum all the ltandard plychietric Cite,ories. all the Ituntinp. cripplin,.. and inhibitiona that comefrom poverty. exploitation. maleducation. enllavement. etc..and allO the newer value patholo,iea, existential disordeR,character disorden that come to the economically privilqed. Ithandles very nicely the diminutionl that result from· drua addiction. psychopathy. authoritarianism. criminality. and othercategories that cannot be caUed "illness" .in the same medicalsense as can. e.g.• brain tumor.This is a radical move away from the medical model, a movewhich is long overdue. Strictly speaking. neurosis meanl an illness of the nerves. a relic we can very well do without today. Inaddition. using the label "psychological illness" puts neurosisinto the same universe of discourse as ulcen. lesionl. bacterialinvasions.. broken bones, or tumon. But by now. we havelearned very well that it is better to consider neuroiil U ratherrelated to spiritual disorders.. · to loss of meaning. to doubtlabout the goals of life. to grief and anger over a lost love. toseeing life in a different way. to loss of courage or of hope, todespair over the future, to dislike for oneself. to recognition thatones life is being wasted. or that there is no possibility of joyor love. etc.These are all failings away from full humannels. from thefull blooming of human nature. They are losses of human possibility. of what might have been and could yet be perhaps.Physical and chemical hygiene and prophylaxes certainly havesome little place in this realm of psychopathogenesis. but are asnothing in comparison with the far more powerful role of social.economic. political. religious. educational. philosophical. axio-10lieal. and familial determinants.SubJective BiologyThere are still other important advantages to be pined frommoving over to this psyehological-philosophical-educationalspiritual usage.. Not least of these. it seems to me. is that itencourages the proptr conceptual use of the biological and constitutional base which underlies any discussion of Identity or ofThe Real Self. of growth. of uncovering therapy. of full humanness or of diminution of humanness, of self-transcendence. or
NftUosiJ tIS a Failurl 0/P.rsoMI Growth 31any version of these. To say it briefly, I believe that helpina aperson to move toward full humanness proceeds inevitably viaawareness of ones identity (amonl other thinp). A very important part of this t.sk is to become aware of what one Is,biololically, temperamentally, constitutionally, as a member ofa species, of ones capacities, desires, needs, and also of onesvocation, what one is fitted for, what ones destiny is.To say it very bluntly and unequivocally. one absolutelynecessary aspect of this self-awareness is a kind of phenomenology of ones own inner biology, of that which I call "instinctoid" (see Appendix D), of ones animality and specieshood.This is certainly what psychoanalysis tries to do, i.e., to helpone to become conscious of ones animal uraes, needs, tensions,depressions, tastes, anxieties. So also for Homeys distinctionbetween a real self and a pseudo-self. Is this also not a subjective discrimination of what one truly is? And what Is one trulyif not first and foremost ones own body, ones own constitution. ones own functioninl, ones own. specieshood? (1 havevery much enjoyed, qua ,h.orlsl, this pretty intearation ofFreud, Goldstein, Sheldon, Homey, Cattell, Frankl, May, ROIers. Murray. etc., etc.• etc. Perhaps even Skinner could beCOlxed into this diverse company. since I suspect that a listinlof all his "intrinsic reinforcers" for his human subjects milhtvery well look much like the "hierarchy of instinctoid basicneeds and metanceds" that I have proposed!)I believe it is possible to carry throuah this paradigm even atthe very hiahest levels of personal development. where onetranscends ones own personality (85). I believe I make a aoodcase for acceptinl the probable instinctoid character of oneshiahest .values, i.e., of what miaht be called the spiritual orphilosophical life. Even this personally discovered axiololY Ifeel can be subsumed under this cateaory of "phenomenologyof ones own instinctoid nature" or of "subjective biology" or"experiential biology" or some such phrase..Think of the great theoretical and scientific advantaaes ofplacina on one sinale continuum of degree or amount of humanness, not only all the kinds of sickness the psychiatrists andphysicians talk about but also all the additional kinds that existentialists and philosophers and reliaious thinkers and socialreformers have worried about. Not only this, but we can alsoplace on the same single scale all the various degrees and kindsof health that we know about. plus even the health-beyond·