Form and efficiency

One of the main components of psychology and psychological theory that I truly enjoy and adhere to comes from the beginning of psychology. Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis.

It is interesting that so many psychologists and counselors and people that deal with mental health and mental issues in general do not even know a simple discernment that is made in their academic history and epistemology.

The key component of psychology is that there is no objective referent for any psychological manifestation. When we deal with psychology and mental health, we are dealing with psychic forms. And when we deal with psychic forms and we say we are dealing with the past, we are dealing essentially with a psychic form of the past that is a rising in the present. There is no knowable objective reference in the case of psychology. All objective reference is a present psychic manifestation.

The classic example, one’s parents are often brought up in the context of why a person might be the way that they are.  One does not even have to study anything about psychology at all, yet when anyone that they encounter, from a random stranger on the streets, to an intimate friend, behaves in a certain odd way, or expresses some sort of personal issue that They might be dealing with– even the person of the slightest education well at some point ask if the way that one was raised might have contributed to that odd behavior or that expression of issue. 

From a psychological standpoint, there is no actuality in the way that parents have raised a person which has contributed to that individual manifestation.

What is significant here is the way the psyche has manifested. It manifests in such a way that we can never find the “actual father” or the “actual mother”, but nor can we discover or uncover some “actual environment, an actual dysfunctional environment, in which the person was subject. For all and every interpretation of a situation is a psychic manifestation. 

There is no “actual” situation. The situation is inherent and compound. 

Even systems theory, which suppose is that every member of a family contributes to the development of every other member, admits to this fundamental fact, because the therapist is not trying to fix anyone but is indeed merely developing awareness is between the individuals of the varying individual psychic presentations.

The healing which occurs whether in individual counseling, group counseling or family systems counseling, is ultimately merely a bringing into awareness of the situation and the development of personal adjustment due to the awareness of that situation.

At least this is how the story goes…

One may quickly notice that if you begin to bring up this psychological truth, the truth that lay underneath every sort of idea of psychology since its beginning as a proposed science, that even experience practitioners will discount it for some reason or another. And I would guess that the most often heard reason would be “well we’ve progressed since then”.

Indeed, there is an actual reality that we must deal with so far is psychic or psychological issues. For sure we must get the child out of an abusive home and educate, in the best case, the parents. For sure we must prevent the spouse from being abused. For sure all these various instances that we could come up with. But the plain fact is that the individual is messed up because of their various views, the way their psyche is manifested. We may have certain percentages of people that have given the same situation would come out if it “messed up”, But we are not identifying a truth to say that that given situation causes people to be messed up. Simply because not everyone who is in those screwed up situations grows up to need psychiatric treatment. And indeed, many people if not most people grow up in some sort of screwup household who never the less capitalize upon their experience this is to become quite successful and well adjusted in the world .

Again, there is a truth of the situation, then there is a reality of the situation. 


Philosophy wants to pose itself as immune from all other proddings and investigations. Philosophy wants to ignore that it’s self is a product of mind, essentially a manifestation of psychological issues.

The way that it avoids an assault by psychology is to say that there is some neutral manner of being by which thought is able to objectively assess any situation.

I am skeptical of that approach.

Yet indeed, there is a whole discipline of psychology which functions upon that very premise— And indeed, in what we must say is real, our attitudes and views upon situations, there is “actual” situations against which or from which the psychic manifestations take hold. 


Here I have given numerous examples of how there are two routes toward truth functioning in a given situation. To argue that either one is the case is merely to assert that one is more true than the other. But nevertheless neither party would it have to concede part at least of the others point. So it is, that people say what is “real” must be somewhere in between these two routes.

But that is a misunderstanding of the two routes, because to say that it must be somewhere in between is really to say that one thing is more true than the other. Whereas truth is just truth in the way that a shopping cart is a shopping cart. There is no a manner of reducing the shopping cart to anything around it and everything around it. Because in essence we will lose the shopping cart in that reduction. Reality does not hold together in that way. Indeed if someone is running at me with a shopping cart and I stay there I’m going to get run over by the shopping cart. That is true no matter what you wanna say about it, it is true of reality. To say that it is a bunch of molecules with nothing in between Is merely to assert that there is a “more true” situation that is taking place. And we want to say that that is reality. Yet, we can do this infinitely. We can do this with every situation and yet the shopping cart running over me still hurts me. The truth of the matter is that there is a shopping cart, there is its motion, there is all these factors that go into the situation before I begin to reduce it to the state of essential nothingness..

Here again and irreducible situation. Just as physics cannot be reduced to classical mechanics, and neither can the operations of classical mechanics explain physics, so reality and truth exist in an irreducible fashion. If one is oriented upon real things as the source of their being, then they will never admit that there is something true that is allowing for their being in essence. In short, they will not admit that the truth of the situation is based in a fallacy, in an intellectual fallacy. 


And so here is another analogy of the two routes. There is no amount of psychological attack upon philosophy that would get philosophers of this sort to admit that there is not some sort of neutral way of attaining and addressing objective facts. And indeed, philosophy would like to take its stab at critiquing psychology as well.

My point here is that indeed they are integrated. In the same way that I would ask how one is able to discern an object of the mind from some object that is not of the mind, in the same way, the approach upon psychology and philosophy is as though they are the same thing: They can be viewed and approached as different things, but they are intimately and inherently codependent, co-current, Ko influential.

— And I don’t use the word “thing” lightly. Lol.

It is a way to speak about things. It has nothing to do with any referential actual out there object. Because to make such an assertion that there is some object that is out there, and then there is an object that is going on in my mind, is merely to deny one thing and one hand and assert some thing at the other hand and avoid any sort of responsibility for what is truth of the matter. Such an argument is like a distraction. It’s like Innoway keeps the mind occupied in order to center itself as important, as a real identity. This is the way religion functions; the congregation is involved in a storyline, if you will, where the individual plays it’s role against these various cosmological categories, A soul lost between heaven and hell, faced with a multitude of existential choices, and the ultimate result will be whether they have done good or they have done bad. Just because I don’t say God and Satan, doesn’t mean that to say being and nothingness is not equally as religious. 

It is ridiculous to say that there is a difference between an object of the mind and an object out there. It makes no sense; or, the only sense it makes is through the orientation upon things as they might manifest as a real world.


Two routes. To irreconcilable routes. Both explain themselves to root and fundamental causes. And the only way to tie them together is to develop some sort of “metaphysics”, another story line that supposed to explain all the other irreducibility of existence. 


Aristotle shows himself as a certain kind of “father of efficiency”, evidenced of the “metaphysics”. And I have read in more than a few places in my investigation of with Aristotle, is that Aristotle didn’t even use the separate form of metaphysics. He doesn’t talk about metaphysics.

Metaphysics is something of someone else’ ideas after him and I think a few hundred years after him or something like that. This supposed metaphysics, if I am correct in what I’ve read, is just things that came “after” the various explanation of causes, of the four causes. It came “after” the causes. And I would propose that the person who came up with the “metaphysics” was someone who was involved in the modern mode of viewing the world. By the simple fact that we are discussing Aristotle’s metaphysics and trying to apply his system, to bring it into the current era, as if we have a direct line to what Aristotle thought. Which is on one hand totally ridiculous, and on the other hand entirely real.

And I would challenge you to prove to me that the meaning that Aristotle meant in his writings is actually conveyed in our present moment reading him. The best you could say, the best you could do to prove to me that that is the case, would be to read to me something that is happening right now; It is a temporal contradiction that cannot be overcome. Again, as I say, this contradiction, is Passed over , to use the words of Bruno Latour, or is ignored or denied through what I call faith that there was this human being some thousands of years ago whose mind basically function the same way as ours does, and indeed encountered the world in the same exact way as we are able

There was no metaphysics in Aristotle. There was only the reduction of the particular cause, and then an attempt to reconcile the different causes to a further unitary function. So it is not at all silly or ridiculous to show that anything metaphysical is a religious function. And indeed some people have translated Aristotle, via “metaphysics” as “theology”. And so I find it very difficult when philosophy proposes various metaphysical structures in relationships, but then denies that it is involved in any sort of theology, especially when it refers itself to Aristotle as a father of its discipline.

Now, just because I say that reality is upheld by faith, I am not suggesting that I am able to overcome this phenomenon of truth and reality. If the word “faith” is distasteful, that has to do with a personal psychological issue that faith is something that one does not want to have or feels is not describing the “truth” of the reality in which they are so intimately invested.


Plenty more to say, but I’ll stop there. We’ll see what arises next. 

7 thoughts on “Form and efficiency

  1. Note I have mentioned Kotarbinski to which I will refer to often. Of all of Brentano’s disciples he comes closest to my thinking.

    As I have said, I find problems in Brentano (early and late) as well as Freud, Husserl, Meinong and Twardowski. Problems which are not trivial.


  2. And you might note that Freud’s structure of the mind that we all know so well, the ego the super ego in the Id. The super ego is not something that arises outside. As some sort of world out there. It is ultimately a structure of the psyche. That’s it. There are no norms and rules that take place outside of the psyche.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s