for English scroll down
Prejudecata unicauzalitatii si inhibarea stiintifica in psihanaliza
in psychoanalysis
Nu exista unicauzalitate
Principiul unicauzalitatii a stat la baza mentalitatii primitive si s-a prelungit catre gândirea religioasa, filosofica si chiar stiintifica ulterioare. Ideea ca lucrurile evolueaza de la o cauza la un efect, care la rândul sau devine cauza pentru un alt efect, la fel cum generatiile evolueaza, sau la fel cum copilul devine la rândul sau parinte, a condus la principiul asanumitului lant unicauzal.
Daca sunt analizate atent, se poate vedea ca lucrurile au cel putin 2 cauze, inclusiv copiii. Astfel ca respectivul "lant cauzal" pare a fi mai curând a fi un arbore cauzal, unde efectul este reprezentat de trunchiul arborelui, adica cu confluenta dintre radacinile cauzale si ramurile efectelor ce descind din el. Daca luam in calcul multitudinea de lucruri (efecte), lumea ne apare ca o retea extrem de diversa de retele de "copaci cauzali" conectati intre ei. Faptul ca orice are legatura cu orice se poate intelege din lipsa de sisteme izolate in natura. Peisajul cauzal al lumii pare un sistem de comunicare de o complexitate imposibil de imaginat.
Cel mai concludent exemplu al multicauzalitatii in natura este vremea. Vremea se stabileste pe baza faptului ca anumite fronturi atmosferice evolueaza intr-o anumita directie, prin observarea si inregistrarea comportamentului lor pe perioade mai lungi de timp, din sateliti. Desi aceste fronturi atmosferice sunt cam aceleasi, totusi vedem pe pielea noastra ca meteorologia este o stiinta a probabilitatii. Vremea mereu ne surprinde si se actualizeaza de la ora la ora cu noi modificari ale acestor previziuni. Acest lucru se datoreaza tocmai intervenirii unor cauze auxiliare la cauzele principale pe care meteorologii le inregistreaza in bazele lor de date. Ele sunt cauze neimportante, minore si imposibil de prezis, insa au puterea sa schimbe cursul unui eveniment meteorologic intr-o cu totul alta directie decât s-a comportat anterior, când a fost consemnat.
Oricine poate vedea ca un lucru nu poate deveni altceva dintr-o data, fara implicarea unui al treilea element care sa interactioneze cu cauza presupus unica (asa cum lasa sa se inteleaga conceptia lantului cauzal). O cauza poate deveni efect doar daca cel putin o alta cauza coroboreaza cu ea.
Factorii culturali externi care impun prejudecata unicauzalitatii
Exista 2 mari factori psihici care influenteaza mintea omeneasca sa perceapa un lant cauzal mai curând decât un arbore cauzal, asa cum se prezinta el simplu in fata ochilor oricui. Primul este cel al conceptiei matriliniare primitive a procreatiei, celalalt este cel al interpretarii unice a mesajelor religioase, iar cel de-al treilea este cel al aplicarii unilaterale moderne a justitiei. In primul caz este implicata gândirea naiva a primitivului care nu poate intelege ca nasterea este urmata unui eveniment petrecut in urma cu 9 luni. Intr-o astfel de conceptie este implicat in mod decisiv un anumit nivel cognitiv, de evolutie istorica a gândirii umane.
Freud ar spune probabil ca refuzul acceptarii rolului tatalui in nasterea copilului s-ar datora Complexului Oedip asa cum l-a teoretizat el. Personal cred ca o astfel de explicatie este mai potrivita pentru omul modern decât pentru cel primitiv. Oricum, faptul ca din mama se naste copilul este un lucru decisiv pentru intelegerea lucrurilor, in special pentru primitiv dar si pentru omul modern. Gândirea primitiva functioneaza la fel de bine in subsidiarul actiunilor si sentimentelor noastre, alaturi de cea complexa, moderna.
Cel de-al doilea factor al consolidarii mentalitatii unicauzale este interpretarea mesajelor divine. Reducerea lumii la o cauza primara, unica si atotputernica a fost si este inca rezultatul unei mentalitati unicauzale cu influente cruciale in filosofie si religie. Pornind de la acest pattern ideatic, religia a devenit si ea o hermeneutia a naturii, un mod de decodificare a mesajelor trimise de divinitate catre muritori. Intr-o etapa istorica unde informatia era valoroasa si bine ascunsa, omul religios (primitiv in special) interpreta orice intâmplare din natura ca pe un mesaj trimis de divinitate, de obicei o cerinta careia trebuia sa i se dea curs. Analiza acestor mesaje si decodificarea lor devenea o problema de viata si de moarte, de câstigare a bunavointei zeilor sau de stârnire a mâniei lor. Mesajul acesta trebuia sa fie unic, fara echivoc, asemenea poruncii unui stapân. Ideea cauzalitatii multiple ar fi lasat loc de interpretari diferite si de slabire a valorii de adevar al acestui mesaj divin, ceea ce mentalitatea religioasa nu accepta.
Cel de-al treilea imbold psihic este cel al justitiei in societatea postprimitiva. El este implementat prin educatie devenind lege in toata regula. Un conflict intre doi poli politici este interpretat dupa modelul "inocent-vinovat" , "pozitiv-negativ" sau "adevarat-fals". In principiu, invingatorul isi impune respectul si legea sa invinsului. Mai mult decât atât, invingatorul va tinde sa arunce in cârca adversarului sau relele colaterale inerente rezultate din confruntarea lor. Celalat este scos tap ispasitor, cauza unica a relelor realitatii. Unicauzalitatea se poate extinde astfel la intreaga justitie, pornind de la aceasta origine.
Justitia nu are rolul echilibrului social, asa cum considerau curentele filosofice de coloratura clasica. Principiul balansului, ce sta la baza ei, este doar o incercare de cosmetizare a unor actiuni eminamente opresive pe care justitia il are. De obicei, pagubitul, caruia nu i s-a descoperit agresorul sau infractorul, nu primeste de la justitie compensari de echilibrare a pagubei din rezervele comunitatii. Exista situatii in care comunitatea are astfel de rezerve, insa justitia nu merge cu principiul echilibrului pâna la capat tocmai pentru ca el este doar o masca. Chiar daca in unele comunitati o astfel de masura se mai intâmpla, totusi ea nu este universala.
Justitia are principalul rol de a impiedica nesupunerea sociala fata de senior. Ea nu este interesata de a face "dreptate" unei parti vatamate, cât mai curând de a-l impiedica pe presupusul agresor sa ajunga la perfectionarea agresiunii si la canalizarea ei catre centrul autoritatii comunitatii. Acesta este cel mai mare posesor de bunuri al ei, adica monarhul, seniorul sau boierul. A gândi cauza unica, a spune acuzativ "din cauza ta!": acesta este combustibilul ideatic al justitiei moderne. Filosofic vorbind, nici o justitie nu poate pedepsi "vinovatul" daca accepta o alta cauza in corpul crimei, alta decât insasi persoana sau actiunea directa a celui care a comis-o. Daca justitia ar accepta astfel de cauza/cauze secundara/multiple, atunci, pe masura diversificarii a acestora, si pedeapsa ar tinde sa se difuzeze catre ele. In acest caz, pagubitul se poate trezi in situatia de a fi destul de "vinovat" ca si infractorul. Insa acest lucru ar fi inacceptabil pentru superiorul social... Chiar si stabilirea unui top al importantei spectrului cauzal implica un exercitiu axiologic de ierarhizare care, ca orice astfel de demers, este unul subiectiv, personal. Prin urmare, principiul unicauzalitatii in justitie este o lege de care depinde insasi ierarhizarea sociala. Neacceptarea sa inseamna un fel de revolta ideologica impotriva orânduirii.
Psihanaliza este "infestata" din interior si exterior de mentalitatea unicauzalitatii
Prejudecata unicauzalista a atins in cele mai mici si mai intime spatii inclusiv gândirea psihanalitica. Pretentia de universalitate absoluta a interpretarilor simptomelor si viselor a intunecat mintile celor mai activi membri ai miscarii psihanalitice. Desi aveau mai multe lucruri in comun decât diferente, unii dintre ei au ajuns la dispute cu consecinte inclusiv pe plan personal, devenind dusmani unii altora. Acest lucru a condus la scaderea autoritatii si influentei psihanalizei in rândurile cercurilor culturale contemporane. Cea mai importanta si grava acuzatie adusa psihanalizei a fost aceea de sarlatanie, iar sustinatorii ei au adus un argument aproape imbatabil: un pacient a fost plimbat pe la diversi psihanalisti care au oferit explicatii si analize diferite pentru aceleasi acte psihice. Psihanalistii la rândul lor au replicat ca subiectul se schimbase, ca psihanaliza a avut efect asupra sa, iar ceilalti au analizat totusi un alt om. Insa nici analiza consecutiva, cu psihanalisti analizând izolat aceleasi manifestari inregistrate audio sau video, nu a condus la identitate a rezultatelor. Nelamurirea este data insa tocmai de acea prejudecata a unicauzalitatii.
Supravietuirea unei mentalitati religioase brute in câmpul psihanalizei a facut ca acceptarea intelesului multiplu sa nu fie posibila. Fiecare dintre psihanalistii combatanti vedea doar o singura explicatie, cu valabilitate universala, si respingea celorlalte explicatii venite de la colegi. Insa orice act psihic este o rezultanta a intâlnirii si negocierii mai multor pulsiuni. Asa ca el are mai multe cauze, si, prin urmare, mai multe intelesuri care pot fi chiar contradictorii. Daca un psihanalist vede doar o parte a contradictiei, iar celalalt vede pe cealalta, asta nu inseamna ca explicatiile sunt gresite pe baza faptului ca ele sunt contradictorii sau diferite. Pur si simplu cel care o constata are atât o viziune robotica despre psihic dar si o viziune clasica despre stiinta. Epistemologia moderna insa a acceptat ca facând parte din corpul general al stiintei ambele parti aflate intr-o dezbatere aporetica. Experienta istoriei stiintei arata ca, o astfel de aporie s-a soldat de multe ori cu o solutie ce a rezultat din impacarea paradoxala a elementelor conflictuale ale dilemei. Asa ca, chiar daca au parut exclusiviste, fiecare din aceste contradictii isi vor fi dovedit valoarea lor de adevar, clarificata ulterior.
S-a considerat de multe ori ca interpretarea psihanalitica este mai mult o arta decât o stiinta. Daca se ia in calcul siguranta epistemologica a datelor extrase de psihanalist de la analizant, in procesul analizei (si nu de efectele lor asupra acestuia), atunci siguranta stiintifica a acestora nu exista. Ultimul cuvânt in materie de verificare stiintifica a acestor date ar fi pur si simplu un microscop de rezolutie inimaginabila pentru asociatiile si reprezentarile din creier. Pentru tehnologia de astazi, asa ceva este de domeniul SF. Fireste, nu trebuie sa cadem nici in extrema cealalta in care sa acceptam ca valabil orice interpretare. La fel ca si in cazul artei, exista riscul sa nu mai putem deosebi valorosul de nevaloros. Insa valoarea produsului psihanalistului (explicatia si explicitarea actului psihic) este data de autoritatea si experienta (succesele) acestuia. Explicatiile diferite se pot alinia piramidal intr-un top al importantei lor, la fel cum exista arborele cauzal insusi. Desi valabilitatea si topul importantei explicatiilor nu va fi prea curând stabilit cu exactitate, totusi acestea exista pentru ca are rezultate. Iar societatea are nevoie de psihanaliza, in special in educatia primara, astazi mai mult ca oricând. Refacerea autoritatii ei teoretice si eliminarea prejudecatilor carteziene despre autoritatea stiintifica este un prim pas a reinventarii sale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unicausality preconception and scientific inhibition
in psychoanalysis
There is no unicausality
The unicausality principle was the base for the primitive mentality and continued to through later religious, philosophical and even scientific thought. The idea that things evolves from a cause to an effect, which turns also into a cause for another effect, as generations evolve, or as the child becomes a parent after growth, led to the unicausal chain principle in human thinking.
If pay more attention, we can see that things have at least two causes, including the children. So that the "unicausal chain" rather has a causal tree; the effect is represented the trunk, which is the confluence between the causal roots and the effects branches that develop out from it. If we consider the things diversity (effects), the world is a highly various networks of linked together "causal trees". Everything is connected to everything, and that is why the physics stated that there are no isolated systems in nature. The world causal landscape is such a communication system by an unimaginable complexity.
The clearest example of the multicausality in nature is the weather. The weather is determined by the fact that some fronts evolve in certain directions, through observing and recording their behavior over longer periods of time, from the satellites. Although these fronts are about the same, yet we see everyday that meteorology is a science of probability. The weather is always surprising and keeps updating every hour with new changes of these forecasts. This happens just because the auxiliary causes interfere with the main ones that the meteorologists record in their databases. They are unimportant, minor and impossible to predict causes, but have the power to change the course of a weather event in a completely different direction than previously behaved, when it was recorded.
Anyone can see that a thing can not suddenly become something else without a third element interaction with the presumed unique cause (as the “unicausal chain” mentality suggests). A cause can turn into an effected just if at least another cause corroborates with it.
The external cultural factors which sustained the unicausality preconception
There are 3 big psychological factors that influence the human mind to perceive a unicausal chain in nature rather than a polycausal tree, as anyone can simply see. The first one is the primitive conception of matrilineal procreation, the second one is the unique interpretation of religious messages, and the third one is the unilateral modern using of justice. In the first case there is involved a primitive naive thinking that can not understand that birth is followed by an event that occurred 9 months before. Such a mentality is built upon a specific cognitive level in the historical evolution of human thinking.
Freud would probably say that the refusal to accept the role of the father in child birth is due to the Oedipus Complex, the way he theorized it. I believe that such an explanation is more suitable for modern than the primitive man. However, the fact that the baby is born by the mother is a crucial fact for understanding especially for the primitive mentality but for the modern one alike. The primitive thinking works just as well from the base of our actions and feelings, among the complex, modern thinking.
The second factor for unicausal mentality strengthening is the divine messages interpretation. The world reducing to a primary, unique and omnipotent cause was and still is the result of a unicausal mentality that had crucial influences in philosophy and religion. Starting from this conceptual pattern, the religion has also become a hermeneutics of nature, a message decoding sent by deity to mortals. In a historical stage where the information was valuable and well hidden, the religious man (especially primitive) interpreted any random thing in nature as a message sent by divinity, usually a task which must be pursued. These messages analysis and decoding became a matter of life and death, concerning the earning gods’ goodwill or engender their anger. This message must be unique, unambiguous, just like the master command. The multiple causality idea would have left room for different interpretation and truth value weakening for this divine message, which the religious mentality does not accept.
The third psychical impulse is the justice inside the post-primitive society. It is implemented through education and became a right-down law. A conflict between two political poles is interpreted as in "innocent-guilty", "positive-negative" or "true-false". Basically, the winner imposes its law and its respect to the loser. Moreover, the winner will tend to give the opponent’s head for the washing for the inherent collateral evils from their confrontation. The other one is turned into the scapegoat, the unique cause for the bad reality. The unicausality can thus extend to the entire justice, starting from this origin.
The justice is not fundamentally intended for social balance, as stated by the classical colored philosophical currents. Usually, the prejudiced person, that the aggressor or offender was not found, does not receive balanced compensation by the justice for the suffered damage from the community reserves. There are situations where such community reserves are available, but the justice does not go all the way with the balance principle just because it is only a mask. Although in some communities this thing happens, however it is not universal.
The justice main aim is to prevent social disobedience against senior. It is not so interested in doing "justice" to an injured party, as it is to prevent the abuser from moving on to the aggression perfection and focusing it towards the community authority center. It is the community wealthiest person, the monarch, the lord, or the prince. Thinking after the unique cause and accusatively saying "because of you!”: this is the ideological fuel of the modern justice. Philosophically speaking, no justice can not punish the "guilty one" if there is another cause accepted inside the body crime, other than the person itself who committed it, or its direct action. If justice would accept such a secondary / multiple cause / causes, then, according to their diversification, the punishment would tend to spread towards them. In this case, the prejudiced one could find itself in the position of being almost as "guilty" as the criminal. But this would be unacceptable for the social superior class member... Even the existing of an importance hierarchy for the causal spectrum requires an axiological exercise of ranking that, as every such approach, is limited by the subjectivity. Therefore, the justice unicausality principle is a law that the very social hierarchy depends on. Not accepting it is equivalent to a kind of ideological revolt against authority.
The psychoanalysis is "infested" from inside and from outside by the unicausal mentality
The unicausal preconception is also found in the smallest and the most intimate spaces of psychoanalytical thinking. The claim of absolute universality for the symptom and dreams interpretations has been darkened the minds of the most active psychoanalytic movement members. Although they had more common ideas than differences, some of them were involved in such disputes that implied even personal consequences, becoming each other enemies. This led to decreasing the psychoanalysis authority and influence among contemporary cultural circles. The most important and serious accusation brought to psychoanalysis was that of quackery, as its accusers came with an almost unbeatable proof: a character was seeing different psychoanalysts who offered various explanations and different analyzes for the same mental acts. The psychoanalysts in turn replied that the person had been actually changed, and the psychoanalysis had had an actual effect on that person, and the others ones actually would have been analyzed another mind. But neither the subsequent analysis, with the psychoanalysts that were doing isolated analysis for audio or video recorded material, did not led to the same results. But the dilemma precisely rests within the unicausal preconception.
The religious rough mentality survival inside the psychoanalysis field leads to not acceptance a multiple meanings analysis. Each combatant psychoanalyst had seen only one explanation, gave it a universal validity, and rejected other explanations coming from the other colleagues. But any mental act is a result of several impulses meeting and negotiating. So it has many causes and, therefore, it also has several meanings which may even be contradictory to each other. If a psychoanalyst does see only one side of the contradiction, and another one sees the other, that does not mean that the explanations are wrong on the basis that they are contradictory or different. Simply, the one who reproach such thing to psychoanalysis has both a robotics vision about psychic and on a classical vision over science. The modern epistemology has accepted as part of the general body of science both parties in an aporetic debate. The history of science experience had shown that such an aporia often ended with a solution resulted from a paradoxical reconciliation between the conflicting elements dilemma. So, even if they seemed exclusive, each of these contradictions had been proven their further clarified truth value.
It has been often thought that psychoanalytic interpretation is more an art than a science. Taking into account the epistemological safety data extracted by the psychoanalyst from the client during the analysis process (and not from their effects), then there is no scientific safety. The last word in scientific verification of such data would be simply unimaginable high resolution microscope for the mental associations and representations. For today's technology, this is Science Fiction. Of course, we also must not fall into the other extreme of accepting any interpretation as valid. As in the art’s case, there is a risk of not discerning between the valuable from the worthless. But the psychoanalyst product value (psychical act explanation and description) is given by its authority and experience (success). The different explanations can align after their importance in a pyramidal top, as the causal tree itself. Although the validity and the explanations importance top will not be exactly established in the next period, yet they exist since it has results. And the society needs psychoanalysis, especially in primary education, today more than ever. Its theoretical authority restoring and its Cartesian preconceptions elimination concerning the scientific authority is the first step to this reinvention.
Postări
