Writings

When we speak about processes, events, phenomena, or psychological experiences we are using a series of words that are treated in different ways by different authors and even, sometimes, by the same author in different contexts.

The most obvious examples of the uninhibited use of psychological language are the words: mind, intelligence, perception, emotion, affection, thought, without counting those that belong to the idiosyncratic jargon of the various “schools”.

I don’t even dare to go into the various synonyms of the word “consciousness”. A new book would be needed.

In general when we say “mind” we are referring to memory and thought, as though there were nothing else in the human mind.

Inexorably, a new way of seeing things implies, either the use of a new language or even the same language used in a new way.

We say (amongst other things that we have already mentioned briefly) that memory, idea, emotion and the events that are ruled by the autonomous nervous system, are phenomena that belong to the same mental process (in accordance with our definition of the word mind), and we name that unitary process using the acronym META.

The acronym META is derived from the following four words:

• Mnemonic: of the memory: See mermeros below.
• Eidetic: Greek word related to our words “idea”, “ideology”, “idol” and even “image”.
• Thymic: timos in Greek is emotion or affection. The word “temor” (temor-Spanish word related to English word ‘timid’- translator’s note) fear, is related to timos but timos originally has a more generic sense (emotion in general). One way or another, fear is a fundamental emotion par excellence and an ineludible part of the functioning of the META process.
• Autonomic: we are conscious of the Anglicism “autonomic” applied to the functioning of the autonomous nervous system, but we do it in order to differentiate it from the Freudian concept of the “autonomous” function of the "self".

To sum up: we are saying that memory, idea, idol, ideology, all images, all emotion (above all fear) and the visceral functioning connected to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems constitute parts of a unitary process in the mind of the human being. In order to simplify the language we will use the word “thought” to refer to this unitary process of the mind, which we also call META and which is part of neurophysiological Precinct C.

Mnemonos in Greek means “memory”, but mermeros (in Greek “anxiety”) is the Greek word that is the origin of the word “memoria” in Spanish. (and also the origin of the word memory in English -translator’s note).

Origin of the problem

(Memory vs Perception) = Phylogenetic memory

The recently born baby perceives poorly, but on the other hand is capable of maintaining good organic homoeostasis (humoral balance, temperature, etc.) through the functioning of the autonomous nervous system.

That is: the recently born baby sees, hears, tastes, smells and perceives in general in a fragmentary and primitive way, due perhaps to the myelinic immaturity of the nerve pathways.

On the other hand the phylomnemonic or phylogenetic memory regulates the “biological survival mechanism” (homeostasis) perfectly well through the functioning of the autonomous nervous system (sympathetic and parasympathetic) including the hypothalamus. Right from the start the recently born baby is far more occupied with regulating hunger, the production of urine, thirst, and sleep, than with establishing sensorial or perceptive contact with the environment. From the beginning there is a clear imbalance between:

a) the germ of what will later be the META process (the germ is the initial homeostasis), which depends on a specific or phylogenetic memory, and

b) the neurological mechanisms of sensory perception.

To simplify, we are saying that from very early in the life of the human being there is an imbalance between memory and perception, with a preponderance of the first over the second.

Dream memory

This disproportion is clearly seen in the type of sleep a recently born baby.
85% of the sleep of a recently born baby is REM sleep (Rapid Eye Movement Sleep), also called “desynchronized” or “primitive” sleep. As the nervous systems matures from the structural and physiological point of view, desynchronized sleep diminishes in frequency until it becomes 25% of the total, around 12 years of age, and stays like that for the rest of the person’s life.

This type of sleep was also called “a behavioral anomaly” by W. Dement and it is a paradoxical sleep because it appearsdeepfrom the point of view of muscular relaxation (atonic sleep) but it is light from the electroencephalographic point of view, because during its activity waves that resemble those of the waking state are recorded.
It is during this type of desynchronized sleep when dreams and nightmares are experienced. If one wakes an individual up during this type of sleep, they will remember dreams and nightmares more easily than if one wakes them up during other types of sleep. For us this is a good example of the disproportionate importance of the META (mnemonic-eidetic-thymic- autonomic) process from the very beginning of the life of the human being).

Attention

This META process, which is so important for survival, is the same one that interferes, throughout the whole of the individual’s life, with the sensory-perceptive “opening” to the environment and to other people in that environment.

In other words: it is “thought” with its “META” components (memory, idea, image, emotion and autonomic reactions) which always interferes with the direct contact of the individual with reality.

This also means that thought (which is memory) is the principal distorting factor in human relationships. Relationship only occurs in the now. Memory which is past, can only interfere.

Brain, eidetos, idea, image, and comparison

It has been said that: “The supramarginal gyrus (area 40) and the angulargyrus (area 39) in the human brain are also (like areas, 5, 7, 18, 19, 42 y 22) important association areas which interrelate somosthetic, visual and auditory stimuli. These associations have the task of:
a) formulating sensory stimuli in terms of objectual images, and
b) globally synthesizing their meaning. This process of “knowing” (gnosis) brings with it a comparison of the present sensory phenomenon with past experience. For example, areas 18 and 19 of visual association would be called into operation when an old friend is recognized in the crowd.”

What we say, using the new psychological paradigm, is that the operation of a “new” factor is needed in the human mind in order to perceive the friend from the example in the multitude as if it were for the first time, to have a unitary and direct perception of him, a real contact in the here and now. That “new” factor has always been present, of course, in the mind of the human being, but it has not been described or even considered in previous paradigms of human psychology. It is without doubt the concepts that have recently appeared in physics and in neurology that make possible the consideration and scientific description of such a factor, which we call Unitary Perception.

This Perception has not been forgotten, because it is not part of memory, it has not been lost because it can be recovered, but it is INACTIVE or atrophied through lack of use. Given its enormous importance, it is our responsibility to regenerate this atrophied brain function (Unitary Perception). This is the main objective of Holokinetic Psychology.

Emotion and memory

It is fairly easy, as one penetrates into the investigation of this problem, to identify the underlying unity of these apparently different phenomena: memory, idea, ideology, image, emotion, fear, hate and visceral and muscular activity.

William James had already said in 1890 in his book Principles of Psychology: “Emotion is the perception of autonomic moulds or patterns that arise as a consequence of action”.

It is almost along the same lines that Schacter and Singer in 1962 add the consideration of cognitive processes to the autonomic excitation that is found behind emotional states (“Cognitive, Social and physiological determinants of emotional state”, Psychological Review).

The interaction of combinations of neurophysiological systems has been emphasized, including discrete forms of muscular activity (facial and postural muscles) as mechanisms that underlie the emerging experience of emotion.

Neurosurgery and temporal epilepsy

Disconnection. In experimental neurosurgery that lobe is disconnected from the rest of the brain (allocortical disconnection) and a typical group of symptoms is produced, which has been called Kluver-Bucy syndrome, characterized by hypermetamorphosis (constant changes in behavior or personality), hypoemotionality (little or no reaction of fear or aggression in the face of harmful stimuli) and changes in memory (fleeting memory and mnemonic hyperinstability).

Hyperconnection

.

By contrast, in cases of temporal epilepsy, which by definition constitute states of “hyperconnection” of that zone of the allocortex with the rest of the brain, the individual presents a group of symptoms that we could call “the opposite” of the foregoing: clingy personality, obsessive, viscous (in a conversation they do not know how to say goodbye), hyperemotionality with excessive anxiety (fear) and aggressivity (hate). The memory becomes meticulous and detailed and they believe they have seen what they have never seen (déjà vu).

In cases of obsession one should suspect temporal epilepsy.

It begins to be clear that the activity of the hippocampus and the temporal lobes is crucial (although not exclusive) in the memory of the human being and that that activity is intimately related to at least anxiety and aggression which we can consider to be forms of fear and hate. Schematically:

Memory without stimulus and pseudomemory by stimulus

In 1978 Jonathan Pincus, said in his book Behavioral Neurobiology, page 62: “As Papez predicted in 1937 (forty years earlier), there is a strong tendency after electrical stimulation of the limbic components for prolonged electrical charges to persist and to spread throughout the limbic system, even with the absence of stimulus and with little intervention from the neocortex (Maclean 1952, 1954).”

Wilder Penfield, by electrically stimulating various parts of the limbic lobe, reproduced many symptoms of epilepsy of the temporal lobe, amongst others the very frequent phenomenon of “already seen” (déjà-vu), which appears to be just a prolonged discharge of the temporal lobe which, when superimposed on a sensory impression (visual, auditory, gustatory, etc) causes this new sensory impression to be interpreted as something old, something “already seen”. In this way the old allocortex, (META process) distorts the activity of the new neocortex (sensory impressions).

Thought, closed circles and illusion

It is difficult to resist the temptation to speculate at length about these neurophysiological events, but we will resist.

We will just say that what in a simplistic way we call “thought” (META process) has a natural, demonstrated tendency to function autonomously in “closed circles”, almost like the dog who plays at chasing his own tail. This is the law of repetitive cyclicity of Precinct C, earlier correctly called “lineal consciousness”.

Also, as if that was not enough, its very activity is the source of illusion, interfering in perception, modifying the way in which this is integrated and finally “interpreted” at a cerebral level.

It is very strange that that “thought” process (META process), which has its function in the planning and construction of a building or a bridge, a piece of furniture or a vehicle for transport, (be it a car or an airplane), or in the putting together of a meal or writing up of a medical prescription, is structured in such a way that it can also submerge us in illusion, hallucination, fear or mere disconnection from the reality in which we live most of the time. Schematically:

Anecdote: Comment about déjà vu

At the end of one of my conferences in Latin America, a distinguished lady approached me and made the following comment: “Don’t you believe that déjà vu or at least “certain types of déjà vu” are related to reincarnation or metempsychosis? If I saw a medieval castle in a previous life, when I see it again in this new life, I could recognize it under certain circumstances”.

I answered her more or less in the following way: “Madam, we are not discussing the truth or the lie of reincarnation or metempsychosis. We are speaking about the greatest tragedy of all times for the human being: the disconnection of the individual from the reality around him, the lack of real contact of one person with another beyond a mere exchange of learned symbols, verbal or non-verbal, friendly or hostile. Using your own example, what interests us is to be aware if we are just re- cognizing the castle that we saw, (it doesn’t matter when) or if we are really looking and seeing, if we are in real contact with it, here and now”.

We could add that if we are interested in a real perceptual contact with reality (Unitary Perception), then at the end of the day whether thought is functional or not is not very important. Functional or non-functional is still the META process (mnemonic-eidetic- thymic-autonomic) and this process inexorably interferes with the Unitary Perception of reality, as we have said before so many times and as any one of us can demonstrate for himself as soon as he attempts it.

The "self": Part and product of the META Process

We are presenting the only scientific paradigm in the history of psychology and it has to do with a simple truth which has enormous and multiple implications. Amongst the things that we should see in a new way if we want to come to a better understanding of the human drama is the concept of "self".

Using that subtle form of thought that we call “negative inquisitive thought”, we begin by clarifying what the "self" is not for us.

When the Hindus say tat-vam-asi (you are that), they are referring to the identity of the human "self" (or at least to a “superior” part of the human "self") with the divine "self" (God or Atman).

When Moses speaks with God asking him HIS name and God answers “I am that I am” (Exodus 3), there is another allusion to the divine identity of man. In these verbal attempts to communicate something very important for man, we perceive, even subtly, the comparative essence of the META process.

The Greeks spoke of the divine identity or divine "I" (LOGOS) and of the social and legal "self" (NOMOS).

This has been lost in our world society of 2013.

We have come to say that the "self" is part and product of the META process and that it is this process that creates the opposites of “this and that” or of “superior and inferior”.

It is this very dual essence of the META process which has for centuries caused difficulties in the understanding of the religious message.

On the other hand, in psychology, the "self" has been conceptualized in many different ways which increase the confusion.

For Sullivan the "self" or “I system” is the integration of characteristics that have been approved by significant adults in early infancy and childhood.

For Freud “character” is the result of the sublimation of the instincts by the “Super I”, and the super I is nothing but the internalization of attitudes of significant adults in early infancy and childhood.

Karen Horney speaks of the actual self, real self, (what one will be according to present potential) and ideal self (what one should be according to oneself).

Subsequently the concept of “epigenesis of the "self" appeared, as a consequence of the huge curiosity to know how such a vague and at the same time such a real entity as the "self" develops over time.
It is worth the effort reading some of the attempts in this direction which have already become classics:

1. The chapter “Eight Ages of Man” in the book Childhood and Society by Erik H. Erikson (Norton Paperback, 1964)
2. The book by Anna Freud The Ego and mechanisms of defense (Hogarth Press, London, 1937)
3. First Year of Life: A Psychoanalytic Study of Normal and Deviant Development of Object Relations, Rene Spitz (New York: International Universities Press, 1965
4. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant, Margaret Mahler (Hutchinson and Co. (Publishers), London 1975)

Carl Jung speaks of “ego complexes”, which is almost the same as describing the existence of various or multiple psychological “egos” acting with a certain “independence” from one another. His disciple Maurice Nicholl developed an idea of “multiple egos” and spoke of an “observant ego”.

To our understanding what is manifesting again in these authors is the fragmentary and essentially dual tendency of the META process, a process which constantly moves between “opposites” or “pairs”. Ultimately this tendency separates the observer from what he observes to the point of disconnecting the individual from his own reality and from reality itself to various degrees.

In 1923 Freud presented his structural theory to the world, and that is what developed into what we call “the first paradigm in human psychology”. Ours is “the only scientific paradigm in human psychology” of the 21^st century.

Freud described the "self" as a psychological agency which is occupied with the perception of reality and with the adjustment to that environmental reality.

He condensed a series of functions within the "self" that were very well summarized and hierarchized in Leopold Bellak’s book Ego Functions in Schizophrenics, Neurotics and Normals.

But Freud placed memory and perception in that "self". In our new paradigm we are very careful about respecting the fundamental differences that exist between the mnemonic process (META) and Unitary Perception.

Both are incompatible and for that reason, as we will see, they cannot be placed within the same concept.

We are saying that memory gives rise to that “psychological freezing” which is the "self" or ego. We also say that the "self" is not only the product but it also ends up forming part of META and that both, META + "self", which in reality are the same thing, interfere in Unitary Perception.

Despite this can there be Unitary Perception of the "self" process?

In Spanish anyway we do not say “I grow my bones or I circulate my blood” in the same way as we say “I think, therefore I exist”.

What happens when the "self" reflects on itself and asks, “what am I” or “what is the I”? This question could: 1) give rise to an avalanche of ideas, memories and emotions (all of which in Spanish we indiscriminately call “reflection”), or
2) give rise to an act of self observation which eventually could become part of Unitary Perception, and in this Unitary Perception both the "self" and the META process have ceased to exist. The reinstatement in the psychological field (the expression is worth using) of the mnemonic process or "self", in its turn ends the act of Unitary Perception.

In summary, the question "what am I?" can take us to reflect or to perplexity. They are both non-functional and they lead to the psychological poison of philosophy.

Unitary Perception  Non imaginary reality
Thought (META PROCESS)  Imaginary reality

"Self", time and causality (Piaget and Einstein)

To summarize and simplify: that thing that we call “oneself”, that thing that we call "self" and which believes that it “ennobles itself”, protects itself and finds security for itself with the recognition of a possible origin, with its university titles or with property (knowledge and possessions), which feels safe in belonging to a group, a tribe or a nation, that which is based on “mine” and on “more and more” (more nobility, more knowledge, more security, more possessions, etc), is not a stable entity. That "self", that “oneself” is rather a process which resembles more a cinematographic film in movement than a static photographic image. When we investigate the reason for something that we believe ourselves to be, we look for one of the photographs in the long, constantly moving film roll which is the META process, which is our memory.

The very physical-chemical process of the brain at a molecular level in the neurons is interpreted consciously with images which are then recorded by memory. One can construct words, then, from these images from the memory which we call “thought”. The brain encodes and decodes messages, centripetal (towards the neuronal molecules by the sensory pathways) and centrifugal (towards the environment by the motor pathways) at different levels. See the diagram by Sir John Eccles in his book Facing Reality, Springer-Verlag, New York 1970.

It becomes clear as we penetrate into the problem, that there is a visceral and glandular counterpart (autonomic) of that META process and that even the very molecular processes of the neuron are incorporated in the only mental process that we have been taught to identify in our culture.

It also becomes more and more clear, above all when we see the activity of the mind in ourselves without “prejudice” or any conditioning, that the mnemonic process and all that goes with it (whether neurophysiologically or psychologically) is not the only activity of the mind.

Little by little one perceives how the META process interferes in the rest of the activities of the mind to the point of becoming incompatible with them.

This META process polarizes a series of images, ideas and memories around the concept of the "self". This occurs in the child who identifies with his parents or with the adolescent who “becomes one with” the idol (eidetos) which is promoted by the culture at a certain time and in a certain place: the war hero, the singer on television, the cinema actor or the football player.

If we believe that the META process (thought) and the "self" are separate or different then it will not be possible to have a Unitary Perception of the functioning of the META process (the "self") at a certain moment.

Neither will it be possible to have an insight (or sudden understanding) of the META process if we use any of the forms of mnemonic duality: comparison, justification or condemnation, which are simple measurements between two imaginary points. These “measurements” are another way of transforming the cinematographic film into a static photograph.

Continuity, continuation and permanence

Memory (mnemonos), which records the various stages of one’s own life, imposes a continuity through the concept of "self", which in this way becomes partially useful. And so the "self" is the imaginary (eidetos) or ideational way in which the META process accords itself continuity in the past and continuation in the future. The "self" also becomes an illusionary image of permanence behind the constant change in all things, people, ideas, and events. The "self" becomes the illusion of permanently remaining the same ignoring the sequential changes in oneself. The concept of "self" represents the “path of least resistance” when faced with the constant use of energy required by the direct (or unitary) perception of the constant change in everything.

The three consciousnesses

And the "self" represents one of the possible forms of consciousness and activity, that consciousness that our culture unilaterally emphasizes. Basing ourselves on our understanding of the mind we would say that at least three forms of consciousness and action exist in the human being:

1. A “lineal” consciousness: that of the META process (Precinct C) where there is a recording of reality.
2. A “triangular” consciousness: Precinct B that of Unitary Perception and intelligent discrimination, and
3. A “circular” consciousness or Precinct A, where there is a reconstitution of reality. One sees and hears without distorting what is seen and heard. This precinct of neurophysiological functioning is what is made conscious in enlightenment (fotizo in the New Testament), which was defined as “peace of great lucidity and energy, as well as communion with all humanity”.

Precinct A cannot be “achieved by will”.
Precinct B (Unitary Perception) is the open window to Precinct A.

“Lineal” "self", or “META” consciousness, emphasizes the importance of the photograph or static image. The “triangular” consciousness of “intelligent Unitary Perception” is more in contact with the cinematographic film. I have written forty books to clarify the difference between C and B, which is easy to understand intellectually but not as a fact.

Journeys and movement

Journeys: in other words, the activity of the META process is of repeated journeys from one point to another (fragmentary movements within duality which is comparison, justification, condensation (unconscious), condemnation, measure, etc.).
Movement: on the other hand the activity of Unitary Perception is like participation in the movement of reality beyond all duality, comparison or measure. This implies that this is the only mental activity in which a direct and profound contact is possible with another human being: unitary relationship. In this there is no comparison, condemnation, justification, measure, image and the fear that goes along with all this. Unitary Perception initiates communion in peace.

Time, space and causality

Jean Piaget has observed that between four and seven years of age the child consolidates what we here call the "self", through the formation of the concept of space and time and through the beginning of the structuring of the idea of causality.

But what really happens?

The essence of reality that surrounds us is movement. At the level of Unitary Perception, the only thing that exists is movement and constant change, “both within and without”.

It is that movement and that change that the META process or “fixed” lineal consciousness tries to “fix” or tries to photograph between two purely hypothetical points:

Point 1: Here.
Point 2: There, and between both there exists space

Or:

Point 1: Before (memories).
Point 2: Now (but not the perceptive now, but the imaginary and verbal now).
Point 3: After (which is just an idea or memory of the concept of future) and between both points there exists time.

The META process in part translates the movement of reality (internal and external) to a verbal, emotional, imaginative, ideational language which is known as space and time. It is not surprising that from these concepts of space and time (eternal comparison between two points) there arises as a natural consequence the idea of causality. Every cause has its effect and vice versa (once again the two points of duality). It is here that the child discovers the “master key” which opens for him the door of the relationship between causes and effects: his “Whys?” The possible distortions of these relationships between causes and effects that arise as a response to the question: “Why?” are infinite and much has been written about those distortions.

Patterns of causal relationship

There exist at least five patterns of response to the question “why?” in the META process.

1. Causal chain: the simplest pattern and therefore the most used: a cause has an effect and every effect is preceded in time by a cause.
   Example: tuberculosis is the effect of Koch’s bacillus.
2. Polydeterminism(causal network): between cause and effect there is a “space” which inexorably is “occupied” by new events, which in their turn become new causes of the same effect. In this way many cause and effect chains converge on the same affect.
3. Causal retroflection: can an effect transform into the cause of the cause? That is, is it necessary to go for a long run every day to have a good heart or is it necessary to have a good heart to go for a long run every day?
   Is poverty a result of schizophrenia, as a consequence to the precarious social and labor adaptation of the schizophrenic, or is it that poor people are more disposed to schizophrenia as a consequence of a diet lacking in vitamins and proteins which in the final analysis affects the brain metabolism and catalyzes the gene or genes of schizophrenia?
   Wynne and Singer predicted with 100% exactitude the parents that would create schizophrenic children due to “deviations in communication”. However, there later arose the controversy that perhaps it was the schizophrenic children who created the “deviations in communication” with the parents, since Schizophrenia is a genetic condition. This is what is at present accepted.
4. Causal interaction: there is a good example of this pattern of causal relationship in Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory, which is applied extensively in family psychotherapy (Minuchin et al): “Two elements of a relationship are the result of a mutual and constant transformation.”
5. Synchronicity: This pattern of causal relationship was described by Carl Jung and up to his death he complained of not having been understood. We should remember, to avoid more confusion, that the word “synchronicity” was used by Rene Spitz with another meaning not in any way related to this.
   Synchronicity is the a-causal relationship between two simultaneous facts. It is the META process (thought) which establishes the necessity of a linear cause-effect relationship between two facts which occur at the same time. The original example of Jung in his article “Synchronicity” was astrology.
   The recent joint work between the neurologist Karl Pribram (Stanford University) and the nuclear physicist David Bohm (London University) in relation to the holographic model updates and makes even more significant Jung’s concepts of a-causal relationship or synchronicity.
   In second place to the above, the understanding of Holokinesis, according to David Bohm, justifies a profound revision of astrology as a possible science.

Einstein and time

We have clearly seen then how the mnemonic duality of comparing two hypothetical points brings us from the concept of space to the concept of time and ultimately to the establishment of different types of causal relationship between facts.

During one of my university conferences in Latin America someone said to me that Albert Einstein had presented a different notion of time which was not mnemonic duality. But we need to look at why that is not correct:

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not affect the essentially dual origin (mnemonic) of the concept of time. Einstein’s mathematical deductions and inferences affect only the central ideas of Newton in the physics of our time, demolishing Newton’s basic point of departure that “time is absolutely and universally the same”.

Einstein, on the other hand, speaks to us of the relativity of time and introduces the variable of the observer and his movement as an important factor in the evaluation and measurement of time.

The most well known example which Albert Einstein himself used repeatedly is the following: “A railway station manager sees two rays of light in the distance falling at exactly the same time on the railway tracks, one in the East and the other in the West and concludes that both fall simultaneously.

At the very moment that this occurs, a train passes by going West with a passenger who is located at the same distance between the rays as the station manager. The train moves at high velocity and the passenger registers a different scenario: the ray from the West appears to fall before the ray from the East since, as the train is moving westwards, the light coming from the Eastern ray will be delayed by a fraction of a second more in coming to the retinas of the passenger than the light from the Western ray”.

In our new psychological paradigm we would say that Einstein confirmed that the META process is the source of possible illusions and that it is essentially dual in nature.

Figuratively speaking we would say that the atoms or indivisible “units” of the META process are “duality units”.

The movement of those “duality units”, which is the META process itself, gives rise to outlines and models or symbols which help us to interpret, register or record reality, but in no way do they help us to establish direct contact with that reality, that is, to reconstitute reality.

In the example used by Einstein, the measurement of time depends on the choice of frame of reference.

The measurement will be different for the station manager than for the train passenger, but both will inexorably depend on a comparison between two points. The comparison itself is a fragmentary vision (and therefore distorted) of reality, even without forgetting what Einstein’s example suggests: that the comparisons or measurements of the passenger and the station manager will be different and that each will think that the other is mistaken, even when both of them have perceived reality as it is, at the moment when both rays fell on the tracks.

From: “Holokinetic Psychology: The Only Scientific Paradigm in Psychology".