This is the introduction to my book "Why Not Do God?". It gives a thumbnail sketch of what the book is about; it gives the reason for my writing; it gives a nip of my background. Other excerpts will follow, and will be identified by Chapter. The excerpts are chosen at random, trying to give a flavor of the book's contents. Introduction My years of education and training -- and ultimately practice -- in the profession of psychology have brought me into contact with numerous theories of personality and systems of treatment. During my practice period, and like many of my colleagues, I am sorry to say that I found myself bouncing around, using different systems of treatment, not settling on any one for reasons that are spelled out in the body of my writing. I have professionally served in a variety of capacities -- in administrative, in vis a vis therapeutic contact with patients, psycho-diagnosis, and in teaching for nearly forty years. After reading a few pages of my manuscript, the reader will soon see that I have never been comfortable with the theories or beliefs of many of my colleagues -- not as a maverick; but, believing that, "There has to be more than this or that in the theories to help me understand, appreciate their personality dynamics, and help my patients." Always, I believed there had to be a better way. To me, all the systems with which I came into contact proved to be closed -- void of the most crucial part of each human --the spiritual part. My shift from the closed-system approach resulted after many observations of what I call therapy recidivism. I observed that, although many patients showed relative improvement (some, not at all, of course!), after a time some experienced a return of their emotional discomfort -- enough to bring them back into therapy. Whereas this was good for business, it was not good for the patients. My shift resulted in my reasoning that the closed system needed opening up. It needed a new dimension added to the paradigm to include the missing part. Regarding my writing: It is a primer, written briefly to review several theoretical approaches, then introduce the reader to the crucial dimension of human personality and an inclusive psychotherapeutic treatment based on its tenets. Chapter One asks, "What is missing in the theories of personality?" Then answers it. A subsequent chapter discusses the missing part. Other chapters take up issues regarding the barriers among the various levels of personality, the undeniable implications in an open end theory, our learned limitations and our responses and reactions to life's circumstances. Some chapters discuss how to cope with life's circumstances (God's way), how to use relaxation with positive imagery. A chapter contains some thoughts on love of self and love of self in God. A final chapter discusses the obstacles preventing the use of our spiritual strengths - the obstacles that prevail against accepting an open end model to explain human personality. In writing, I do not denounce any theories; still, I do take issue with them regarding their closed-system approach to explain human personality. I take issue with their subsequent treatment models for individuals with pathology, using their systems. No doubt, while reading, the reader will note that I take the position that the new dimension that I introduce is viable and it works. I come on strong in my presentation, stating that it is without question that the dimension exists and that it fully explains all aspects of human personality. That's all right. It reflects my observations over the years. I could come to no other conclusion. Also, I am not soft in my remarks when I discuss the obvious obstacles prevailing against introducing an openness to understanding and treating the human personality. Why should I be? Anyone who observes what is happening in our country at this very moment certainly will not take issue with me - not unless the one taking issue has contributed to the morass. The reader also will note the obvious brief introductions to the theories with which I take issue. I trust the reader will accept my brevity. My purpose is not to expound on the theories; my purpose is to point out their closed system approach. I suggest that, if the reader wants to do an in-depth study of those I mention, there are numerous books and papers discussing them. I must say that it is difficult to write not to insult the intelligence of a professional, still, not over reach for a lay person to understand and appreciate. The reader may notice that, at times, it appears that I am addressing a professional, and at other times it appears that I am addressing a non-professional. I pray this does not confuse the reader. I tried to write for a middle-of-the-road readership and to create a broad-based interest. The reader must decide whether I succeeded. Also, the reader must decide whether the new dimension fits into their belief or value system. I sincerely hope it does. William S. Arnott, Ph.D. (Phoenix, AZ, 1992) Why Not Do God?", Chapter One (Note: I discussed several theories of personality previous to this excerpt. Mainly, I was interested in portraying them as omitting a support system outside of the human self. The "missing part" - the spiritual - is the core theme of my book.) There are other theories, or systems of therapy, a few of them are based on ill-defined precepts; some are sincere in their efforts to explain human personality. A few of these systems of therapy are currently popular, although the number of trained professional persons involved are not as many as those who practice more of what is called eclectic therapy (a little of this and a little of that approach.) Those who do use this approach are probably more comfortable in defending it than those who are purists, using only one theory. I don't know who of them argues the clearest. I might say that there are fewer purists in practice today than before. Why this is, I cannot say. Perhaps it is because there have been so many approaches attempting to understand human personality that there is a great deal of overlapping of the theories. They stumble over each other, or try to refine what they like of one, calling it something else. Remarkably, most do not take issue with Freud's presentation of the conscious and the unconscious. To his credit, he made quite an impression in this sense. Some of the other theories are Gestalt therapy (couched in the learning principles of John Dewey, and involved with Eastern religion tenets), Transactional Analysis (TA), Rational-Emotive therapy (RET - which has promise when coupled with Christian tenets), Reality Therapy and the like. (See the notes at end of Chapter Four.) There will be no gain in giving much information regarding them and their different approaches. The purpose in mentioning them is to reinforce my earlier statement that there have been many attempts to understand human behavior, or more specifically, human personality. One fact that stands out in reviewing their tenants or their premises is that there is no respectable open end to their systems different from the Psychoanalytic, Behavioristic, or Humanistic systems in dealing with humankind's personalities. That is, their systems are closed, allowing for no consideration of an external energy or support system to sustain or enhance the importance of human behavior or personality. The one exception is Carl Jung's approach; still, it has its limitations. Essentially, their premises are the same. The several characteristics of importance observed in them are that they are closed and self-contained, do not consider any outside support system from which the personality (the total self) gets its energy. They do not attend to any extension of humankind beyond himself or his mortal life. Therefore, we must look at the issues, their implications and consider other venues or positions to allow for a more open approach to understanding ourselves. We must do more to answer the age old questions: Who are we? From where do we come? Why are we? "Why Not Do God?" Chapter Two: (A conglomerate of excerpts continuing the premise that the most important part of human personality, the spiritual, is omitted from practically every theory of personality.) It is not a light burden to bear, to be the only living creature who knows that he is going to die. There always has been the curious and frantic drive to know who we are and what will happen to us. It is everyone's concern. We may feel reassured that there have been attempts to learn about ourselves; still, too many of us are not satisfied regarding answers. The human is a most enigmatic and mosaic creature. He has a grandeur that so far has defied all attempts to understand and appreciate himself. There is a remarkable layering of the different levels of awareness in each of us. They have caused the prominent events on earth to happen as the result of his rational (often times irrational) activity. His discoveries are testimony to his greatness. He has discovered how to use fire, how to make and use tools. He knows how to repair or cure his body when it gets injured or ill. He can fly like a bird, harness the atom, and go to the moon and beyond. He has, now, the knowledge to destroy himself. Still, all his discoveries do not tell him about himself, only what he has done. From the upper levels of his awareness to the lower levels of his awareness, man allows himself a variety of behaviors that never will be totally understood or appreciated. He takes this all for granted. Only when something goes wrong with the interaction among the levels of awareness does he begin to realize that interaction is taking place. We do some strange deeds because of our many-layered awareness, and we do some wonderful deeds as well. I, frankly, conclude that we do not take enough time to appreciate our importance. We also take it for granted, lacking respect for ourselves. If we appreciated our importance more than we do, we would not be so hell-bent toward self-destruction. When I was a young college student, one of my professors compared these two levels of functioning to an iceberg (now a traditional description.) He described the part of the iceberg above the surface of the water as representing the conscious. The larger, massive and hidden part below the surface of the water, he described as representing the unconscious. At the time he made the comparison, I felt comfortable with it. Yet, after much pondering since then, I have become less comfortable with the description and have directed more of my attention to the water in which the iceberg floats than to the iceberg. I now conclude that the water in which it floats is as essential as the iceberg. I consider the water an essential support system. Without the water, the iceberg would have no purpose, no existence. Besides my concern about the support system -- the water that the iceberg needs in which to float -- I ponder the inorganic quality of the iceberg and the water. They are lifeless. Their circumstance is static, contains no change other than to wax or wane. There are no living cells other than the organisms that may have intruded into its ice. I conclude that the analogy would serve a better purpose if the iceberg's components were organic, alive! But, they are not, of course. Suppose, though, I were to compare the two levels of awareness (and the other levels making up the personality) to something living. This appears to be reasonable; since it is true that in order to have a viable comparison with which to be involved, there have to be living cells in both examples. And to assure the concepts of conscious or unconscious to have meaning, there must be life. Suppose I were to make our comparison using a living orange as the example? I can compare the rind of the orange to the conscious since there is much less of it than the total orange. I can compare the pulp of the orange to the unconscious. There is a variety of other comparisons I can make regarding the tissue under the rind, the segments of the orange, its seeds and sweet juice. More important, I can look to the support system. I can look to it as essential for the existence of the orange. This is an analogy that, now, considers a living object. Now I can carry the analogy to completion. I can consider the small twig-like branch on which the orange hangs and the larger branch that attaches to the trunk of the tree. I can consider the soil, the elements in the soil that provide food and moisture for the tree. I can consider the large earth of which the soil is a part. My analogy can continue by considering that the earth is part of our solar system. The solar system is part of the galaxy we call the Milky Way; and our galaxy is part of the millions of galaxies that make up the Universe! The Universe is the sum of all its parts! But as the Gestaltist would say, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." So, now we can factor in the part that makes the whole - our Creator's energy! The analogy is complete. We have a complete support system! We see, now, that we have to consider the whole support system to understand the parts that depend on it. We have to look to the Universe to understand the simple orange. Since I chose to compare one living object to another, a living human being and his different levels of awareness, I must consider the whole support system to understand the human being. I reason that, unless we take the support system into consideration, we are closing off the system and allowing the most important part, wholeness, go wanting. We must consider and factor in the Universe to understand any of its parts. And, containing my perspective in this analogy, that the Universe is the work of our Creator, it follows that to factor in the Universe, we have to factor in our Creator. Logic is great! Briefly, the conscious contains the material of our sensory awareness. We keep in touch with our environment by having a sensory awareness of it, and deciding our actions based on sensory input. We receive the input through our neural structures, each highly developed and suited well to their tasks. The input gets fed through neural structures to various parts of our brain for interpretation and resulting action and reaction. It is a complex process; still, anatomically fairly well understood. We base much of our appreciation of being alive on our conscious level of awareness. Still, despite its high level of activity, there is a fragility to our conscious awareness. For, when conscious awareness gets manipulated into stillness (as in hypnosis, day-dreaming, meditation, supplicating prayer, or sleep, for instance), a different level of awareness comes into play, the unconscious awareness. We little recognize it, but we need continuous stimulation to remain in the conscious state of awareness. If we allow only a short time to pass, during which there is no stimulation, we will slip into the quite different state. Characteristic of the unconscious level of awareness are habits, wishes (unresolved, perhaps?), memories of past events, memories of pain, traumas, emotional experiences, happy times, sad times (all with their associations), our unexplained likes and dislikes. The unconscious provides us with the materials of our dreams. That so many aspects of our life get stored in a repository called the unconscious would lead us to the inference that the capacity of its storage space is sizeable -- that is to say, our memory capacity is huge. The events of a person's life are so many that they get lost in the lack of appreciation. We would expect this of ourselves, though. We lack appreciation of our importance in so many ways, this lack should not surprise us. We must remember a prodigious number of events, as an individual and as a group, to assure the continuation of humankind. I cannot imagine a world in which each new generation had to relearn adequate information to survive until another generation came into being. Our Creator plans well! All social knowledge -- all human knowledge -- depends on the gift of the unconscious' storing capability. A culture's existence depends on the human memory (wherever it dwells). The unconscious serves well in this role. Still, there are many events, many memories, stored in the unconscious on which our survival does not depend. Perhaps these only are for enrichment of our lives (or our misery?) In spite of the sizable reposit of memories, this inclusive storage of the events of our life, there are characteristics of human behavior for which there is no explanation. Neither the conscious nor the unconscious can give us answers for such phenomena as telepathy, prophecy (as of the prophets in the Bible), premonitions, the ability of the genius and the like. These phenomena are outside the explanation by the conscious/unconscious paradigm - at least as I can accept. Regarding the problem of the origin of the phenomena: I conclude they are not of the conscious/unconscious system. I submit they originate in a level of awareness metaphorically different from these two aspects of human personality. I conclude they are of another level of awareness different in characteristics from the conscious and the unconscious. I have, for descriptive reasons -- and to aid in delineating its characteristics and function as differing from the conscious and unconscious -- chosen to call the different (deeper) level of awareness the subunconscious. Regarding this new term, it should not be confused with the term subconscious, which is often used to describe the unconscious. I mainly choose the term subunconscious to continue in the company of the conscious and unconscious and to allow no stress to the hierarchy by using different or unusual jargon. The subunconscious has a distinct set of characteristics that separates it from the conscious and unconscious in function, still teams with them in all aspects of human behavior (human personality, if you wish.) More important, by accepting that there is a metaphorically additional level of awareness we are enabled to account for the unaccountable of the conscious and unconscious -- genius, super abilities, telepathy, intuition, prophetic ability, unexplained cures, and the power of the mind in controlling body functions. It will open an otherwise closed system. It will crack open the idea that the inclusive self is all there is to personality, no powerful outside energy. By accepting the subunconscious as a viable level of awareness, we can apply the analogy of the orange, its having as its conclusive support system, the Universe. And, of course, the comparison can be applied to the human personality. I consider that the subunconscious drafts its energy from the Universal Energy each of us possesses, being creations of God. "Why Not Do God?" Chapter Three: (This chapter discusses the "barriers" that exist among the different levels of human personality, the conscious, unconscious, and my added dimension, subunconscious.) Allow me to state three general internal barriers found operating in an open end model; then, deviate briefly. Later I will discuss external obstacles to its use. The most serious internal (and external) barrier is that the subunconscious, as a part of the conscious/unconscious hierarchy, is not appreciated, possibly not accepted. Another barrier is that the language barrier among the different levels is formidable. Still another barrier is that the method necessary to breach the barrier between the subunconscious and the unconscious is insincerely used. The latter two barriers totally depend on appreciating and accepting the subunconscious, of course. Deviating and before I further discuss the barriers, though, allow me to say a word or few about a most important characteristic of organisms (especially and including the human organism) that will impinge on why I feel the addition of the subunconscious to the hierarchy is so important. I refer to all organisms' inherent awareness of their wellness/diseased state: This important awareness is basic to the survival of the building block of any organism, the cell. The cell needs food, water, and oxygen (at least), plus a variety of other important essentials. Its survival depends on sufficient amounts of each, especially food, water and oxygen. Satisfying these essentials generally assures that the cell continues toward its intended goal, survival (which is DNA controlled.) Satisfaction of these basic needs assures the cell's differentiation (maturing to do what it is supposed to do - again, DNA controlled.) Only when the cell does not have to give most of its attention to basic survival can it devote its energy to differentiation (do its job.) Lacking these essentials, it falls short in some way or another. Medical science has identified many of the effects of its falling short. The ultimate effect of lacking all the essentials is death. This applies to all organisms. In the advanced models (the multi-celled organisms) it is uncommonly important, if for no other reason than to satisfy the complex needs of the differentiation of cells that make up various tissues - muscle, bone, nerve, etc. Lacking its basic needs, the organism will not rise to higher levels of growth (differential development in all its potential areas: physical, intellectual, social, emotional, and spiritual.) It is intrinsic that the organism rises to its highest level of development. Any obstacle, disease, injury, whatever that interferes with this process will spark a signal to the organism to exercise options available to it to deal with the obstacle. Whether this is a simple self-healing action, or giving a set of instructions to an awareness on a higher hierarchal level to act appropriately or, if prudent, to seek assistance relative to the complexity of the organism. This process accounts for why viruses, bacteria, and yeast spores adapt to counteract any attack on them. From my perspective, the organism ordinarily does not mutate as some suggest. Mutating nearly always results in a weaker organism that practically never survives or, if it does, it lacks operational skills. The change in the simple organism may take a nip of relative time to develop its strategy (perhaps a generation or two); still, it eventually does and will act. It is survival, pure and simple! The option is also relative to the complexity of the organism. Yet, it is intrinsic in all organisms. Accordingly, the options to act appropriately to assure survival are inherent in the human -- who is the highest order of organisms, created, not evolved nor mutated! I contend that the options to act are attributes of and inalienable characteristics of the subunconscious. Also, I contend that the endowments are common to every individual. They are gifts of their being part of the Universal Energy. The above being said, now let us continue discussing the barriers that prevent free communication between the conscious and the unconscious and to steady our purpose, we will factor in the subunconscious. Not factoring its attributes into the whole of personality will merely continue the closed-end philosophy and get us nowhere. I reported that the psychoanalyst would be pleased if there were no barriers between the conscious and unconscious (after therapy, of course!) -- that it would be the ideal cure of a neurosis or other emotional disorder. Idle dreams! The barriers are too numerous and are too firmly set in place. Let us look at them. The admixture or composite of the barrier depends on which levels it is bordering (metaphorically speaking, of course.) The barriers between the conscious and the unconscious are different from the barriers between the unconscious and the subunconscious. The barrier between the conscious and unconscious results from repressions, lack of (or selective) attention, and distancing (time lapse between an event's happening and an attempt to recall it.) Other barriers are its lack of importance the event has to survival, dissociation (a neurotic problem), and a conscious choice to ignore (which can result in a habit to ignore.) There are other interferences that prevent an event's getting recorded, interferences such as from abuse of chemicals (drugs in the broad sense.) Physical injuries such as from simple concussions, or more serious lesion causing traumas can interfere with an event's getting recorded. There may be others; still, these are the more common causes for breakdown in communication between the conscious and the unconscious. The barrier between the unconscious and the subunconscious results more from cultural obstacles, perhaps deterrents or restraints. It may involve basic religious values (or lack thereof), the philosophic atmosphere in which an individual is born - lacking a defined religious or several religious pools in which to swim. Ignorance of the existence of the subunconscious or a proscribed opportunity to accept the dimension are definitely deterrents. These latter obstacles, as I observe them, are related to the cultural obstacles and philosophic atmospheres. Since it is my contention that the energy force of the subunconscious is intrinsic and useable by every human being, its utilization as a mediator or a therapeutic tool depends on the barrier between it and the other levels of awareness. No doubt, present therapeutic paradigms and philosophic atmospheres are very active in stifling (probably not intentionally) the potential of the subunconscious as a therapeutic agent. Territorial protection is behind much of this. Still, western culture, with its materialistic philosophy and its lack of awareness of the full potential of the individual, is also a big obstacle or barrier. Any irreligious culture is a barrier. Any repressive culture is a barrier. Mostly, lacking a belief in our Creator is a barrier. Using the energy of the subunconscious depends on these following issues, an acceptance of its existence, a rendering of its attributes, a recognition of the barriers to its use and a knowledge of how to overcome the barriers. Of these four, I judge acceptance of its existence the most essential. Without it, all the other charges fail need. 1. I am familiar with the work of G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924). Dr. Hall introduced a course in the psychology of religion at Clark University (1887-1888). He was quite active in developing various courses in the psychology of religion; still, reading various accounts of his trying to draw religious tenets into human behavior fell short, in my view. I get the impression that Dr. Hall's attempts got cluttered with Darwinian theory and with a smattering of pre-Jungian beliefs -- in what Jung later called the social conscious. Notwithstanding Hall's contribution to the spiritual aspects of humankind, what the results are is not clear nor precise. To his credit, though, he was involved in a variety of issues in the psychology of religion . For an account of G. Stanley Hall and the Clark University of Religious Psychology, see The American Psychologist, Volume 47, Number 2, February, 1992, pp. 290-298. Regarding Gestalt therapy: I parenthetically referred to Gestalt therapy as based on John Dewey's learning theory and on Eastern Religion axioms. The spiritual references in Eastern Religion often are vague and usually fixate (psychoanalytic term) on self awareness rather than awareness of self in God. The Gestalt therapy movement has a rather large following, probably because it has an intense, closely knit, and devoted group of leaders. The therapy involves considerable role playing -- involving one or more individuals playing roles (of significant persons in the patient's life) to give the patient an opportunity to release or abreact (another psychoanalytic term) inner repressions, much in the manner of psychodrama. The catharsis that occurs during some of the sessions can be intense, dramatic, and emotional . Notwithstanding all this, the vague reference to the spiritual aspect of humankind in Gestalt therapy's tenets scarcely gets a person out of a belief in self -- making it no less a closed system than other therapy systems. (Note: There are eleven chapters contained in my book - approximately 271 pages. The introduction outlines the general content of each. I will include future excerpts as interest shows. Regarding buying my book [a chapter at a time to prevent your paying for it in one lump sum], please send your inquiries for details to my e-mail address. Each chapter will be duplicated [two-sided] on standard paper suitable for binding in a three-ring binder or plastic ring binder. I will answer your inquiries, giving price of each chapter. You will pay for the S&H.)