Post by Elliot Kane on Mar 6, 2010 11:27:09 GMT
The Road to Humanology
I'm sure many of you have wondered, reading my theories, what on Earth started it all off. Why didn't I go the more conventional route of studying through college, university, etc, learning everything others had discovered rather than trying to work it all out on my own. It seems a remarkably hubristic thing to do, after all: to ignore everything that everyone else has done and go back to first principles in an attempt to work it all out anew.
At seventeen, I was just starting out on my road. My mind had awakened at last and my interest was turning to people. I didn't understand them and I wanted to. There was this wonderful thing I had heard of called 'Psychology' that promised me all manner of wonders - and most particularly, all manner of answers. I was in the sixth form at school and had as yet gained no opportunity to study it within the education system, but my interest was growing apace.
Then I saw a psychologist on TV giving advice. These people were like gods to my younger self, so I sat there eagerly absorbing what he had to say. Even today, I can remember most of it - which is fitting, as it turned out to be one of the most pivotal moments of my life. For days I wandered around in an almost daze, pondering the revelations of my god... By now you've figured out the next part for yourselves, I'm sure. My mind being awakened and looking at this thing from every angle realised with dawning horror that something was very wrong! This 'well respected psychologist' had gotten it wrong. His answer was in fact complete rubbish. 'God' had feet of clay!
And there it was. The trained professional, regarded well enough that he was invited onto TV to publicly answer problems because he was supposedly THAT good - the pinnacle of his profession - had picked up some complete crap in his training somewhere and he didn't realise it. He thought what he'd been taught was right, or he hadn't been taught right in the first place. He had taken into account neither the obvious (lack of!) intelligence of his subject, nor what she actually said and spun a very fanciful explanation when the real problem was a habit so ingrained she didn't know how to break it.
My understanding of habit was as yet incomplete, then, but if I was right and the trained professional wrong - which was certainly the case - then what did that say about the flaws in his training? And if I went in for the same training, would that be ME in a few years? Spouting rubbish because I had allowed others to do my thinking for me? No! This was unacceptable! I wanted the real truth, not whatever rubbish others felt might pass for it. Only one course offered itself: I would have to work psychology out for myself, from first principles.
As I became aware of some of the absurd artificial divisions in human thinking, that decision became more and more obviously the correct one. Why is Sociology considered a different thing? How is it possible to study psychology without a full understanding of the society and the environment in which the person exists? Clearly it is not. How can one understand people without a knowledge of anthropology? It clearly isn't possible. Underlying philosophies must be uderstood. The human instincts for tribal and familial connections must be known. The origins of sentience understood. Humanity cannot be accurately studied in small sections, because they are all part of the larger whole. Trying to take one small area of human thinking and claiming it is a thing unto itself is a clear recipe for disaster and for error...
All this became clear over time and equally obviously that I had moved beyond the very limited bounds of what other people would consider to be psychology. So I needed a new name. The study of humanity as a whole and its place in the universe was a discipline no-one else seemed to be working on and one which needed a new name. Thus 'Humanology' was born. Mainly because I'm crap at names and that one was really obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that other people in other places seem to have come up with it, too, which is a source of some annoyance to me! ;D
So there it is. Humanology was born of a young man's desire not to change the world, but to understand it, and of a youthful frustration at the folly of his elders. Nothing unique in that origin at all! But the result... well, I'll let that speak for itself!
***
The second of my more personal pieces. Enjoy them while they last. The format is not one I consider suited to most of what I do...
I'm sure many of you have wondered, reading my theories, what on Earth started it all off. Why didn't I go the more conventional route of studying through college, university, etc, learning everything others had discovered rather than trying to work it all out on my own. It seems a remarkably hubristic thing to do, after all: to ignore everything that everyone else has done and go back to first principles in an attempt to work it all out anew.
At seventeen, I was just starting out on my road. My mind had awakened at last and my interest was turning to people. I didn't understand them and I wanted to. There was this wonderful thing I had heard of called 'Psychology' that promised me all manner of wonders - and most particularly, all manner of answers. I was in the sixth form at school and had as yet gained no opportunity to study it within the education system, but my interest was growing apace.
Then I saw a psychologist on TV giving advice. These people were like gods to my younger self, so I sat there eagerly absorbing what he had to say. Even today, I can remember most of it - which is fitting, as it turned out to be one of the most pivotal moments of my life. For days I wandered around in an almost daze, pondering the revelations of my god... By now you've figured out the next part for yourselves, I'm sure. My mind being awakened and looking at this thing from every angle realised with dawning horror that something was very wrong! This 'well respected psychologist' had gotten it wrong. His answer was in fact complete rubbish. 'God' had feet of clay!
And there it was. The trained professional, regarded well enough that he was invited onto TV to publicly answer problems because he was supposedly THAT good - the pinnacle of his profession - had picked up some complete crap in his training somewhere and he didn't realise it. He thought what he'd been taught was right, or he hadn't been taught right in the first place. He had taken into account neither the obvious (lack of!) intelligence of his subject, nor what she actually said and spun a very fanciful explanation when the real problem was a habit so ingrained she didn't know how to break it.
My understanding of habit was as yet incomplete, then, but if I was right and the trained professional wrong - which was certainly the case - then what did that say about the flaws in his training? And if I went in for the same training, would that be ME in a few years? Spouting rubbish because I had allowed others to do my thinking for me? No! This was unacceptable! I wanted the real truth, not whatever rubbish others felt might pass for it. Only one course offered itself: I would have to work psychology out for myself, from first principles.
As I became aware of some of the absurd artificial divisions in human thinking, that decision became more and more obviously the correct one. Why is Sociology considered a different thing? How is it possible to study psychology without a full understanding of the society and the environment in which the person exists? Clearly it is not. How can one understand people without a knowledge of anthropology? It clearly isn't possible. Underlying philosophies must be uderstood. The human instincts for tribal and familial connections must be known. The origins of sentience understood. Humanity cannot be accurately studied in small sections, because they are all part of the larger whole. Trying to take one small area of human thinking and claiming it is a thing unto itself is a clear recipe for disaster and for error...
All this became clear over time and equally obviously that I had moved beyond the very limited bounds of what other people would consider to be psychology. So I needed a new name. The study of humanity as a whole and its place in the universe was a discipline no-one else seemed to be working on and one which needed a new name. Thus 'Humanology' was born. Mainly because I'm crap at names and that one was really obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that other people in other places seem to have come up with it, too, which is a source of some annoyance to me! ;D
So there it is. Humanology was born of a young man's desire not to change the world, but to understand it, and of a youthful frustration at the folly of his elders. Nothing unique in that origin at all! But the result... well, I'll let that speak for itself!
***
The second of my more personal pieces. Enjoy them while they last. The format is not one I consider suited to most of what I do...
