New Questions
My experience some 30 years ago with Creative Aging, Inc., an organization I co-founded, was that people resisted the idea of aging. They do not have the perspective that each year, each decade brings the possibility of developing a yet undeveloped potential. A potential which once developed assures one of greater power, control and satisfaction in life. I researched this by asking hundreds of individuals to chart life on a graph. The results, which are shown to you and explained, clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of people perceive life span as an inevitably declining process. This perception is quite evident when we see people turning 30-40-50, by and large being upset and anxious, rather than enthusiastically looking forward to the next decade of their life with its promise of developing ever greater control and satisfaction.
Why is this? I wondered.
Are they correctly perceiving life as an inevitably declining process, or is it their definition of life that is turning it into such? Exactly like a self-fulfilling prophecy. What if it turned out that life-span was actually meant to be an ever upward curving, ever potentializing process? If that was/is true how differently would people anticipate the next decade of their life? And if that were a possibility, that life is an ever upward curving process of potentializing, what theoretical framework would support it and prove it? My intuition said that in fact, life is an ever upward curving process of potentializing, which we misperceive because the body, and to a lesser degree the mind/brain, do seem to decline with age. If then, we believe we are only body and mind/brain then we are right to resist this process, and not look forward to the next decade, and then the next. After all, who in their right mind, or left brain, wants to watch themselves decline. So, I set out to find a theoretical framework that would not only prove that life is an ever upward curving process of potentializing, but in the process, change people’s perception, inspire generations to come to find their true potential, find satisfaction, love unconditionally, and be the most productive in their later years, rather than the least. Whereas presently, being productive in this last stage of life is true for only a small percentage of the overall population. Retirement, for most, is certainly not the most productive part their lives. So with that as background, let’s delve into the theory.
The issue isn’t or shouldn’t be, whether the ‘Self’ is real or not. The issue is or should be what explains human behavior in a way that is consistent with our experience, is more useful in positively altering human behavior and thereby assisting individuals in satisfying their needs. Also which explanation is more easily understood by the layman and clinician alike, and can more easily be used by all for the betterment of society? Imagine having ‘scientific ideas’ of human development and the development of the ‘Self’ that inspires every layperson and one that they can learn and effectively use themselves, just like they could use the lever for the body, and use arithmetic, and reading and writing for the mind.
A theory of who we are and how we can create a better life, one that is easily learned and easily used by everyone, was my mission. First, I spent over 15 years devising a new theory of life-span/human development. Then, I spent the next 20 years researching the many applications of the theory, all of which turned out to support its efficacy. So, for me the debate, whether ‘self’ is an entity or not has been over for quiet a while. For you perhaps, the debate is just starting. I am more then happy to take on your skepticism, your questions and your objections. Self is an entity, albeit not defined in the way philosophy and psychology often try to define an entity as separate, solid, visible, taking up space, etc.
I believe that the reason we are still embroiled in the debate of whether ‘self’ is real or not, beside the fact that I have not yet made my theory or findings public, is that we keep starting the debate by going all the way back to the Cartesian theatre and before, continually asking the same theoretical questions, rather then new practical ones. Actually the questions and answers haven’t changed much, only the vocabulary for expressing them, much of it now coming from clinical psychology.
The Theory of Self – Research
I believe that psychology need not go, as it does presently, in the 2 different directions of, 1) The study of pathology and 2) The study of well-being. I believe that the body-mind/brain, both being machines can and do break down, can produce variations that are beyond our control and even our imagination, can lack certain hormones and other chemicals needed for health and well-being. But, I believe that these cases are by far in the minority. As far as the causes of depression, anxiety, and other mental ‘illnesses’ which medicine and the field of psychology is attempting to cure, I believe that most of the pathologies are the result of the same dynamic that applies to the majority of individuals. That is a basic ignorance of who they are as human beings, how they function, their lack of awareness of what their needs truly are, their lack of knowledge as to how to ask for what they want, and finally, how to be unconditionally loving, and how to receive unconditionally loving behavior. These can all be taught!! Once people understand that they are ‘Self’ and need to develop it.
I believe that both an individual Life Span and most of Human Evolution, (at least from the Stone Age till today), are 3 part developmental processes. The ‘physical’, the ‘mental’, and the ‘self/spirit’. The micro-evolutionary process, or human development / life span mirrors accurately the historic macro-evolutionary process called Human Evolution. Both theories are easy for people to follow and for me to provide evidence for. I will start with the theory of Human Evolution since the historical documentation makes it relatively simple to prove. The 3 stages of human evolution can be easily seen when we document the evolution of ideas relating to the ‘body/me’ survival stage, to the ‘mind/we’ survival stage and finally to the ‘self/us’ survival stage.
It is this theory of Human Evolution (since the Stone Age) that underscores my theory of Life Span.
Although I am not an archaeologist or anthropologist, records seem to indicate that the The Paleolithic, or “old stone age” covered about 99% of human history. 99%. During this period stone tools were developed. During the Paleolithic age humans were grouped together in small scale societies such as bands and gained their subsistence from gathering plants and hunting wild animals. This 99% of human history took more than 2 million years according to archaeologists and anthropologists. Human beings lived in bands, surviving in isolation, with the average life expectancy of their members perhaps 20 years or less. The next stage in human evolution was called the Pleistocene, and it was characterized by the introduction of agriculture around 10,000 BC.
When you consider the fact that for nearly 2 million years human beings existed in a very primitive, survival mode, don’t you have to ask yourself the question, “Why?” I did!
We see how rapidly knowledge advances today, then why did it take nearly 2 million years for mankind to move from stone tools to metals, and from hunting and gathering, to developing the knowledge of domesticating plants and animals, the wheel, etc. when their very survival was at stake?