WHY I USE THE WORD SOUL

Title 1

WHY I USE THE WORD SOUL

The word soul, according to most psychologists, is unscientific.

It has been discarded long ago, and few writers on psychology

use it today. Only philosophers, ministers, and poets use it,

and many of them use it apologetically.

At present, behavior seems a more accepted term to denote

the phenomena of human personality. It carries more scientific

Prestige and it has the imprimatur of orthodox scientific psychology.

Even the terms mind and consciousness are regarded as being too vague

and indefinite for scientific purposes.-Besides; they carry over too much of

the connotation of the idea of the soul.

All terminologies that smack of the soul, or even as much as

Approximate its traditional meaning, are usually held under

suspicion. They are not scientific. They are medieval and superannuated.

They belong to prescientific psychology. As far as the

majority of modern doctors of psychology are concerned,

such terms have no scientific usefulness.

This attitude, of course, is unfortunate because it is the product principally

of a prejudice-the prejudice that favors a mechanistic interpretation of the

universe and rejects almost anything otherwise.

From Psychology to Physiology

Thus, it has come to pass that psychology which started suspiciously

as the "science of the soul. (Psyche, soul, and logos,

word or knowledge or science) became a science of bodily functions"

or physiology. This conversion of psychology into physiology

may be regarded as the greatest bathos of the twentieth

century.

From the human psyche to the human physique, this is the history

of modern psychology:

·         From the soul to the body;

·         From the mind to the brain;

·         From consciousness to behavior;

·         From the sublime to the ridiculous.

·         This is psychology, indeed! and alas!

Classroom Psychology

Consider, for example, the ordinary classroom instruction in

the so-called fundamentals of psychology' The professor is an

specialist in his chosen field of study. He holds a doctorate in

psychology from some reputable American university He

knows his business as the saying goes. On the other hand, there

are the students—young, eager, new. they have heard about this

science called psychology. they have been advised to enroll in it

as a prerequisite for graduation. Credit? Three units. And what

is it they want to know? They want to know what the mind is; is

there soul; what is consciousness; what is intelligence; who am

I; what is the self; what is memory; why do I love? And so on'

The professor begins his lecture with the statement that psychology

is a science As such, therefore, it is based on facts'.

What are the facts? Here the professor deceives both himself

and his students. He became involved in what Stuart Chase

calls "sheer verbalism" -- the tyranny of words and phrases

without discoverable referents, registering a semantic blank. I He

talks of consciousness, but discusses the nervous system" He

talks of the mind, but discusses the areas and fissures of the

brain. F{e lectures on the emotions, but explains the endocrine

glands. He analyzes the personality, and reduces it to the body,

He is a professor of psychology but he teaches anatomy and

physiology.

Are These Facts?

What legacy of knowledge does a student inherit from such

a class? If he is reflective and philosophical, he emerges more

confused than before. If he is a mental blotter, absorbent but

undiscriminating and uncritical, he comes out equipped with an

accumulation of dogmatic and highly dubious information

concerning neurons ,synapses, engrams, hormones, axons and

dendrites.

Ask him what consciousness is, or the nature of the self, or

the meaning of the mind, and he is as blank as a tabula rasa.

In fact, the so-called facts arc all theories. If there are facts at all,

they are facts concerning the body and not the mind or the psyche.

They are physiological, not psychological facts.

What The Student Learns

The student learns, first of all, that psychology is not a

science of the psyche or soul, as its etymology- implies. It is simply

a science of human behavior-how man behaves.

But what is man? Here a gigantic semantic blank registers.

Modern psychology does not know exactly what man is unless it

dogmatically identifies him with the body. Limited by the rigors

of its methodological philosophy, it finds itself compelled either

to confess almost complete ignorance of man, or to assert that

man is identical essentially with his body and no more.

Some scientists have taken the first alternative. Dr. Alexis

Carrel is quite frank in his admission that man's ignorance of

himself is profound. He states, "We do not apprehend man as a

whole. We know him as composed of distinct parts. And even

these parts are created by our methods. Man, as known to the

specialist, is nothing but a schema, consisting of other schemata

built up by the techniques of other sciences. Each of us is made

up of a procession of phantoms, in the midst of which strides an

unknown reality."2 Thus, man, according to Dr. Carrel is the

unknown.

Others have championed the second alternative, declaring

that man is purely a body, a protoplasmic machine, his mind

merely an epiphenomenon or byproduct of the brain, "a highly

attenuated material substance surrounding the cerebrum, like

the halo round the head of a saint."3

In truth , it can be said with a large margin of safety that the

ancient riddle of the Sphinx is unsolved until now.

The proper study of mankind is still man because man is still

the biggest question mark in the universe. Nor has modern psychology,

with all its scientific instruments and appliances, explained

the true nature of man's psychological functions, his consciousness,

his memory, his perception.

How we see is as miraculous as how we hold a piece of stone.

And it is as difficult for psychology to explain the former as it is

for physics to explain the latter. Both are, from the stand point of

scientific erudition, as mysterious as the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Just the same, the student learns dogmatically enough that

he sees with his eves, hears with his ears, smells with his nose,

tastes with his tongue and thinks with his brain! Consequently,

he cannot see without his eyes, hear without his ears, smell

without his nose, taste without his tongue, nor think without his

brain. Thus, the student learns to regard his body as himself and

the brain as his mind.

Science Abolishes the Soul

The abolition of the soul concept from scientific psychology

Was not a sudden eradication.  It was rather a gradual retrogression.

First, the soul with all its religious, moral and metaphysical

Implications, was accepted as reality. Psychology, as its name

indicates, began as the science of the soul. Psychologists, however,

began doubting the scientific validity of the soul because

they resented its philosophical associations. They jettisoned it

and put in its place the term mind. Psychology became the

science of the mind. But even mind was not  good enough. It was as abstract

and nebulous as the soul. They got rid of this and took the word

consciousness.  Psychology became the science of  consciousness.

But what are we conscious of at any given moment? The structuralists

Came in and introduced the concept of mental states.

Psychology became the science of mental states. But ate there really

Mental states? Are there not only mental functions? The functional

Psychologists redefined psychology and called it the science of

Mental functions.

Entered Watson and his behaviorists. Mental functions, they

said, are not directly observable. They are subjective' They' can

be reached only by introspection. And introspection is not scientific.

In fact, all we can observe is behavior, the overt behavior of

the organism interacting with its environment' Beyond this, we can

only surmise, speculate. We cannot be scientific. In reducing

psychology to the science of behavior Watson has also reduced

it to physiology and anatomy.

There have been strong reactions against the limited and materialistic

philosophy of behaviorism, such as Gestalt psychology,

harmonic psychology, and psychoanalysis. In the main,

however, modern psychology has become what Watson wanted

it to be .- observational, no introspective, mensurable, statistical,

physiological, anatomical, but certainly not psychological.

The Watsonian attitude is similar to that of the materialistic

scientist who,  in order to find out what made Goethe's novel,

Werther, cause and epidemic of suicides, begins to study its first

edition according to the method of exact, positive science.

He weighs the book, measures it by the most precise

Instruments, notes the number of  its pages, makes a chemical

Analysis of the paper, the number of letters, and even how  

many times the letter A, is repeated, how many times the letter B,

and  how many times the interrogation mark, the period, the comma

are used he writes an erudite treatise on the relationship of the letter A

of the German alphabet to suicide.4

Behaviorism is effective in the study of animal psychology because

Animals are not self-analytic. Their minds are inaccessible.

Only their overt behavior can be observed. But this certainly not

Adequate in the study of human psychology.

It is lamentable to discover that in spite of the emergence of

Other schools of psychological thought, behaviorism is still

The dominant psychological philosophy of the century.

From soul-psychology to behaviorism – that was the retrogression, the

Devolution, the materialization of the science of psychology:

• The science of the soul.
• The science of the mind.
• The science of consciousness.
• The science of mental states.
• The science of mental functions.
• The science of the boy.

When psychology discovered the body, immediately abolished the soul.

C. G. Jung and the depth psychologists may have begun to reverse

This trend, but academic psychology still clings to the physical

Interpretation, and so perpetuates a soul-science without soul.

I Use the Word Soul

Hence, I use the word soul deliberately, internationally, and purposely.

I use it, because to me the soul is no less real than any so-called scientific

Fact, like the revolution of the earth or the existence of the electrons.

I use it, because to permit the continuance of its banishment from the

Filed of science is to perpetuate the tyranny of a method that cannot

Soar above the limitations of inert matter and the illusions of the

Sense organs.

I use it, because a psychology without a soul completely deprives man

Of the true basis of the moral life.

I use it, because under different names, like old wine in new bottles,

The soul-concept is coming into its own.

Names by Which the Soul Has Been Called

McDougall, the dynamic psychologist, employs the word soul. The

Gestaltists call it “total configuration”. Frederick Myers calls it “subliminal

Consciousness”. P. D. Ouspensky employs the term “fourth dimensional consciousness”.

Dr. R. M. Bucke and Edward Carpenter name it “comic consciousness”. The

Freudians call it the ego, sometimes the subconscious.

In the East where the psychology of the soul has never lost its charms

For either the scientist or the philosopher, the soul is called by various

Names. The Vedantist calls it Atman, and identifies it with Divine

Essence of Brahman. The Sankhya names it Purusha. The Jaina gives

It the name jiva.

But by whatever name it may pass, the soul is regarded in the East

As a unitary and multi-dimensional consciousness which uses the

Body as a vehicle or instrument of manifestation in the physical

Universe.  It is distinct from the body. It relinquishes the body at

Death. But even before death, it may, if it wants, emancipate it

Self from the limitations of the body by the practice of yoga.

The soul is the “I Am”, the man himself: the body is only his garment.

None of the terminologies mentioned gives the full meaning of the

Word soul. Each of them emphasizes one aspect, but none has the richness,

Comprehensiveness, the completeness of the ancient word soul or psyche.

That is why I use the word soul.