KARL JASEPRS FORUM

TA62 (Mikes)

Commentary 1

WHAT MAKES UP A WHOLE ?
by Timo Järvilehto
5 September 2003, posted 16 September 2003

<1>
In psychology there are many attempts to create holistic theories of the mind. One of the earliest ones was Gestalt psychology with its slogan "Whole is more than the sum of its parts". Thereafter, there have been many attempts in stressing the holistic character of the human mind or the significance of situational and contextual factors when psychological problems are addressed. However, it is usually typical that no strict criteria are presented why a certain constellation of components or elements should make up a whole, and why some other constellations don’t. For example, in relation to the mind/body problem one may encounter statements like "Mind is an integrative characteristic of the brain as a whole" or "Mind is not located in the brain, but it is a function of the body as a whole". But why only the brain, or why only the body?

<2>
Of course, if one starts with the subjective experience, then this experience is a whole, and it cannot be divided in parts in the same way as the brain or body, for example. In fact, this was also the reason why Descartes thought that the soul couldn’t consist of the same substance as the body. However, if we start with the monistic position (as I do, and as I have understood Dr. Mikes also does), such a solution does not solve anything, but only pushes the problem to the side. Dr. Mikes starts with the proposition (if I understand him correctly) that there is a Plenitude or Multiverse, which develops with the development of the mind to a Universe or world with specific properties. Thus, in this Universe one should be able to discern components or elements that together make up the human mind as a whole (presupposing that we do not from the beginning adopt the panpsychic position stating that the mind is the universe as a whole; but even then we had not solved the problem of the human mind). However, I cannot find in the target article any such definitions.

<3>
The Cartesian starting point was based on a very fundamental division : there are two parts of the world that form the basis of our existence. The subjective experience is in the "inside" world and everything else "outside". The dividing line was between the immaterial soul and the body (or to be exact: the pineal gland of the brain). When the concept of soul was later rejected, a new line of division was drawn : that between the body and environment. The concept of soul was substituted with the concept of mind or experience that – actually following Descartes -- was thought to be located in the body, either as the same thing as the bodily action (or brain activity) or as something special or emergent, created by the activity of the body. Following the inside/outside divide the body was conceived as the carrier of subjective experience and of the acting subject; but the external world was supposed to represent the source of mental activity - the stimuli.

<4>
On this basis, it is, in my opinion, impossible to determine what should be the "whole" one should set as a starting point of a Wholism. We may choose any constellation of factors inside – pineal gland, prefrontal area, brain, heart, or the body – and maintain that they constitute the mind as a whole. Or we may maintain that the wholes are already present in the environment outside as claimed in many psychological information transmission approaches.

<5>
If we base consistently our theorizing on our experience then there is no compelling reason why we should think the world consists of parts, some of which are "inside" and some "outside". Therefore, I have proposed that we should change the starting point altogether, and reject the original inside/outside division. There is one world only – the one we experience -- and our experiencing happens in this world as truly as anything else. The computer I am using when typing this comment, is not "outside"; it is inside my activity and experience. Thus, when we start with the subjective experience as the original whole, we can’t limit it to the brain or the body only, but we must search for a larger system realizing this experience.

<6>
In my own organism-environment approach I have tried to solve such problems by rejecting the basic assumption of two systems (inside and outside), and starting with a postulate which is not obvious at once: that the organism and environment belong together, and cannot be separately studied in respect to psychological processes. This is the whole that we should study if we wish to understand something about the human mind. One doesn’t find the mind within the organism, as little as it can be found in the "external" environment. It is the organism-environment system that constitutes the system of experience; i.e. the subjective experience consists of processes both in the organism and in the environment.

<7>
However, the organism-environment system is not a system consisting of the organism and the environment in the sense that they could be treated as subsystems of the whole system; the organism-environment system is rather a methodological principle. This methodological principle entails that -- instead of looking at simple linear causal relations (e.g. the events from the stimulus to the response) when explaining human activity or subjective experience -- the research should start from the determination of the results of activity, and lead to the necessary constituents of the system determining the achievement of these results. Thus, it is the result of activity that represents the basic system-forming factor, and gives the clue on what constituents should be included into the system as a whole.

<8>
Thus, in my opinion, in order to create a truly Wholistic approach – as Dr. Mikes is aiming at -- one should begin with two basic methodological starting points 1) subjective experience as the basis of all our contemplations and scientific activity, and 2) the result or outcome of our activity as a factor determining the systemic wholes.

-----------------------------------------------

Timo Jarvilehto, PhD

Professor of psychology

Homepage: http://cc.oulu.fi/~tjarvile/indexe.htm

University of Oulu

PB 2000

90014 Oulun yliopisto