Rechtliche Hinweise zu Copyright, TMG und Links

Search by keywords


Remarks on noosomatic research

The essential problem in the noosomatic research is the challenge, under inclusion of the sociology of the body, to bring phenomena of human expressions so into verbalized communication, that thereby the up-to-now, apparently well understood knowledge will not be formulated and so is reinterpreted formally anew: the actual nexus has to be presented recognizably by appropriate observation and epicritical reflection, that the up to now unknown facts together with the up to now knowledge initiate intelligent practice of thinking - without security tendencies of scientific narcism.

We must consider that we are not bodilessly agitating ones in this research region. We must record (as logical consequence of our corporeality) the boundaries of our observation ability and the boundaries of the reliability of explanations (and also descriptions), so to speak from inside, since we can not consider ourselves personally from outside. The settlement raised in the rank of a philosophical truism, that there is no extraterrestial communication of observations over us (see Ludwig Wittgenstein, George Spencer Brown among others), although this statement can be marked as a heresy in the esoteric region, this settlement requires the confession in all intellectual region, that this understandable human situation presents nevertheless a limited one and is influenced in particular by sociogenic factors. If the occupation of a person with the human wants to be neither a solipsistic nor narcissistic variant of the subjective relativism, we must informationally distinguish between information and news.

Different searchers have gone different ways to bring to knowledge also the innermost of the internal feeling and thinking of a person. Independently from scientific methods we can differentiate following areas: In the region of the genuine feeling verbalizations appear as a rule simply as superfluously. In the region of the exploring the work with the research object is to be compared with the police inquiry work, which marks also the region of the clinical psychology.

This successful description of Eva Jaeggi, Robert Rohner and Peter M.Wiedemann in "Die Wurzeln psychologischer Methodik" (The roots of psychological methods") <in " Denkanstösse '93", 1992, p.26-30) is expanded by them also on the confession, the journal and biographies. Following their judgment we must agree that the psychoanalysis masters this art at the best, since the "psychoanalysts have developed" a "hearing" with that >> third ear << (p.28), to win knowledge also from split references, which they transform into (bring into conformation with) their theory aknowledge system. We know already confessions since our child legs, indeed also their effects and therefore the systematics of their installability.

The fact, that appropriate communication separates information from their transporting news, if it wants to help to expand knowledge, has to be scientosociologically considered within the perspective, that knowledge can be tabooed because of cultural limits of knowledge. Thereby social consent can be raised in the rank of truth. The resulting restraints of actually autonomous movements limit the observation possibilities of human investigating in addition. Introduced in the scientific research the demand of observation of the observer leads to pretended precision, where however the myth of the normative power of the up-to-now protects social convention and rituals agian. Truth explains itself or that pretention as such is none. "It is an empirically unworkable idea, to understand truth as consensus of individuals"( Niklas Luhmann" The science of the society ", 1990, p.619).

Considering the physiological limitations of human perception ability science produces knowledge only by participating in the open system of the biologically understood vitality, and if science does not fulfill the social and so far conservative wait for supposed and expectated achievement. The recognizable contrast between socially supported "shall" (e.g. to secure the survival of the mankind) and the logical prohibition, to intend the target's achievement, becomes picked up by the sociocritical position, that only the dedication to the moment and the situational engagement interact appropriately with our human possibilities and let us remain unaffected facing really new insights. Science earns this name only, if it clears itself from its social genesis and does its work nevertheless within human community. The idea of observation of higher place always contains mythological elements and forgets, that there does not exist any extra-personal observation of the extraterrestial kind.

The fulfillment of this demand in scientific work is confrontated with the social threat of isolation (see the acquisition of material requirements of research). Private taught counts as being peculiar or even dangerous. Scientific work must justify itself within the region of the up-to-now, if we want to enjoy social reward. Since society is organized as formalized grouping and not as substantial community, society blocks up meaningful questions and gets satisfied by aiming formal outlook of sense - that means: utility, for what however. Overtopping meaning utility robs the possibility, to find truth by the medium of sensuality (meaning plus sensuousness). True and untrue sentences are exposed to the danger to be deprived from falsification because of their formated sense-giving authority. Only that, which presently seems to make sense is acknowledged as so called meaningful and as advancement of true knowledge. That is sponsored by the full-differentiation of science in part regions (expertiety). Interdisciplinary research is still felt as an extraordinary doing and as not following scientific logic. Scientific work is called, which fertilize inner social (comparable to the endogamy) reproduction of the up-to-now (and may it be by other forms). The members of the society remain among themselves. You can see that in the encounter of different societies: the own society does devaluate not-endangering varieties of cultural conduct of course, but only tolerates them up to the boundary of the dangerous threat. This tolerance can be regarded as an inner social element facing scientific technical languages and religiously oriented announcements. Inner familiarily forced reserve facing inquiries at mature gibberish is rewarded as always by grant of provision. Therefore meaningful questions are not asked frequently enough in political decision committees e.g. facing technical achievements.

Only if an extreme situation of need appears individuals are allowed to ask personal questions concerning their existential nexus. Society - like a big family - cares formally for the receipt of the existential needs. The conventions forbid the general scientific doubt facing the counting sights. In socially allowed niches criticism may be exercised, however should not conduct in changed interaction facing socialy built up norms. The sociogenic influence on our corporeality and on the linguistic education and therefore on the actual relation with our corporeality are accepted analogously to the familiar reason education. As a need or even as a crisis can only be learned those events, which brings to worth the uncontrolled original.

See the example analysis

As a rule those impulses, which aim at the original, recall the perinatal care, which is tied with the death idea (a baby is not able to survive without nurrishing help e.g.). The activated frontal lobe cells represent the age of their filling: in this care we do so, as if we arestill babies, as if we must still be provided. This carriage is an effect and efficicates now the tendency, to find a possible form of adjusting, so that provision is guaranteed again: so that the activated cells switch off the alarm.

The parental unconscious and conscious predeterminations (wishes, expectations etc.) are projected, that the child's genuine possibilities seem to be condemned in the experience of injury, the child arrives so at his (not genuine) outlooks as consequence of the experience of injury and becomes (in his subconscious system) itself father and mother, how it has perceived its patents.

An experiencing of the alienization, which has started with the experience of injury, is the occasion to ask for an analysis. However, this can be experienced only, if a person comes into the situation to distinguish her- or himself from something, which is held hidden behind the injury experience by the subconscious system. Consequently the occasion of an analysis is the experience of the original, which appears like an alien.


Socially such a situation of need expresses itself by help of the hysterical hyperaction: The social system refuses exogenous impulses, which could dissolve the sytsem, in that way that it try to integrate or to expel them analogously to the physiological immune-system. The usual medical language speaks a military language, using terms as e.g. defense battle, destruction, and so unmasks the social relation with the foreign and does not describe the actual work of the so-called immune-system, which - within the social frame - politically benefits only some few (see immunity). In this not just unimportant part region of the medicine social reality reveals itself and camouflages itself as a scientific description.

The new must have apparently always connection at the old, should it be accepted as socially relevant. We can say: The new must be compatible with the up-to-now system, i.e. the innersystemic connex leads to the socially accepted "connection". Such relations are subjected to the observation of higher place, like it especially becomes clear at the marriage closing (and at the marriage status), which may not occur without permission and are not at all picked up without court judgment "in the name of the people" . This kind of tabooed entrances in new "life rooms" are tolerated innersystemic, since they do not put into question the general general day reality.

The tolerance facing the formal consequences of expertiety comments also in tolerance facing socially accepted reasonings, without examining logically their content (*). Reasonings receive their meaning by presupposed "prior knowledge", which is conceded adults obviously already in the family. The dependability of prior knowledge is considered as proved because of the gratuities (innerfamiliary: security of the provision situation), which follows each submission. From it follows directly, that not only the work of thinking of the parents is only for the parents sake, but also, that scientific work is guaranteed in their actual content only for the scientists themselves, as long as the provision situation is guaranteed. That is correct also on other fields living from the flair of the scientific character: Right advice e.g. serve the law, without that the legality of laws may be questioned (see the so-called injustice laws in the "third reich"). Religious speeches serve the receipt of their theology. Medical therapies serve the justification of limited knowledge of the medicine and the dependability of the all-world experience, which presents itself as a scientifically secured empiricism. We cannot want to deny that law counseling and medical therapy can help to free actually from personal need. But is it chance or necessity?.

Science as social enclave has its right of existence as long as it communicates - with regard to contents - only with itself and does not contradict the sociogenic demands. Therefore it defines (in all rule) their linguistic originalities with the help of the ideas "complexiety" and "precision". The translation into the general day-language and with it into the applicability of its results in the general day-reality happens through special personnel, which profiles as virtue guards, to prevent, as they say, dangerous abuse (e.g. after the motto: If everybody can build an atom bomb ..), a familiarily well known position of the adults. The cercle is round, from the family via society to the family; the conception is clear, the forms can change ...

See also:

Selection by theme of other published articles

Psychology and others: CLICK here!

Medicine, Biology, Physiology: CLICK here!

Studies in Religion and Theology: CLICK here!

Examples of Corroborations


[CRCW] [Overview] [Search] [Current Research] [Quotations] [Ordering] [Sitemap] [Contact]