Web This Site
|
Web This Site |
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
INDEX <-- The Six Domains
JOURNAL OF METAPSYCHOLOGY
Some Reflections on HavingA person's basic abilities include the ability to be, the ability to do, and the ability to have. IRM Article 4 goes into being in some detail, and in my book, "Beyond Psychology", I have discussed at some length the various creative and receptive actions that constitute the basic forms of doing. I also discussed having in my book, but since writing it, I have had a few more ideas on the subject that I would like to share with you.Different Meanings of the Word 'Have'The word "have" is used in different ways, and confusion can result from failing to differentiate between its different meanings. We sometimes use "have" to refer to entities (by which I mean to include objects, events, characteristics, and states of affairs) conceived as being within a person's current identity (as where one says, "Mary has a bad temper."). At other times, we use "have" to refer to entities outside that identity (as when we say, "Mary has a blue Chevrolet."). In the first sense, we are using "have" to mean "includes", and in the second sense, we are using "have" to mean "possesses". In the first sense, what is "had" is conceived of as internal to that which has it; in the second sense, what is "had" is conceived as external. The first usage of "have" really falls under the category of being, so it is not relevant to our discussion of having as distinct from being. "She has a bad temper," is really only another way of saying, "She is bad-tempered." For the purpose of clarity, I propose to use "have" in the second sense rather than the first.Only a Conscious Being Can HaveWhen we consider this second meaning of "have", it is interesting to observe that only people or other conscious beings can be conceived of as having, in this sense. If we say that a house has a garage (or shingles) we are actually using "have" in the first sense given above. What we really mean is that the fact of being next to a garage (or the characteristic of being shingled) is a characteristic of the house, part of what the house is. The house doesn't actually possess anything. Only when we get up to certain fairly advanced life forms do we think of them as having possessions (like a dog with a bone or a cat with a catnip mouse). This is reflected in the fact that we give gifts to people or animals but not, for instance, to mountains. Aborigines who think mountains are alive probably do give gifts to them.Having as Potential CausationThe reason for this peculiarity is that having is intimately connected to causation. We have those things over which we can exert some form of intentional causation or action; we do not have those things over which we cannot. It is because we do not view a mountain as an intentionally causative agent that we do not consider that it has anything. Thus, we have come upon a useful definition of having:Definition: Having is the ability to be causative (or to act) with respect to an entity.Just because I have something doesn't mean that I have to be acting with respect to it at any particular time. I can have a book in my attic and not be handling it, seeing it, reading it, or even thinking of it at any particular time. But the fact that I have the book does mean that I can read it or touch it if I wish (or not, if I prefer not to). Obviously, having, as above defined, can admit of different degrees. I have at least one firehouse in my city, and a local baseball team to root for. But the degree to which I have these entities is less than the degree to which I have my car -- or my body -- because the degree to which I can act on my car (or my body) is greater than the degree to which I act on the Oakland A's or the local firehouse. Access and InfluenceHaving can be further broken down with respect to the type of cause or action I can exert. As I have mentioned elsewhere, there are two types of action: creative action (in which a person causes an outflow of effects to his world) and receptive action (in which a person causes an inflow of effects from his world). The two corresponding types of having could be called "access" and "influence":Definition: Access is the ability to engage in receptive actions with respect to an entity.So I can now offer an alternative definition of having: Definition: Having is access and/or influence.We have those things to which we have access and/or over which we have influence. PrehensionOne final distinction needs to be made. A third concept is contained in having: namely, the idea of being currently involved in causation or action with respect to something. As I said above, I can have a book without reading it, but I "have" it in a more immediate sense when I hold it in my hand or scan it with my eyes. It is useful to distinguish between having access to and influence over something and actually contacting and controlling something. One is an ability or potential action; the other is an actual, current action, an exercise of ability. I have adopted a rare (but real) term -- "prehension" -- to describe this immediate, currently active sense of having:Definition: Prehension is the condition in which an entity is the direct object of a person's current action.When you prehend something, you have it in your immediate grasp, physically, perceptually, or cognitively. You are doing something with it. You may have a cat, but only when you see it, pick it up, or think about it do you prehend it. You can have knowledge of who the second president of the United States was, but only when you are actually thinking, "Adams was the second president of the United States," are you prehending that fact. Thus we can now define having in terms of prehension: Definition: Having is the ability to prehend.Note that the set of entities we have and the set of entities we prehend include all three types of entities that make up our worlds:
Knowing -- A Special Case of HavingThe differentiation between having and prehending applies to knowing, as a special case of having, pertaining to facts. When can we say that we know something? Can we know something even when we aren't really thinking of it, or do we only know it when we are directly thinking of it? The answer lies in the fact that knowing is just one form of having -- namely, the condition of having a fact. We know a fact when we are able to prehend it. Knowing, therefore, can admit of degrees. If I know something well, it is easy for me to prehend it; if I know it less well, I will have more difficulty prehending it. If I had to say what the first fifteen elements are, in order of atomic number, I think I could do it, but it would require more effort than saying who the first president of the United States was. I know the name of the first president of the U.S. better than I know the first part of the Periodic Table.There are, of course, some entities which I do not have at all. I do not have a billion dollars, because I cannot exercise control or causation over a billion dollars. I also do not have knowledge of the formulas that make up the theory of General Relativity. There is no absolute line of demarcation between having and not having, or between knowing and not knowing. If I would have to undergo deep hypnosis or narcosynthesis to become aware of what presents I got on my third birthday, do I know what I got? Or would I have to acquire this knowledge? The answer is that I know to a very slight degree but I could (through hypnosis, etc.) come to know it a great deal better. That is -- I could make access to the facts a lot easier. Getting and GainingBetween having and prehending, there is an intermediate phase, during which one is "putting attention on" or "taking hold of" something. This phase is called "getting":Definition: To get an entity is to come to prehend it.This usage is similar to that used in referring to computers. The action of "getting" on a computer is that of taking a datum from some peripheral storage location and bringing it into the central processing unit for immediate use. The computer already "has" the data -- i.e., it is able to "get" it -- but it must actually "get" the data before it can use it or change it. In this sense, the word "get" might be thought of as synonymous with "receive", but "get" can also mean "create", as when you "get" dinner or "get" someone to do something. Our usage is the broader one including both creative and receptive modes of coming to prehend. "Get" is also commonly used to mean "coming to have". In the interest of conceptual precision, however, I will not use "get" in this sense but in the narrower sense of actually coming to prehend something that one already has. This usage of "get" gives us yet another valid definition of having: Definition: Having is the ability to get.Obviously you can prehend something if and only if you can come to prehend it. We will use the word "gain" to refer to the action of coming to have something (as distinguished from the action of coming to prehend something): Definition: To gain an entity is to come to have it.Note that in order to get something, you must first gain it. In fact, we could redefine "gain" as follows: Definition: To gain an entity is to acquire the ability to get it. Releasing and LosingThere is a transition phase between prehending something and no longer prehending it. We will refer to the act of letting go of something, no longer acting on it, as "releasing" it:Definition: To release an entity is to cease to prehend it.Whether one still has an entity after one releases it depends on where one puts it when one releases it! If you have a piece of paper in your hand and then throw it into the fire, you not only cease to prehend it, you also cease to have it. On the other hand, if you carefully file the paper, you continue to have it. We will use the term "losing" to refer to the action of ceasing to have something: Definition: To lose an entity is to cease to have it.Note that you can lose something by putting it somewhere where you can no longer prehend it, but you can also lose something without putting it anywhere at all, as when your house burns down while you are at work. Summary of Terms
Practical ImplicationsWhy bother making all of these definitions and distinctions? Partly because we are addressing concepts that are absolutely fundamental to an understanding of human nature and experience. Gaining a precise and accurate knowledge of them is crucial. Ordinary language is not quite up to the task of offering a precise way of expressing these concepts; giving exact definitions will go a long way to sharpening our thinking on a variety of issues and can therefore lead to unforeseen future conceptual breakthroughs.Some ramifications are already in sight. We can now clarify the goals we should set for viewing in general and for traumatic incident reduction in particular. In the past, some have thought that in handling a past traumatic incident, one should try to restore full knowledge and perception of that incident. However, it now appears that there is no such thing as full knowledge or perception of anything -- only various gradients of better or worse knowledge or perception. Therefore, what occurs in viewing past traumatic incidents is not an absolute shift from not knowing to knowing but a motion toward greater degrees of knowing. Some have said that if we were really in an enlightened state, we would
eliminate all "filters" and be aware of (i.e., prehend) everything at once.
However, such a state would not be a desirable one. In fact, the state
of universal prehension, even if it were possible, would be highly incapacitating,
like trying to hammer a nail while carrying fifteen other tools at the
same time. The point is to be able to lay your hands on a tool when you
need it and to be able to let go of it when it is no longer needed. But
although there is a definite limit to the benefit of increasing the number
of things one prehends, there is no limit to the benefit of increasing
what one has. You should strive as much as possible to improve your
ability to get entities when you need them and, when you don't need them,
to put them where you still have them. The point is to increase the number
of things you are able to prehend and the ease with which you can
prehend them. But since the ability to prehend is the same as having, we
can simply say that the point of viewing (and of most other actions) is
to increase the number of things you have and the degree to which you have
them.
Frank A. Gerbode, M.D. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To contact us write to info@tir.org for fastest response. Phone: +1 800 499 2751 (Toll-free USA/Canada) or +1 734 761 6268 (elsewhere) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||