Tomorrow's Healing Today

Introduction

I just returned from the Republic of Indonesia, an archipelago nation spanning 17,000 islands between China and Australia. It has long been the “Water Road” paralleling the “Silk Road” connecting East and West. The capital is Jakarta, and it is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It was established in the 4th century. During the 350 years of Dutch colonial rule of these “Spice Islands,” the city was known as Batavia. Following the Japanese occupation of World War II and overthrow of the Dutch in 1945, Batavia became Jakarta. In recent years the city has grown more rapidly than Beijing, Bangkok, Singapore, or Kuala Lumpur. My travels to Indonesia have allowed me the opportunity to meet with that nation’s psychologists, physicians, lawyers, businessmen, academics, expatriates, historians, and a collector of gold and wooden artifacts.

I had previously lectured at the University of Indonesia at Jakarta when gathering data for my cross-cultural study of student values (i.e., studying valuational styles or how students organize and exercise values resulting in a General Capacity to Value). This time I was invited to lecture at Bali’s Faculty of Medicine, and there I discussed my interest in values and healing. Returning to Jakarta, I met with a physician friend, and Ph.D. historian, Dr. Rushdy Hoesein, to discuss the history of Indonesian medicine. I also met with my niece, Dr. Karina F. Moegni to discuss her involvement with biological medicine and her experience treating patients with stem cells.

__________

I. Biology-Based Medicine

Dr. Karina F. Moegni, is a physician and surgeon engaged in the practice of biological medicine using stem cells taken from the patient own body. Biological medicine has interested me since I worked with physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and scientists organizing the International Academy of Preventive Medicine (IAPM). I came to appreciate the importance of biological medicine as distinguished from pharmacological medicine, and the moral dimension of healing and medicine as it relates to the virtue of rational health choices. She has successfully treated her mother and husband which says a lot concerning her confidence in the safety and efficacy of stem cells. Before leaving Indonesia, I had the opportunity to observe her treating a diabetic patient at her Jakarta clinic.

Stem cell therapy is a version of biological medicine. It remains controversial in the U.S; however Dr. Moegni has successfully treated patients with adult stem cells extracted from the patient’s adipose or fat tissue. She also plans to treat cancer patients with NK therapy or natural killer cells. Both stem cells and natural killer cells are harvested from the patient’s own tissues: adipose and blood respectively. With the encouragement of the Indonesian government, and support of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical company, she has established a Foundation to support her practice. Investors are prepared to fund the construction of an Adipose Mobile Processing Laboratory and Fixed Bone Marrow Processing Laboratory needed for the preparation of the stem cells. When we spoke earlier this month my niece was completing requirements for the Ph.D. degree in her field of interest. On January 17, 2015 she will conduct a seminar dealing with the neurological and geriatric applications of stem cell therapy. Tomorrow’s biological medicine is taken seriously in Indonesia.

The American Experience

In the U.S. the pharmaceutical-industrial-complex isn’t rushing to invest in biological medicine or stem cell research on the scale that’s needed. Their business model is focused more on the manufacturing of drugs with lucrative patents. Biological medicine involves procedures and practices that are more difficult to monetize or patent on a scale as profitable as drugs. Neither our government nor academic centers are funding stem cells research on a scale that is needed to address the chronic, degenerative diseases of an aging population.

This approach to healing is undeveloped in the U.S. in spite of recent success treating diabetes and in spite of physicians reporting good outcomes while others denounce stem cell therapy as “dramatically premature, unsafe, and not effective.” In some cases they do so without any clinical experience of their own. Their views are contradicted by other doctors who plan to independently evaluate the clinical effectiveness of autologous stem cell therapy (i.e., where the donor and recipient are the same person). FDA guidelines view stem cell therapy as falling in a grey, unregulated area of medicine because the cells are “minimally manipulated,” “not combined with drugs or genetic material,” and because the patient receives his or her own cells which are processed and then re-injected into their bodies. Dr. Moegni treats patients with autologous stem cells and employs procedures used in countries like Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and South Korea.

II. Values-Based Psychology

Moving from a consideration of medical healing to psychological healing, I had an opportunity to speak with the faculty and students at Bali’s School of Medicine concerning my work in the field of values research. Several years earlier I had studied the valuational styles of Indonesian students in relation to those of Japan, Russia, Mexico, and the U.S. It was an opportunity to share these “cross cultural” or “cross-national” data and introduced axiological psychology as one of the dimensions of tomorrow’s healing today. I spoke of how this new system of psychology is based on a new system of science (i.e., axiological science or the science of values), and how this new science enables the development of a values-based cognitive psychology (i.e., a valuecentric psychology without which there can be no science of psychology or positive psychology). It's worth noting that this new science of values, and its foremost application of axiological psychology, provides the foundation for culture-free moral education which is tomorrow's preventive psychology today.

I raised eyebrows when I suggested that moral education is preventive psychology, and when I suggested “moral insanity” is an important cause of the “clinical insanity” diagnosed and treated by psychologists. There are always questions concerning "whose morality," and questions concerning moral relativity and the existence of moral absolutes. I didn’t go into such questions at the time, but I’ve discussed them in previous blogs because they concern and define the world "Beyond Good and Evil.”

Values-based cognitive psychology or axiological psychology is another approach to healing that interests me and one I’ve been involved with for many years. I had previously collaborated with a professor at the University of Indonesia, and now had the opportunity to share those data with faculty and students at Bali’s Faculty of Medicine. The following is an attempt to summarize parts of my presentation.

_________

Axiological psychology is made possible by advances in the scientific study of values (i.e., habitual evaluative habits that come “alive” within us with use) supporting and enabling belief systems, attitudes and thought-styles. This is important because we're also habitual self-evaluators which gives rise to issues of self-esteem. Historically, the clinical and scientific study of values has been ignored by psychology and the social sciences because they had been no science of structural values and dynamic valuations until the convergence of philosophical and psychological thought culminating in the publication of The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Rodopi Press, 2005).

The provenance of axiological science and psychology involves the integration of not one, but two, instances of converging psychological and philosophical thought in the field of cognitive psychology: 1. The Ellis-Epictetus Synthesis giving rise to Ellis’ Super ABC Paradigm which my Bali audience was familiar with. They were well aware of my mentor's contribution to psychology. 2. The Pomeroy-Hartman Syntheses exploring the the structure of “B” in Ellis’ Super ABC Paradigm. These instances of converging psychological and philosophical thought have given rise to today’s values-based, cognitive psychology I call axiological psychology. It’s a new approach to the study of psychology and therefore all human activities including peace making and conflict resolution.

__________

Value science (i.e., axiological science) makes axiological psychology possible, and it is a long overdue second system of science that compliments historic natural science arising out of the world of the ancient Greeks, the European Renaissance and the Age of Reason. Humankind has endured and barely survived the asymmetric evolution of natural science without moral science, and this has given us a half-smart civilization and pre-scientific psychology. The same unfinished business applies to all the social sciences, including the “dismal science” of economics (giving us the Great Depression of 1929 and today’s Great Recession of 2008), and civilization itself. Without understanding this tragic flaw in the character of civilziation and its discontents, Sigmund Freud struggled with it in his book titled “Civilization and Its Discontents.” C. P. Snow struggled to understand it in his book titled “The Two Cultures.” With axiological science we achieve for the first time a scientific understanding and recognition of values in a world of facts that Freud and Snow, and the great minds of history, never grasped or at most merely dreamed about.

My contribution to the development of axiological science, and its foremost applications of HVP-Valuemetrics and Axiological Psychology, was inspired by psychologist Albert Ellis and philosopher Robert S. Hartman (Photos below). My interest in values research was advanced when I discovered philosopher Hartman’s theory of value and its derivative value profiling methodology (i.e., HVP-Valuemetrics). This inspired me to prove or disprove Hartman’s contributions and the results are technically summarized in the pages of “The New Science of Axiological Psychology.” Not so long ago when visiting Berlin, Germany, I met with an entrepreneur by the name of Dr. Ulrich Christoph Vogel at the Ibis Hotel near the Alexander Platz in what was once communist East Berlin. He surprised me by putting a copy of this book on the table before me and declaring it to be the "Bible” for those interested in the science of values, and engaged in the entrepreneurial marketing of this new science. These days, I know my book is being read because I continue to receive royalty checks ten years after its publication. The challenge I now face is making the content of this book available to a general audience without extensive scientific and statistical training. I need to translate the clinical and statitical findings into a "language" everyone can understand. From time to time I aim blogs in that direction.

__________

The Super ABC Paradigm:

In Bali that afternoon, I reminded my audience that axiological psychology is also an expansion of Albert Ellis’ Super ABC Paradigm, which I sometimes refer to as "The Guide." I noted how axiological psychology “unpacks” the cognitive "structure and processing" at “B” (i.e., consisting of beliefs, self-talk, thought-styles, values) in Ellis’ Super ABC Paradigm. Having studied Ellis, my audience in that far away land, understood me.

For those unfamiliar with Ellis’ therapeutic paradigm, “A” stands for “activating events” (e.g., someone insults you), “B” for “belief systems” (e.g., what you tell yourself about it), and “C” for “consequent emotions and behavior” (e.g., your anger, anxiety or other upset). It’s important to understand that “A” doesn’t cause “C,” and apply this to one’s life. It is “B” that causes “C. ” However, the "maps" at "B" are not "C." This is to say, the world doesn’t upset us, it is what we “tell ourselves” about the world that upsets us. We upset ourselves!. (You'd be surprised how many don't know this and even confuse B-maps (i.e., thinking) with C-territories (i.e., reality). Photo above: psychologist Albert Ellis, Ph.D.

The General Capacity to Value (GCV)

More specifically, lurking behind beliefs and thoughts styles at “B” are three interacting dimensions of the General Capacity to Value (GCV) known as the Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E), and Systemic (S) “lenses” or “dimensions” of valuation. I refer to them more intuitively as the Feeler (F), Doer (D), and Thinker (T) “lenses” or “dimensions” of valuation or “seeing with values;” remembering we are prisoners of our values and valuations.

These axiological dimensions (i.e., structural values and functional valuations) vary as to sensitivity, balance, priority, and plasticity, and they are constantly interacting in ways determined by nature and nurture. This axiological dynamism shapes and determines valuational styles giving rise to the attitudes, beliefs, self-talk, and inner-dialogues at “B.” Photo above: philosopher Robert S. Hartman, Ph.D.

Albert Ellis and I were both influenced by Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics and how language its grammatical structure influence behavior. While Ellis focused on thought styles behind problems in living, I came to focus on how values enable and sustain thought styles (i.e., valuational styles). In time, I began research aimed at establishing the clinical and empirical validity of philosopher Hartman’s theoretical contributions. This was my way of injecting clinically relevant science and evidence based concepts into the field of clinical psychology I had always regarded as too philosophical.

Historical Background

At the time of my internship with Ellis, I confronted the problem best defined by Professor Milton Rokeach who had written: “…the concept of value is at once the most important, least studied, and least understood concept in the field of psychology.” I also had to deal with the ambivalence of Abraham Maslow who had written the concept of value might be “obsolete” because it lacked a precise, operational definition; not to mention the failure of the best minds to define the meaning of “good” without using examples of good. Nor was I encouraged by the academic research of Allport, Rokeach, and Kohlberg which had little clinical relevance for me Photo is that of Alfred Korzybski.

I approached cognitive processing dedicated to values and valuations from the perspective of a clinician and not academic. During those early years, I suppose I lost hope of ever finding a clinically relevant, scientific approach to values, and I call those years my “professional wilderness years.” They lasted for seven years or until the day I met a Mexican friend of Hartman giving his test of values to participants of a Cape Cod Seminar. The friend was Salvador Roquet, MD. The test was HVP-Valuemetrics. I learned the test was derived a priori (i.e., without benefit of empirical tests or measures) directly from Robert Hartman’s theory of value. It was constructed by Hartman collaborating with a Mexican psychologist. Its purely a priori origins troubled and intrigued me as I proceeded to validate it and then use it (i.e., the HVP) as an "empirical handle to Hartman's theory." This resulted in a direct validation of the HVP and indirect validation of the theory behind it.

You can imagine my surprise at meeting Dr. Roquet using and interpreting Hartman's test of values. I was forced to reconsider this philosopher's definition of “good,” which is the the foundation of his theory of value, and its foremost application of value profiling with HVP-Valuemetrics. Using The Hartman Value Profile (HVP) in my private practice, I discovered its clinical usefulness and how it served as a “merciful handle” to Hartman’s theory of value. I took it seriously when few in my profession did and none had attempted systematic and transparent validation studies. Seven years after my mentor Ellis had introduced me to this philosopher, I began to test his theory of value using the best tests and measures of my chosen profession. I shared this experience with my Bali audience, how it inspired my research spanning some twenty-five years, and spoke of how I had set out to prove or disprove Hartman's theory on my own; as time and funding from my Manhattan private practice allowed.

Conclusion:

Value science has important applications and implications for all the social sciences because of the universality of values and the fact that we are ultimately prisoners of our values and habitual self-evaluators. Our inherited and acquired General Capacity to Value (GCV) shapes, modulates, influences all pro-self, pro-social, anti-self, and anti-social behaviors. It remains forever unfinished business in our individual and collective lives in keeping with the existentialist doctrine of lives as constructions and our responsible pursuit of meaning.

I did not go into all these details that afternoon on the island of Bali as the Monsoon Season beckoned. I do blog about my work exploring the world “Beyond Good and Evil,” and oppose philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) discovery of Social Darwinism or Survival of the Fittest as ruling the affairs of humankind.

I can think of nothing more important than for low tech moral science to catch up with high tech natural science. This is important for our individual and collective search for meaning and survival. Closing the gap promises to play a role in the development of tomorrow’s moral education needed to complement today’s learning of ABCs and 123s. It will also give us a preventive psychology needed to complement preventive medicine; for biological medicine (e.g., stem cell thrapies) raises many questions of morality, not the least of which concerns genetic counseling and engineering.

__________

It was a pleasure to once again share my research with an Indonesian audience just as I have done with students and faculties in Japan, Russia, Mexico, and the U.S. As to healing in general, I look forward to the development of biological medicine and axiological psychology in years to come. These approaches provide a glimpse into the future; revealing approaches I never dreamed possible in my college days. Given the universality of values, we face a future where natural science will be restrained by value science, and this is a good thing. Humankind has struggled forever without a science of values and morals in a world dominated by material science or natural science born of the European Renaissance and Age of Reason which failed to give us a science of values. Remember your history: natural philosophies evolved into natural sciences (e.g., alchemy became chemistry and astrology became astronomy) while moral philosophy tragically remained moral philosophy. With advances in today's value science (i.e., recall that morals are normative values) this has changed.

© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

Note: Following my return from Indonesia, I received disturbing news that AirAsia Flight QZ8501 was reported missing between Surabaya and Singapore. As one who often travels in this region, my thoughts and prayers go out to all anxiously awaiting news following the disappearance of this plane with its 162 passengers. Sadly, climate warming is producing “rogue weather conditions” on land, on sea and in the air, disrupting lives and travel as never before. Departing at the beginning of the Monsoon Season, my return flight encountered more turbulence than usual, and was diverted from the route usually taken by Korean Airlines.

Remembering AirAsia Flight QZ8501