| Abstract: | Presents a reply to the comments by Melzack (see record 1989-30022-001). Melzack comments that psychological theory is at a standstill and that the nature of self, mind and reality continue to elude us. I recall realizing during my educational training that we had not agreed upon conceptual understanding of self, let alone mind or reality. As an undergraduate student, I was introduced to, as Melzack states, a "profusion of little theories" and, as a graduate student, to a profusion of bigger clinical theories, without however, any conceptual clarity of these important terms. As I prepared for my dissertation, I found myself frustrated reviewing journal articles on self. Despite masses of studies laboriously investigating implications of self, self was being utilized as a vaguely defined dependent variable. As Melzack concluded, masses of facts are compiled with no agreed upon theoretical framework to hold them together. I would like to describe how I came upon a new avenue toward understanding self, mind and reality which has provided profound meaning to my clinical practice. I believe the ideas presented by Melzack have direct relevance for applied psychological theory. Substituting the term "phantom self for "phantom limb" can have many interesting parallels; when a person says "me," that implies "self" though the "self" described is a phantom as the phantom limb. As the search continues for the brain processes that generate qualities of experience for "self." I strongly recommend the consideration of Buddhist ideology for anyone concerned with defining self, mind and reality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
