In addition to the problem of psychology, that it is based on the dogmatic foundations of philosophy, and this in turn is based on those of Catholicism, another problem is that terms are either assigned unsystematically, such as in “individual psychology”, or that terms are assigned without filling them with content. As in the case of “clinical social psychology”, for which there is a labeled box, but so far it has been virtually empty.
The same applies to “psychonomy”.
The term is used in various ways and was originally coined by Werbik (1985), who, however, wanted to see it used to designate a second scientific direction within psychology, caused by the dispute over methods within psychology that still prevails to this day.
However, all criticism of psychology, all previous attempts at standardization (unity of psychology) etc. have failed and are failing because they all took place and take place within the same dogmatic framework.
Only mytholysis, the dissolution of dogmas and myths, clears the way for scientific psychonomy.
And this psychonomy not as a complement or extension, but as a contrast to non-scientific or pseudo-scientific psychology.
Just as there are still many people who believe in astrology despite astronomy, many who are avowed creationists despite the theory of evolution, biology and paleontology, who trust homeopathy despite physiology and medicine, and who also claim that their belief is scientific, so will people continue to believe in the future in
- the separation of immortal soul and earthly body,
- the CRAAM dogma of always and only consciously, rationally and autonomously acting man,
- the dogma of the body-less, culture-less and we-less I,
- the mythomaniac explanations of Freud,
- the formations of megalomania and control compulsion of the behaviorists,
The term “psychology” is assigned to this area and its representatives.
By “psychonomy”, on the other hand, I mean the direction that constantly strives for the dissolution of myths and dogmas on a scientific basis, instead of continuously reinventing them in any quantity, and in this way ignore reality in its entirety (dogmatic and not fictional) instead of examining it.
I use psychonomy to describe the search for knowledge, which could also be described as “ethological, cultural-historical social psychology”. Which therefore recognizes and does not deny the continuity of the development of humans and animals, not only in the field of biology but also of consciousness. Aware of and exploring the mutual influence of biology, culture and social environment on the development of the self.
And which exchanges the scientifically researched “New Unconscious” of social psychology (Bargh et al.) against the myths of Freud
This article was created in April 2022, which is why previous publications still refer to “psychology”.