What is Functional Thinking?

Q. What is functional thinking?
A. Functional thinking is thinking according to the way nature functions.
Q. Who discovered functional thinking?
A. Functional thinking was discovered by Wilhelm Reich M.D.
Q. What is the importance of functional thinking?
A, Functional thinking provides a way to integrate all the natural sciences into a unified body of knowledge.
Q. What is the difference between functional thinking and ordinary thinking?
A. Ordinary thinking is either mechanistic or mystical.
Q. What is mechanistic thinking?
A. Mechanistic thinking is thinking about nature as if it were a machine.
Q. What is mystical thinking?
A. Mystical thinking is thinking as if there was a purpose to nature.
Q. What’s wrong with thinking mechanistically and mystically about nature?
A. Since nature does not operate like a machine and since it has no purpose, mechanistic/mystical thinking cannot provide a satisfactory understanding of how nature operates. Furthermore, erroneous mechanistic/mystical thinking often has destructive consequences.
Q. How does mechanistic/mystical thinking work?
A. When mechanistic thinking fails to provide a satisfactory understanding of nature, mystical thinking enters to provide a purpose to what is left to be understood.
Q. What is an example of mechanistic/mystical thinking?
A. An example is the statement: The heart pumps blood in order to bring oxygen to the tissues of The body. First, the heart is compared to a mechanical pump. Then, a purpose is given to explain why the heart pumps blood.
Q. What is the functional understanding of this example?
A. The function of biological pulsation defines the goal of bringing oxygen to the tissues.
Q. Where can I learn more about functional thinking?
A. The American College of Orgonomy gives a course on functional thinking to qualified students.

September 24, 2015
Categories: Biological Sciences, emotional plague, Medical Sciences, Orgonometry, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Uncategorized, Wilhelm Reich . Tags: , , , , , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 1 Comment

The Effect Of Armor On Thought Processes

In the healthy individual, thought processes are fluid and can adapt to changes in natural (including social) conditions. This is called functional thinking, thinking the way nature functions.  The individual’s capacity to think functionally is a reflection of  an absence of armor particularly of the  ocular segment which includes the eyes and it’s extension into the brain.

The effect of armor is to rigidify biological functions including the function of thought. Instead of adapting thought processes to the way nature functions,  armored thinking is used in the service of rationalizing the individual’s preconceived view of the world.   Examples of armored thinking in politics are the ideologies of the political Left and the Right.  Each of these ideologies is based on specific differences in the distribution of  the individual’s armor.  In the natural sciences, the mechanistic/mystical form of armored thinking dominates scientific thought.  According to the mechanistic view, all of nature operates according to the mechanical laws governing machines.  When mechanistic thinking fails to explain, the scientist appeals to mystical ideas, ideas with no factual basis, to complete the explanation. Mechanistic/mystical thinking  not only grossly distorts nature but, more importantly, it serves as a powerful defense against any attempt to replace it with a  functional view of the natural world.  Today, mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences functions is defending itself in the same ferocious manner against functional thinking that mystical Church doctrine was dogmatically employed against natural scientists, “heretics,” in the 16th and 17th centuries.

July 25, 2011
Categories: Biological Sciences, Medical Sciences, Physical Sciences, Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

The Republicans Cannot Come Up With A Strong Presidential Candidate In 2012

The problem of finding an effective opposition to President Obama in 2012 requires an understanding of the dynamics of the ideological forces that are currently in operation.  The forces on the left are pro-active.  Always looking for socialistic solutions to social problems, the left constantly agitates for social change.  Any change, regardless of the consequences for the well being of the nation, is better than maintaining things as they are.  By contrast, the forces on the Right are reactive.  Not having any “new solutions” to offer, they mainly function to oppose the destructive social policies of the Left.

In the past authoritarian era, there were equal numbers of people on the Left and Right and the ideological forces were balanced. In today’s anti-authoritarian era there is a marked political shift of the political mainstream to the Left of center.  This shift includes the population at large as well as both political parties.  As a result, political solutions to social problems are the popular rule.  For a candidate on the political Right not to have novel political solutions to social problems puts him or her at a disadvantage.

May 23, 2011
Categories: Biological Sciences, Child Rearing, Medical Sciences, Orgonometry, Physical Sciences, Politics, Social Sciences, Uncategorized . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

A New Particle Accelerator-An Unrealistic Expectation

Mechanistic Scientists like to build things bigger and bigger with the idea that bigger is better. One of their latest projects is the construction of the largest science machine ever built, the Large Hadron Collider, a gigantic doughnut17 miles in circumference at a cost of 10 billion eoros that is expected to unlock many of the secrets of the universe including the instant of its birth and an understanding the fundamental forces that govern it.

The LHC is unlikely to unlock the secrets of  the universe because the idea is based on some highly questionable assumptions. First, that elemental matter constitutes the ultimate  unit of the universe and second that all matter in the universe was created in a single event, the Big Bang.

There is much evidence indicating that the exact opposite is true, that 1) matter is not the basic constituent of the universe and 2) that matter is being created continually in the center of active galactic nuclei and quasars. This evidence is regularly ignored by establishment scientists because it does not conform with their mechanistic-materialistic view of the universe. Ignoring this observational evidence also supports their mystical hope that the LHC will answer some of the deepest questions facing cosmologists and legitimizes their faith in the mechanist-mystical view of the world, a powerful defense in the service of  not seeing the world as it actually is.

August 14, 2010
Categories: Physical Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 137 other subscribers

  • Follow Charles Konia, M.D.’s Tweets on Twitter

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Amazon

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Facebook

  • American College of Orgonomy