In Search of the Miraculous

usual way of walking consists of a number of habits, for instance, of taking steps of a

certain length, walking at a certain speed, and so on, and lie tries to alter them, that is, to walk faster or slower, to take bigger or smaller steps, he will be able to observe

himself and to study his movements as he walks. If a man wants to observe himself

when he is writing, he must take note of how he holds his pen and try to hold it in a

different way from usual;

observation will then become possible. In order to observe himself a man must try to

walk not in his habitual way, he must sit in unaccustomed attitudes, he must stand

when he is accustomed to sit, he must sit when he is accustomed to stand, and he must

make with his left hand the movements he is accustomed to make with his right hand

and vice versa. All this will enable him to observe himself and study the habits and

associations of the moving center.

"In the sphere of the emotions it is very useful to try to struggle with the habit of giving immediate expression to all one's unpleasant emotions. Many people find it

very difficult to refrain from expressing their feelings about bad weather. It is still

more difficult for people not to express unpleasant emotions when they feel that

something or someone is violating what they may conceive to be order or justice.

"Besides being a very good method for self-observation, the struggle against

expressing unpleasant emotions has at the same time another significance. It is one of

the few directions in which a man can change himself or his habits without creating

other undesirable habits. Therefore self-observation and self-study must, from the

first, be accompanied by the struggle against the expression of unpleasant emotions.

"If he carries out all these rules while he observes himself, a man will record a

whole series of very important aspects of his being. To begin with he will record with

unmistakable clearness the fact that his actions, thoughts, feelings, and words are the

result of external influences and that nothing comes from himself. He will understand

and see that he is in fact an automaton acting under the influences of external stimuli.

He will feel his complete mechanicalness. Everything 'happens,' he cannot 'do'

anything. He is a machine controlled by accidental shocks from outside. Each shock

calls to the surface one of his I's. A new shock and that I disappears and a different

one takes its place. Another small change in the environment and again there is a new

I. A man will begin to under-

stand that he has no control of himself whatever, that he does not know what he may

say or do the next moment, he will begin to understand that he cannot answer for

himself even for the shortest length of time. He will understand that if he remains the

same and does nothing unexpected, it is simply because no unexpected outside

changes are taking place. He will understand that his actions are entirely controlled by

external conditions and he will be convinced that there is nothing permanent in him

from which control could come, not a single permanent function, not a single

permanent state."

There were several points in G.'s psychological theories that particularly aroused

my interest. The first thing was the possibility of self-change, that is, the fact that in beginning to observe himself in the right way a man immediately begins to change himself, and that he can never End himself to be right.

The second thing was the demand "not to express unpleasant emotions." I at once felt something big behind this. And the future showed that I was right, for the study of

emotions and the work on emotions became the basis of the subsequent development

of the whole system. But this was much later.

The third thing, which at once attracted my attention and of which I began to think

the very first time I heard of it, was the idea of the moving center. The chief thing that interested me here was the question of the relation in which G. placed moving

functions to instinctive functions. Were they the same thing or were they different?

And further, in what relation did the divisions made by G. stand to the divisions customary in ordinary psychology? With certain reservations and additions I had considered it possible to accept the old divisions, that is, to divide man's actions into

"conscious" actions, "automatic" actions (which must at first be conscious),

"instinctive" actions (expedient, but without consciousness of purpose), and

"reflexes," simple and complex, which are never conscious and which can, in certain cases, be inexpedient. In addition there were actions performed under the influence of

hidden emotional dispositions or inner unknown impulses.

G. turned all this structure upside down.