w w w .  e - v a l u e m e t r i c s .  c o m                                         

my research concerns the world beyond Good and Evil

I introduce myself later on this home page  

First, my research develops axiological science (i.e., the science of Values and Morals beyond the content of ethics and morality) and its implications. it concerns the following:

The advancement of an empirical science of values and morals...

The advancement of personality and clinical assessment promoting health and productivity 

The advancement of Multipolar Science integrating natural science and axiological science 

The advancement of Moral Capitalism   

The advancement of basic axiological science

The advancement of applied axiological science

The search for common ground in international law

The advancement of science-based moral education

 The advancement of value-centric cognitive psychology and positive psychology 

An examination of the concept of "Moral Insanity" and its hypothesized relationship to "Clinical Insanity" ( insanity = significant anti-self, anti-social behavior as distinguished from pro-self, pro-social behavior ) 

Promotion an awareness of how Natural Science, Technology and Capitalism, without Moral Science Checks and Balances, is the tragic flaw in the character of our society and civilization baiting religious fascism and some acts of domestic and international terrorism. 

   Welcome   

  Home        PHOTO - GALLERY      DEMO     

  Axiological-Science       HISTORY       AXIOMETRICS

  Tomorrow's Science Today  

The Ultimate Inoculation Against Individual and Collective Insanity

Expansion of the  Pomeroy-Hartman Manifesto contained in the pages of:   

"The New Science of Axiological Psychology" (Rodopi Press, 2005)

Consider the following propositions:   

There are Values in the World of Facts

Values are "maps" produced by evaluative-thinking

Facts belong to the "territories" of self and world and are captured by descriptive-thinking

 We Need a Science of Values and We Need a Science of Facts

We Need Two Separate and Distinct Systems of Science! 

Our Tragically Flawed Civilization Has Given Us Only One System of Science: natural science

Asymmetric Natural Science, without Moral Science is a problem

Is an Empirical Science of Values (Morals = normative values) Possible?

What is the difference between Moral "mechanisms" and Moral "content?"

Axiological Science promotes Moral Education and supports Moral Reasoning 

Axiological Science is all about Moral Mechanisms while Ethics concerns the Content of Morality

Axiological science is a culture-free, religiously-neutral foundation for the advancement of Moral Education

The time has come to debate the importance of "Compulsory Moral Education" in addition to the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic. 

Science-based Moral Education is "Preventive Psychology," basic to the future of "Preventive Medicine." The virtues of self-reliance and rational health choices. Society must debate the question of rewarding such virtues with carrot and stick policies in the context of providing science-based moral education.

Axiological Science and Axiological Psychology advance Positive Psychology; one of the pillars of tomorrow's Preventive Psychology today !

Axiological Psychology promotes the concept of "Moral Insanity" and hypothesizes how it can result in "Clinical Insanity" when ignored at the level of individuals or collectives.

Preventive Psychology needs to consider both "brain disease" and "mind disease." My work focuses on "mind disease" driven largely by "Moral Insanity" as defined by axiological psychology. Its prevention must be grounded in the universality of science-based, culture-free, religiously-neutral "Moral Education" based on axiological science and further informed by the content of comparative religions, social sciences, philosophy, cultural traditions and so forth. Brain disease belongs to the natural sciences (e.g., biology, genetics, nutrition, anatomy, physiology, medicine, clinical ecology, etc.) The bridge between Brain Disease and Mind Disease belongs to the interdisciplinary field of psychosomatic and stress medicine pioneered Hans Selye, M.D. 

In my capacity as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the International Academy of Preventive Medicine I met Hans Selye and published a paper by him in our journal. Obviously the structure and function of the brain plays an important role in the etiology of what passes for "insanity;" but, my research focuses on the axiological structure and function of mind resting on the "platform" of brain. A new science, a second science, is needed to "reach" the mind which lies beyond the reach of historic natural or material science. 

Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

Resume 

        My friends say:  "...tell them who you are!" Here goes: I am the author of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." It's more a textbook and manifesto than anything else; written by a clinician more than an academic; by a clinician more than a scientist; yet, an interdisciplinary scientist more than a "this" or "that" kind of scientist. My research in the field of values (morals are normative values) was funded over the years from income derived from my successful private practice on Manhattan's Upper East. You might say I'm beholding to no one for research funding other than my patients from all walks of life: students, policeman, university professors, social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists, Wall Street tycoons, actors, transvestites, gays, models, strippers, combat veterans, authors, playwrights, musicians...you name it. For some thirty-three years I pursued an interesting, challenging and rewarding practice involving some of the  brightest and most interesting people I've ever known: the sort of practice one might expect in Manhattan. It was a labor of love and I was paid for doing what I wanted to do. IN addition, I served as a full time Senior Staff Psychologist and Chief of Behavioral Medicine at the Outpatient Clinic of the Harbor View Medical Center which is a large Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center overlooking the beautiful Verrazano Narrows Bridge the Bay Ridge Section of Brooklyn with Staten Island. My retirement from both followed my wife's promotion to Boston then Washington, D.C. I now practice in Northern Virginia where I also serve as an Adjunct Professor and on the board of the Hartman Institute with resources at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. ( See:  Hartman Institute ) . 

         Early in my professional life I decided values were important. You might say values are to me what Id, Ego, and Super Ego were to Sigmund Freud. I sought the "atom" of the mind and found it in values; the ultimate building blocks of belief-systems, motivation, emotion, and behavior in general. Yes, habitual evaluative habits rule and I early made them the subject of my research. I rejected psychoanalysis in the days when it dominated the clinical scene in Manhattan and most large cities following the surge of trained analysts to our shores before, during and after two world wars. Instead, I took my clinical post doctoral internship under Albert Ellis, Ph.D. and count him among my more influential mentors. Thereafter my own career unpacked the belief systems of cognitive psychology to find value systems as more basic and fundamental. Indeed, my work views values and the building blocks of mediating emotions, motivations and behaviors. In order to achieve this advance in the field of clinically relevant cognitive psychology I had to find a science of values. There was none in my profession.  I then began a search for new thinking about values and morals outside my profession. I had become comfortable with interdisciplinary research with my doctoral dissertation. The few academic investigations in my field had little or no clinical relevance for me. I should mention that  the "atom" of the brain is another story; for, it involves genetics and biology; but, I sought, as Freud did before me, to break from medicine in my quest for an understanding of the mind, and carve a niche around the search for a science of psychology grounded in a science of values: i sought a structure and theory for the reconstruction of psychology around value science. In recent years the development of "positive psychology" is a move in the right direction; but, its content lacks a basic supporting science elucidating the underlying "cognitive mechanisms" informing positive psychology. The content of positive psychology, like the content of ethics and common-sense morality, begs an elucidation of underlying cognitive mechanisms dedicated to valuation of self and world. Such is best pursued with the explanatory and predictive powers of a science of values or axiological science unfolding in the pages of my book for the first time in the history of science and all of recorded history.  

        You might say positive psychology is a psychology in search of a science of values; much as ethics is philosophy in search of a science of values. As a newly minted Ph.D. fresh out of UT Austin I found nothing to satisfy me in my chosen profession of psychology which is to say I found nothing of  clinical relevance or scientific substance in the literature. I found the academic studies of Allport, Kohlberg, and Rokeach to name a few. Frustrating yes; but, not surprising given the fact that the concept of value is at once the most important, least understood, and least studied concept in biology and the social sciences. To make a long story short, I found in the writings of a little known philosopher what I was looking for in my profession of psychology. The publication of my book in 2005 is the rest of the story ( See:  Amazon ) 

          I confess my book is far from  easy reading; for, I'm breaking new ground developing a second science, a new science, requiring a precision language all its own.  I am working to popularize, not dumb down, its content advancing a paradigm shift in the social sciences. It contains several narratives, some less technical than others, advancing the story of my research developing a true and objective science of values and morals having clinical relevance beyond anything ever achieved by the academics Allport, Kohlberg or Rokeach in the field of psychology. You can say it explores the world beyond good and evil using science and mathematics effectively refuting the "immoralist" pre-scientific ruminations of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. 

          First and foremost, I'm a practicing clinical psychologist on the front lines of patient care. Even so, most agree I have an unusually strong scientific background for a clinician ( See:  My Resume ). I hold advanced degrees in biology and psychology and have the scientific publications to prove it. My research appears in such prestigious journals as the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I'm also the editor of several volumes in the field of preventive medicine and the The Handbook of General Psychology  (Prentice-Hall) in my own profession. I serve as an Adjunct Professor time permitting. Over the years it has been my clinical work that drove my interest in values and morals research as related to medicine, psychology, and social issues. I have never been under publish or perish pressures. My research is all about that which interests me without regard for what's fashionable in the world of academic research calculated to advance careers or secure financial aid in the form of government or private sector grants. My research interests have always derived from my work as a clinician on the front lines of patient care. I take pains in presenting my credentials because of controversy surrounding any attempt to advance a science of values and normative values (morals). It is something the Greeks dreamed about; but, down through the ages of history has never been achieved; until now that is!  With the publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" this has changed forever. My work clears a path for the long march to follow: a march destined to give the world the scientific foundations for moral education and all the consequences of opening up the world beyond good and evil to science rather than reckless speculations and fantasies around the likes of Social Darwinism.    

           For many years I've had an interest in values and morals as related to medicine, mental health and societal issues in general. My approach involves the examination of a mathematical model of habitual evaluative phenomena developed by the philosopher Robert S. Hartman, Ph.D. My published findings are summarized in my book and lay the foundation for an empirical science of values and morals having profound implications for humankind in the 21st century; apart from launching a paradigm shift the social sciences have yet to consider in depth. These data and research findings, offered in the pages of my book transforms the Hartmanian Value Theory, and mathematical model of value and moral phenomena, into a science of values and morals for the first time in recorded history. Others now face the challenge of replicating my findings and conclusions in the name of what's best for humankind. My research findings "seed" civilization and its discontents with renewed hope for the future !    

          The dream of some in the past has now become a reality and we call reality axiological science. Its foremost applications at the moment are analytical valuemetrics and axiological psychology. By "analytical valuemetrics" I mean to imply a general capacity to assess or measure one's  hierarchical organization, sensitivity, and balance (equilibrium) of core values which translates into such things as "personality profiles,"  "clinical diagnosis,"  and identification of a person's strengths in keeping with the notion that problems don't hurt us; it's how we handle problems that  hurts the most.  This approach to understanding one's core values and mechanisms of valuation is the "royal road" to culture-free and religiously-neutral moral education. I expect this advance in the study of values and morals will become a model for all the social sciences including the "dismal science of economics" that nearly produced a catastrophic failure of financial systems the world over. This historic failure of capitalism challenges us to build a "moral capitalism" grounded in moral science (axiological science).  Financial engineering with mathematical models, and without moral science checks and balances, is a manifestation of the tragic flaw in the character of our civilization which more and more individuals are rebelling against. Some take matters in their own hands and with religious fervor become the "canaries of flawed civilization" we now call terrorists. I anticipate axiological science and psychology will become tomorrow's foundation for moral education and moral capitalism. Here we must distinguish between "moral mechanisms" (MM) and "moral content" (MC). My work focuses on developing a science of "moral mechanisms" to inform "moral content;" where the "Ten Commandments,"  and other ethical considerations, are examples of  "moral content."  Thus, first and foremost, axiological science provides valuable insight into the underlying mechanisms of moral reasoning: you might say axiological science is a "basic science" for ethics much as medicine is founded on basic science. The practice of medicine is "artistically" applied basic science. Ethics must also evolve into an "artistically" applied axiological science etc.      

          The integration of this new science, the likes of which the world has never known, with historic natural science yields what I call Multipolar Science; for, as I like to say, tomorrow's science today. I speak of a new science, a second science, axiological science which eluded Galileo when he discovered natural science over 400 years ago. We've done this none too soon; for, there is an ever expanding tide of criticism and cynicism concerning science as we've known it which isn't good for science. There is no telling where this negativism and cynicism regarding science and technology will take us in the future. In fact, run-away natural science without moral science checks and balances, like run-away capitalism without moral science checks and balances, is a doomsday machine of sorts; a tragic flaw in the character of our civilization. .

         My work, embodied in the pages of this book,  achieves several goals. It supports those in the business community employing valuemetric procedures derived from our new science. It contributes to the development of cognitive and positive psychology around an emerging science of values. It provides a foundation for the development of moral education curriculums bearing in mind that axiological science is more about moral mechanisms than moral content. It provides grounds for the development of a science of peace making and conflict resolution. It provides grounds for the development of common ground in international law, and so forth. The scale and sweep of my findings exists because of the universality of values in all human endeavors. Our axiological science is a big deal; but, its complexities will delay its development and applications.

          My research effectively transforms a brilliant philosophical theory into an empirical science of values, valuations, and moral reasoning. What unfolds in the pages of my book is the cutting edge of new thinking in the fields of ethics and morals. It is a dramatic paradigm for the social sciences and one destined to produce a clash of paradigms in the 21st century having profound implications for all the social sciences including the dismal "science" of economics which recently contributed to the near collapse of the world's core financial systems. My work will also help the search for common ground in international law, and the search for a science of peace making and conflict resolution. How can values research have such a range of applications? It's because of the universality of values, valuations, and morals in all human endeavors. It's because values and valuations most distinguish the nature of a human being. 

           Unfolding in the pages of my book is an empirical science of values and morals at the level of "mechanisms" underlying  "content;" where mechanisms have to do with the basic science of moral reasoning and "content" has to do with the results of moral reasoning as in such things as the "Ten Commandments." A "moral compass" of "content" is one thing; the cognitive processes dedicated to the building of a "moral compass" is quite another. It's absurd to speak of "content" without "mechanisms" just as it is absurd to practice medicine without the basic sciences of medicine. The ancients speculated about the "moral laws" within us just as they speculated about the laws of the "heavens above us;" but, their reach exceeded their grasp. They couldn't get to the "moral laws" within us. My research, building on philosopher Hartman's theory of value, finally gets us there and this is a big deal. Unfolding in the pages of my book are the seeds of a future intellectual revolution. A revolution destined to seize a critical mass of popular imagination sufficient to launch a new social movement grounded in science-based moral education supplementing our elementary school based reading, writing, and arithmetic. This moral education, grounded in axiological science, and its foremost application  axiological psychology, will come to be seen as  "preventive psychology" analogous to, and complimenting, preventive medicine. 

           Axiological Science, combined with Ellisonian Cognitive Psychology (the "mother" of Positive Psychology), is the origin of Axiological Psychology. There is much talk about "value science;" but, there is only one true value science and that is axiological science having profound implications for humanity in the 21st century. It is so new that Goggle gives only a few references to axiological science and they can be very mathematical and technical. Our axiological science is not to be confused with all the talk about value science; although, it is value science; a new breed of value science and it will come to play an important role in the search for the common ground in the building of a system of international law as well as bridging the divide between science and humanism discussed in the writings of C. P. Snow in the last century. Our axiological science will also play a role in the development of a science of peace making and conflict resolution without which humankind may not survive the 21st century!  Natual science has taught us how to make war. Our brand of value science, axiological science, will teach us how to make peace. 

           Tragically flawed historiography has profound limitations which can only be overcome with axiological science and psychology. My research permits me to assert without reservations that beyond good and evil, beyond moral relativity, beyond religious fascism,  and beyond Social Darwinism lies the previously unexplored world of moral science revealed for the first time in the pages of this book. No longer must humankind endure the dangers posed by run-away science and technology without moral science checks and balances. No longer must humankind sail in its historically leaky boat on what promises to be the rough seas of the 21st century!   

      I regard myself as a citizen of the world, and one who has benefited from the American Experiment of mass education and representative democracy! It's payback time and I give to my country many years of research funded by my private practice income and without grants of financial aid of any sort: government or private foundation. My background includes advanced degrees in biology and psychology and I'm a published scientist in the fields of biology, medicine, and psychology beyond being a Licensed Clinical Psychologist  in private practice laboring on the front lines of patient  care. I'm an Adjunct Professor after having retired as a Senior Staff Psychologist and Chief of Behavioral Medicine at the Outpatient Clinic of Harbor View Medical Center (Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center) at Brooklyn, New York, USA. I'm also retired from some thirty years of private practice on Manhattan's Upper East Side; a practice that provided the funding behind the publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" which is also the story of how I transformed philosopher Hartman's axiological theory of value into a value science called axiological science; not to be confused with the term value science producing many Google hits. 

           I have pursued my research as time permitted, without the pressures of publish or perish, and without deadlines, for a quarter century. From the very beginning this work has been a labor of love and one I've carried into my retirement years. It is more a product of intellectual curiosity and personal conviction than anything else. I've always held that psychology and the social sciences needed to be grounded in a scientific understanding of values and morals. When I began my long march the concept of value was at once the most important, least understood, and least studied concept in my profession of psychology. As I am more a scientist-clinician than an academic, I demanded clinical relevance in values research beyond anything provided by my peers such as Allport, Kohlberg, or Rokeach. My professional background also includes a long history of collaborating with other disciplines and professions including physicians, biologists, biomedical engineers, clinical psychologists, research psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers and more recently business men and women consulting and coaching in the world of corporations and business. 

           My research has focused on the nature of values (i.e., morals are normative values) and their relationship to health care (medicine and psychology) and business. The moral dimensions of these professions is all about the universality of habitual, evaluative habits that come alive within us with use. In time my findings found expression in a book called "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" (Rodopi Press, 2005, Amsterdam and New York).  It represents a new science, a second science, worthy of the independent replication of others. I give the world the knife edge of a new frontier in science whose substance is laid out in my book and whose implications are discussed on this web site with its tour of axiological science horizons.  As you mind expect from the voice of this page,  "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" is not for everyone. It is more a textbook than a popular narrative; but, it is readily available and earns royalties. Click on the following links for additional information: 

          Amazon-Purchase            Google Books           The New Science of Axiological Psychology

           For those wanting to know more about this book of research findings, I've included on this web site two book reviews: one clearly favorable and one far more critical written by a mainstream psychologist who concludes his review admitting he doesn't understand my work from his perch in academic post-modernism. His grudging admission reminds me of a conversation I had with the Social Psychologist Milton Rokeach, Ph.D. in the early 1980s in which he acknowledged he knew of Hartmanian Value Theory; but, didn't understand it. At the time I had published only early data concerning my validation studies. It is my pursuit of Ellisonian Cognitive Psychology resulting in today's Positive Psychology that inspired me to pursue values research which in turn lead to my discovery of philosopher Hartman's mathematical model of habitual evaluative habits (values and morals)  at the level of mechanisms more than content.  In time my transformation of Hartmanian Value Theory into an empirical science of values and morals resulted in the construction of Axiological Psychology with its emphasis on values as the "atom of the mind" or fundamental unit of analysis of mind as distinguished from brain which is the province of natural science and not axiological science. This advance in psychology and the social sciences is a new paradigm and derives from the integration of two  instances of converging psychological and philosophical thought I refer to as the Ellis-Epictetus and Pomeroy-Hartman Syntheses in the field of psychology. At yet another level of meta-integration, namely that of natural science and axiological science, we have new Multipolar Science as distinguished from old Monopolar Science.   

           The two foremost applications of axiological science are axiological psychology and axiological valuemtrics. In this textbook breaking new ground in the study of the mechanisms of values, valuations, and moral reasoning, as distinguished from the their content, I especially go into axiological valuemetrics derived from Hartmanian value theory. In fact, it is the derivative valuemetrics that gave me a merciful empirical handle on Hartmanian Value Theory which I seized upon to empirically test the validity of philosopher Hartman's contributions to an understanding of human values, valuations, and moral reasoning. I focus on the value profiling methodology known as the Hartman Value Profile (HVP) in order to assess its validity and the validity of the theory behind it. As I say, this values clarification, values appreciation, and values assessment methodology gave me a "merciful handle" on what seemed to be a paradoxical, mysterious, and thoroughly counter-intuitive model of human valuational phenomena in general.  

          On this web site you will find many references to my work and my speculations concerning the profound implications of my work which stands on the "head and shoulders" of philosopher Hartman's ingenious and elegant contributions to the study of values, valuations, and moral reasoning. I don't hesitate to discuss the historical background and societal implications of my work. My successful validation of Hartmanian value theory begins the long process of developing and applying a new science that never existed before the publication of my book. My work is historically significant; for, it launches a science of values and morals never dreamed possible even though a few ancient minds did offer speculations concerning its feasibility. Again, my work is a successful instance of converging psychological and philosophical thought I refer to as the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis in the field of psychology. Its integration with another instance of converging psychological and philosophical thought, what I call the Ellis-Epictetus Synthesis, gives rise to the new science of Axiological Psychology.  The historical roots of this new science, axiological science, are best understood by reading Hartman's book entitled "The Structure of Value," and my book. Other references are available on request. 

          Our work holds  enormous implications for humankind which I gather under the heading of "Multipolar Science."  This web site is a tour of horizons and involves the precision language of a new science not intended for a general audience or the wider world. Plans are being made to translate the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis, and its societal implications, into a more reader friendly language. For the moment the language used on this web site must suffice; but, interested readers are encouraged to attend annual fall meetings of the Hartman Institute with resources at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (www.hartmaninstitute.org).   Unfolding in the pages of this book are many empirical studies resulting in what I call the "Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis" in the Field of Psychology. This synthesis effectively transforms philosopher Hartman's mathematical model of cognitive processing dedicated to values and valuation into a science of values called Axiological Science. It also launches the new discipline of cognitive axiological science complimenting cognitive neuroscience and positive psychology; the three most promising and exciting frontiers of tomorrow's psychology today!

          At present the foremost applications of emerging axiological science are Axiological Psychology and Hartmanian Valuemetrics providing a methodology for identifying the structure of habitual evaluative habits that come alive within us with use. This effectively means profiling the three core dimensions or axes of value-vision and moral-vision and quantifying their acquired balance, sensitivity, and order of influence.  This is about the mechanisms of value-vision and moral-vision, not the content of value-vision and moral-vision. The "Ten Commandments" represent "content and my research focuses on the underlying mechanisms leading to the content of value-vision and moral reasoning. My research develops a basic science of values, valuations, and morals. It's all about  a basic science (i.e., axiological science) for the comprehension of philosophical, moral, aesthetic, religious, or spiritual content. 

      Thus, our emerging axiological science studies cognitive processes dedicated to the organization and operation of  values and  valuations where moral reasoning and morals (normative values) are emergent phenomena derived from internalized value structures and functions. The foremost tool of axiological science, axiometrics or valuemetrics, provides a quantitative assessment of patterns of habitual evaluative habits, the building blocks of beliefs, the architecture of personality and the drivers of emotions, motivations, and behavior. Our value profiling methodology provides a "quick-test" of basic personality states and traits as well as an assessment of clinical status. This assessment tool is called The Hartman Value Profile (HVP). I have been using it successfully for some twenty-five years in my practice. But, it is more than that; for, it is a merciful handle on philosopher Hartman's theory of value and valuations that so define the nature of human nature. 

             The power of this instrument is revealed in the validation studies summarized in my book. It is also revealed in the success of entrepreneurs using it in the world of coaching and corporate consulting. All this is taking place outside mainstream psychology and psychomerics in spite of my work as the world's first axiological psychologist. A former student of mine, Gary Gallopin, Ph.D., has become the world's first axiological anthropologist in an effort to introduce axiological science to that profession in the field of social science. We're making slow but steady progress in our effort to introduce axiological science to the social sciences. The metric derived from Hartman's mathematical model of valuational behavior is proving to be a merciful handle on Hartmanian Value Theory. Because of the nature of the subject matter and the necessity to model it with a new science it will take several generations for our work to gain recognition. 

       The value profiling or assessment methodology I've focused on to validate Hartmanian Value Theory derives directly from philosopher Hartman's mathematical model of human valuational and moral phenomena. My contribution lies in my empirical validation of this assessment methodology, the mathematical model underlying it, and the theory behind it all. However the implications of my work go far beyond the validation of Hartmanian Value Theory and Valuemetrics; for, it launches a Second System of Science called Axiological Science. When integrated with historic Natural Science, given by the work of Galileo some four hundred years ago, we have a new paradigm in science I call Multipolar Science which recognizes values in a world of facts at the level of empirical science and not mere philosophical speculation.

              For decades the world hasn't taken philosopher Hartman seriously; for, he offered only an elegant theory unfounded on facts. In psychology we have many elegant theories falling into two categories: 1. Learning theories founded on facts. 2. A history of clinical theories founded on clinical intuition without facts in order to get on with the pressing business of treating patients. This has changed with the development of evidence-based cognitive theory and practice such as Ellisonian Cognijtive psychology and Cognitive-Behavior theory and practice. Hartman failed to provide systematic empirical evidence in support of his theory and derived valuemetrics. As a result he and his work were totally ignored but psychologists, social scientists, and philosophers for different reasons. His work was  ignored by psychologists and social scientists for lack of published evidence., His work was ignored by philosophers because "systems building" at the time was out of fashion in philosophical circles. The result has been that the contributions of this philosopher have been totally ignored by everyone except a small circle of individuals who nominated Hartman for the Nobel Prize which he did not receive for lack of systematic empirical studies in support of his theory and mathematical model derived from theory.  

       During this period I had grown increasingly impatient with my profession (psychology) for having neglected the scientific study of values. As a newly minted Ph.D. in psychology from UT Austin I found myself in complete agreement with the social psychologist Milton Rokeach who argued that the concept of value is the single moist important, least studied, and least understood concept in all of psychology and the social sciences.  Here I'll make a long story short: I found in the work of philosopher Hartman all I had been looking for in my profession of psychology and couldn't find. I invite you to consider where this has taken me as a published social scientist who dared to take philosopher Hartman seriously when psychologists and social scientists did not ! The bottom line concerns the power of hypothetical constructs, and I submit the construct of value is far more productive and insightful than Freud's constructs of Id, Ego, or Superego.  The construct of value is also needed to comprehend the meaning of self esteem and in fact is the construct needed to comprehend the nature of all psychological constructs. The failure of historic science to produce a science of psychology stems from its failure to give us a science of that which most defines human nature; namely, valuational behavior. Historic natural science failed as a basic science of psychology because the field of psychology needed a new science, a science of habitual evaluative phenomena beyond the reach of historic natural science. The need for two-systems of science, natural science and axiological science, is something most classical scientists fail to grasp or if they do fail to appreciate that the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis in the field of psychology has given the world this new science, this second science, this science of values and morals we call axiological science.   

             Out of my empirical research, funded by income from my private practice, comes data validating a philosophical theory far removed from mainstream psychology and social science. It embodies a paradigm shift not likely to be funded by traditional funding sources and so I never applied for a research grant and proceeded instead funding my own research as time allowed; for, as a scientist-clinician I had a busy clinical schedule meeting with patients at a major medical center and in my private practice. There are fashions in research and science just as there are fashions in the retail sales of clothing. There are slaves to fashion in science much as we have slaves to fashion in clothing.) over the years was born the seeds of an intellectual revolution rivaling that following the discoveries of a Galileo or a Darwin. 

       This intellectual revolution begun with philosopher Hartman, and further advanced by my research, holds profound implications for the future of humankind; implications spelled out on this web site and have yet to be more fully explored and vigorously debated. The inevitable controversy surrounding the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis in Psychology promises to become intense in the years to come. It will most certainly take several generations to digest and apply it, and yet the clock is ticking. I doubt humanity will survive without building upon this paradigm shift destined to unleash a titanic clash of paradigms in years to come. In the meantime we have a mathematical model derived from an elegant theory now grounded in the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis, giving us a value profiling methodology capable of providing both personality profiles and clinical diagnoses. How is this possible? Values rule !  From the limited perspective of a clinical psychologist It's all about assessing the balance, sensitivity and order of influence of habitual evaluative habits organized into patterns in response to the physical laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. From the more cosmic perspectives of the social psychologist, economist,  or political scientist it's all about the universality of values in human affairs; values that drive emotions, motivations, and behavior. Yes, thinking comes before emotions especially thinking that comes alive within us over time. Yes, the building blocks of thinking are values and valuations and the cognitive architecture underlying them identified by Hartman's Theory and assessed by Hartman's analytical aluemetrics.      

______________________________________________________

Once upon a time a group of distinguished professors gathered at Harvard and asked themselves what it was they most wanted their students to get from a college education? 

They all agreed it was the cultivated capacity for "critical thinking"   about themselves, about the world, and about moral reasoning and the capacity to accurately and quickly discriminate between good and evil in the world.

Once upon a time I edited a medical journal, a five volume series called "New Dynamics of Preventive Medicine," and served as the elected president of a medical society devoted to innovation and new thinking in medicine founded by Linus Pauling, R. J. Williams and a group of progressive physicians and scientists. 

In that capacity I encountered the world of what is variously known as preventive medicine, alternative medicine, complimentary medicine and integrative medicine. It was then I became aware of what I later called the "moral dimension" of medicine and health care generally. Let me explain for it has taken me on a very special journey into the world of values and moral reasoning and beyond !  

My educational background is important; for, it  has given me the habit of interdisciplinary problem solving. I am ABD (all but dissertation) in the field of biology and a Ph.D. in the field of psychological science and clinical practice. Working with physicians came easily and I observed how physicians engaged in biological medicine, as distinguished from pharmacological medicine, and preventive medicine as distinguished from crisis medicine, struggled with patient compliance and patient motivation. I observed in their medical practices and my psychology practice how patients in their preoccupation with entitlements and magical thinking failed to practice the virtues of "self reliance" and "rational health choices." I concluded there was something missing in the doctor-patient relationship and that was the cultivation of the "moral dimension" to medicine and health care generally.  

After studying biology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst at an early age I decided I wanted to become a scientist-clinician in the field of psychology. I applied for admission and was accepted at the University of Texas at Austin and embarked upon the study of  scientific and clinical psychology; only I approached the field differently from others in my class. I applied for and received a research assistantship under the world renown biochemist R. J. Williams, then Director of the Clayton Foundation Biochemical Institute at Texas. This institute was known for having discovered more vitamins and their variants than any other laboratory in the world. Professor Williams became my mentor along with Professor Bruce Deatherage in the field of psychology

 In this fashion the die was cast: I became committed to interdisciplinary studies as a "budding" psychologist; an orientation that would serve me well in years to come: years destined to bring me up against one of the greatest tragedies of my adopted profession of psychology and indeed civilization itself !

What could constitute a tragedy of such dimensions? The fact that the concepts of "values" and "morals" are at once the single most important, least understood, and least researched in the entire field of psychology. 

When I began to look at the doctor patient relationship it struck me that society wasn't sufficient represented and here I focus on the historic tension between "individualism" and "collectivism;" or what's best for the individual vs. what's best for the society. It's a simple fact that "sick people" cost the society money and I couldn't escape the simple truth staring me in the face as a young psychologist in my thirties. That simple truth being the fact that medicine was then, and remains some thirty years later, the fastest growing failing business in the world. Why? What can be done about it? 

While my colleagues struggled with treating the causes of sickness, not merely the signs and symptoms of sickness, I struggled to comprehend what was for me  not merely the psychology of medicine; but, the "moral dimension" of medicine. I came to believe an understanding of this dimension of medicine held one of the more important "keys" to resolving the mysteries of medicine becoming the fastest growing failing business in the world then and now.

What do I mean? I mean society must institute "carrot" and "stick" policies capable of rewarding the virtues of "self reliance" and "rational health choices;" while punishing the complimentary vices of failing at "self reliance," and failing to make "rational health choices."  The mere thought of this level of societal involvement in the affairs of individuals strikes fear in the hearts of everyone and conjures up the image of George Orwell's 1984 and "big brother." It conjures up all that was wrong with socialism and communism; historic experiments at striking a balance between individualism and collectivism. This issue has a long history in the West involving wars and, last but not least, the "Cold War."

Remember, the problems facing modern civilizations and their discontents includes the fragility of the health and well being of citizens and the fact that medicine remains the fastest growing failing business in the world; a "business" that threatens to bankrupt the nations of the world and the civilizations supporting them; not to mention the very health and well being of the planet that sustains us all. .

In order for this or any society to legislate "carrot" and "stick" policies of the sort I've alluded to, it must do so on a platform of moral science in particular and a platform of value science in general. It must have a science of good and evil, right and wrong, nice and nasty. Is such a science possible you ask? Yes, and this is my story and one in which I found in philosophy all I was looking for in my profession of psychology. I hate to admit this; for, we psychologists rebelled from the "mother discipline" of philosophy a hundred years ago over empiricism. 

In any event, my quest for a deeper, "read scientific,"  understanding of values and morals lead to my discovery of the works of a little known philosopher by the name of R. S. Hartman who had received a nomination for the Nobel Prize for his efforts. When the time came for me to look him up I learned he had recently died ; but, that his followers had established the Robert S. Hartman Institute with resources at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. In my quest for a science of values and morals, capable of unpacking what I call the "moral dimension" to medicine and psychology, I had reached a dead-end in my profession and so bit my lip and began to "socialize" with the "enemy;" by which I mean philosophers. In this respect I once again plunged into the "waters" of "interdisciplinary search for truth" which my student years at UT Austin had prepared me for. What I discovered when I surfaced among this band of philosophers was an opposition to empiricism of the sort that had caused psychology to split from philosophy in the first place some hundred years earlier. 

 In discovering Hartman's mathematical model of value and moral phenomena I learned most of his followers totally rejected my insistence on empirical studies to verify Hartman's theory. I pointed out that no self respecting psychologist or social scientist would give it the "time of day" without empirical tests and measures assessing its descriptive and predictive powers. They scoffed and dismissed my empirical orientation which is the very essence of my discipline. It would take years to win them over and win them over I did with empirical study after study later summarized in my book entitled "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" published by Rodopi Press in 2005; some twenty-five years later.  The historic significance of my book is that it summarizes findings that effectively transforms Hartman's Value Theory into an empirical science of values and morals for the first time ever: never before was this achieved throughout the pages of history. We now have the "seeds" of a second science, a new science of values in our world of facts where facts have had a science beginning with the work of  Galileo some four hundred years ago. 

This asymmetric evolution of natural science without value science is the tragic flaw in the character of civilizations, societies, and professions that has given us what Sigmund Freud has termed "Civilization and its Discontents" with their history of half-smart ideologies and utopias leading to war after war now threatening the very survival of humankind on the one hand and the planet on the other.   Thus the study of values and morals contains the seeds of a solution to medicine as the fastest growing failing business in the world as well as humankind's war with itself. The scale and scope of our emerging science of values, axiological science, is breathtaking if taken seriously. Sadly, it is also counterintuitive given the human condition and will take several generations to digest and implement, and without any guarantees of success. In the meantime the clock is ticking and the survival nations, civilizations, and our species is  at stake.

_____________________________________________________________________

Obviously my work transforming a value theory into a science of value giving birth to axiological science must be independently replicated by others. And, too, a more popular version of Hartman's writings and my findings must be written to reach the wider world. This will take time. It will take several generations to fully comprehend; for, the human mind is not prepared to look upon values and morals in scientific terms and generalize upon the implications of doing so. In any case I have no hesitation declaring the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis to be an advance in knowledge comparable to that achieved by the likes of Galileo or Darwin. 

Unfolding in the pages of my book is what I like to call  "tomorrow's science today;" or, Multipolar Science as distinguished from historic Monopolar Science given by Galileo and known as natural science. My work, standing on the head and shoulders of philosopher Hartman, promises to unleash a clash of paradigms the likes of which the world hasn't known since the days of Galileo or Darwin. 

I refer to my work as the second instance of converging psychological and philosophical thought in my field of cognitive psychology. The first is the Ellis-Epictetus Synthesis establishing clinically relevant cognitive psychology, as distinguished from academic cognitive psychology. The second is the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis establishing axiological science complimenting historic natural science. This second wave of interdisciplinary thought in my field of psychology also reconstructs psychology around values rather than the Id, Ego, Superego, Instincts, and other un-testable hypothetical constructs with their surplus meaning and half-smart implications. With the publication of my book we now live in the age of axiological science and I don't hesitate for a moment to draw comparisons between this moment in history and that of the likes of Galileo and  Darwin. Moreover, I don't hesitate to suggest our work enables the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 cited at the end of this home page.

There, in a nutshell, you have  the nature of my contributions to the discovery of axiological science and axiological psychology as models for all the social sciences. Here you have the birth of a second science, a science I call Multipolar Science without which there can be no cost-effective medicine or psychology addressing the needs of a fragile and ever expanding humankind on a planet of limited resources under ever increasing stress.  Without our science of good and evil there can be no sustainable and tolerable future for humankind. At no time in history has the theme "beyond good and evil" ever or acquired such depth and meaning ?  

Our work lies beyond good and evil and systematically defines the nature of good and evil: I invite you to explore its implications and bridge the divide between abstractions like good and evil on the one hand and the problems of humanity, including the threatened collapse of the fastest growing failing business in the world today, and the danger posed by "Civilization and its Discontents" on a challenged planet of limited resources ?    

 ___________________________________________________________________________

Axiological Psychology 101      

THE PRECISION LANGUAGE OF A NEW SCIENCE: 

There Can be No Understanding of a New Science (A New Paradigm) Without New Terminology

There Can be No Second Science, No New Science Without Debate and a Clash of Paradigms

For These Reasons Our Work is Dedicated to Students and the Young Who are Less Threatened by Paradigmatic Shifts Impacting in the Zeitgeist, Our World View, The Spirit of the Times, and the Very Ground on Which We Stand ! 

Terminology

Monopolar Science =  Historic Natural Science Founded by Galileo

 Multipolar Science = ( Axiological Science )  +  ( Natural Science )

Axiological Psychology = Applied Multipolar Science

         Axiological Science = The Science of Values and Morals   

 Morals = Normative Values

Moral Science = f ( Axiological Science )

Natural Science = The Science of Facts

Science = (Philosophy) + (Emphasis on Empiricism)

Formal Axiology = Robert S. Hartman's Theory of Value and Valuation 

   Our 400 year old system of natural (material) science remains a historic and ever expanding Moral Hazard. 

Natural Science, and its imitators such as Freudian Psychoanalysis, Skinnerian Behaviorism, economics, financial engineering, and even medicine,  are wholly inadequate to the challenges of the 21st century. 

Even worse, they continue to slowly degrade what is left of the moral fabric of civilizations ! 

Science is far too important to be left in the hands of today's scientists and politicians alone. We must have a new science to save science and this new science to encompass the different realities of values in a world of facts as clearly seen and appreciated by emerging Multipolar Science unfolding for the first time in these web pages and the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." 

Beyond Good and Evil as seen from the perspective of Multipolar Science

A Science destined to Rescue Science as we've known it while enriching philosophy and religion in the 21st Century

Celebrating a Rene

wed Awareness of Values in a World of Facts

Multipolar Science: Enabling Higher Levels of Critical Thinking 

Axiological Psychology, Grounded in Multipolar Science, Addressing the Following: 

     Preventive Medicine & Preventive Psychology     

 Moral Education Grounded in Science 

      Moral Insanity vs Clinical Insanity     

       Moral Hazards & Health Care       

 Moral Hazards of Economics  

  Beyond Good and Evil    

 Etc.

 What is moral insanity? What is insanity? The meaning of moral insanity become clear in the course of reading these web pages. Let's begin by defining insanity; an old concept with emotional impact and surplus meaning: it may be defined as significant levels of self-defeating behavior producing real problems in living. It admits to degree! Applying the calculus of pro-self, pro-social vs. anti-self, anti-social behavior, we see with insanity a significant shift in the direction of anti-self, anti-social behavior behavior; which, in the last analysis, is behavior that is far more self-defeating than self-benefiting. 

On the other hand, in many respects, the "insane" may be said to be like us; but, more so ! The fragility of mental life, and the thin veneer of civilization, challenges us to think about such things. It challenges us to think about human behavior with the precision of a science rather than half-smart ideologies of one sort or another. The approach of axiological psychology is to focus on the processes of valuation and moral reasoning which is the basic architecture of the human mind, resting on a physical platform called brain. Our view of tomorrow's psychology today holds we had better refocus on prevention rather than crisis interventions and that the royal road to prevention in psychology is moral education; for, moral education is preventive psychology.

Without moral education, grounded in axiological science, the nature of human nature remains beyond our grasp while humankind remains in a leaky boat on a rough sea where the students of history repeat history; for, historiography alone cannot save us from ourselves !  

The answer to our problems lies not in the law or study of history alone; it lies in developing a second science addressing values in a world of facts; where facts are already addressed by natural science founded by Galileo some four hundred years ago. The asymmetric evolution of natural science, without moral science checks and balances, poses proliferating moral hazards and a persistent systemic risk to our tragically flawed civilization and endangered planet ! Ever increasing numbers of individuals find themselves responding in different ways: some are in denial, some have given up, and some are lashing out in voluntary (pseudo-insanity) and involuntary (insanity) acts of terrorism (acutely anti-self, anti-social behavior). We would be wise to regard them as the canaries of civilization; analogous to the canaries of coal miners and respond to what's happening around us..      

Insanity poses problems concerning with respect to adaptation and survival; but, let us remember that problems don't destroy lives; it is how people handle problems that destroys lives. The sane may also be people with serious problems who manage to handle them better. They are usually empowered  by being on friendly terms with their crazies or problems: they "own them" rather than "disown them," and cope !  

Such considerations help us grasp the meaning of insanity and roughly speaking, there are two kinds of insanities: one is mind-disease and the other is brain-disease. Axiological Psychology asserts that mind-disease is more a matter of moral insanity than anything else and that the royal road to a preventive psychology must involve moral education grounded in culture-free moral science (Axiological Science Embedded in Multipolar Science). Brain-disease, on the other hand, is a matter for neurochemists, neuroscientists, clinical ecologists, and students of the human genome. Here we're dealing with "twisted molecules"  behind "twisted thoughts;" whereas, mind disease arises from "twisted axiology" producing "twisted thoughts."  Axiology refers to the core, underlying dimensions of value-vision having to do with the valuation of self (identify, personal-efficacy, self esteem) and the valuation of the world around us. 

Axiological Psychology also addresses tidal shifts in the zeitgeist, or enveloping mass-mind, and related societal issues such as asymmetric, run-away, Natural Science and Technology without Moral Science (Axiological Science) checks and balances!  

Axiological Psychology further addresses the moral hazard of the medical model of mainstream psychology with its focus on "sickness care" rather than "wellness care," and its "pathologizing" of problems in living undermining the virtues of self-reliance and rational health choices ! 

 Moral Science, derived by Axiological Science, is required for the development of culture-free moral education which I equate with "Preventive Psychology."  Moral education as preventive psychology is but one aspect of a preventive psychology. The development of this discipline must also involve advances in preventive medicine focusing on neuroscience, neurochemistry, and genetics. It must also focus on the findings of clinical ecology concerning the impact of environmental chemicals on the brain and the erosion of healthy immune systems leading to allergic and autoimmune reactions to food and the environment affecting the brain.  

There is another problem and that is the failure of medicine to develop a discipline of theoretical medicine to guide clinical practice and research. The disciplines of psychology and physics are far more comfortable with theoretical sub-disciplines and medicine needs to catch up so that we can achieve a useful integration of axiological psychology with its focus on the mind and medicine with its focus on the brain.

Psychological Theory has always been the basis of best practices in clinical psychology. In my view a theoretical medicine discipline is needed to guide the hand of medicine involving an artistic application of scientific knowledge. . As to psychology, an elegant theory has long been accepted as essential to best practice since the days of Sigmund Freud. Medicine dramatically lags in this respect; for, it remains stuck in the age of natural science and most join advances being made in multipolar science. It remains stuck with the old science and the old medical model focused on sickness care rather than wellness care. The tragedy of psychology has been it's use of the medical model rooted in monopolar science. 

Although psychology is more theoretically developed than medicine, it suffers from having adopted the medical model embedded in natural science in spite of Freud's effort to break away from them. Psychology, like medicine, is more about crisis care than preventive care and this model is the fastest growing failing business in America and the world.

We regularly encounter values in a world of facts and they are separate realities demanding separate systems of science. This is the basic tenant of axiological psychology whose subject matter is values and morals.

Values, and normative values we call morals, need to be understood scientifically and this has never been the case until the publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." The concept of value is at once the single most important concept in all of psychology, and the social sciences, and yet it is the least understood and researched throughout the history of psychology following its break from the mother-discipline of philosophy some hundred years ago. My research, summarized in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" seeks to correct for this tragic flaw in the history of my profession of psychology and all the social sciences. Because I'm dealing with values and morals my work has profound implications for medicine and all human endeavors including governance and the search for common ground in international law.  In general, the reach of values research, historically  neglected by psychology and the social sciences, is profound and urgent.   

 While we give lip service to preventive psychology and preventive medicine approaches in health care these days, they lack in execution. Further development and application of these approaches will require a grounding in our emerging axiological science. 

It is my view that we must come to consciously distinguish between "moral-insanity" and "clinical insanity." We must grow both the individual and collective consciousness  to embrace the notion that unchecked moral insanity evolves into the clinical insanities diagnosed and treated by psychologists specializing in sickness care like their counterparts in medicine.  

Axiological Psychology draws these distinctions and asserts that mind is an axiological reality more the subject of axiological science; whereas, brain is a physical reality more the subject of natural science and especially its division called neuroscience so fashionable these days.  Axiological Psychology further asserts that the best preventive psychology is moral education grounded more deeply, but not exclusively, in axiological science than the old belief systems of philosophy and religions. I say "no exclusively" because transcendental values and belief systems involving purposiveness, spirituality and faith especially define and maintain the human condition.  Axiological science and psychology are concerned with the roots of such existential phenomenology.       

If any of this makes sense then read on and discover the seeds of an intellectual revolution and why I believe we are on the threshold of a major clash of paradigms in the social sciences. If my words fail to make sense; why, then, this site in cyberspace is not for you! I bid those who find meaning in my words a warm invitation and all others a warm fair well. Thank you for your interest in my axiological approach to the study of the nature-of-human-nature in a tragically flawed and asymmetric world more advanced in its capacity to think about facts than values and more advanced in its capacity to think about nature than human nature.    

A Difference That Makes a Difference: Philosophy vs. Science? 

Philosophy largely concerns map-to-map relations. Science concerns map-to-fact-relations.  Mental maps are mental constructions inside-our-skins. They give us the only reality we'll ever know. Facts belong to the territory of objective reality outside-our-skins. The difference between maps and facts makes a difference. It points to the empiricism of map-to-fact or map-to-territory relations which, when true-to-fact, favor adaptation and survival. If our mental maps don't fit the territories of self and world; why, then, reality looses no time in coming up to slap us in the face. Therein lies the difference between science and philosophy and its all about empiricism. Now, having made this distinction it must be blurred; for, good science demands both good theory and rigorous empiricism. At no point in history has "rigorous empiricism" been made a pillar of philosophy; as is the case in the history of science !

In the final analysis good science derives from the rich co-play and counter-play between good theory and rigorous observation and testing. In our development of axiological science we have both a good theory and mathematical model on the one hand and rigorous testing on the other. It is the Pomeroy-Hartman synthesis that gives humankind a second science, a new science, a science of values and morals we call axiological science. A science that never existed until the publication of the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis unfolding in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." 

When integrated with historic natural science we call the result Multipolar Science; also a new science the likes of which has never existed throughout human history. Moreover, the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis empirically validates the foremost applications of axiological science; namely, axiological psychology and  axiometrics or valuemetrics. 

These web pages are dedicated to young and especially open minded students of human nature; willing to entertain the counter-intuitive hypothesis that a science of good and evil (i.e., values and morals) is both needed and attainable! This site was first posted in the year 2000 and has, before and since, found support in numerous scientific studies summarized in the pages of "Forms of Value and Valuation" published by the University Press of America, 1991 and "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" published by Rodopi Press, 2005. 

This is the official site of Leon Pomeroy, B.A., B.S., M.A., Ph.D., FIAPM, FAEI, FRSHI. My research appears in many publications including the prestigious "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science." I am the author of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" summarizing my interdisciplinary and programmatic research systematically validating philosopher Hartman's mathematical model of, and axiological theory concerning, habitual evaluative habits and phenomena that so completely define the human condition. My research successfully advances the revolutionary paradigms of empirical axiological science and its foremost applications of axiological psychology and axiometrics or valuemetrics; not to be confused with psychometrics. My research is devoted to the study of the general capacity to value self and world as well as moral reasoning or normative valuation. Such behavior results in varying degrees of pro-self, anti-self, pro-social, anti-social behavior as well as purposive, moral and transcendental (spiritual) consciousness.   

All such behavior comes together to form the dynamisms and psychodynamics of mind supported by the biodynamics of brain rooted in the physical world of genetics and molecules. The worlds of mind and brain are separate realities reflecting the separate realities of values in a world of facts. 

Having drawn such a distinction we must blur it; for, there is a rich co-play and counter-play between the axiological architecture of mind and the molecular architecture of brain. Mind is an axiological reality best revealed by axiological science while brain is a material-physical reality best revealed by natural science in general and neuroscience in particular.

Our concern is that the "slaves to fashion" in the field of neuroscience suffer the occupational hazard of ignoring values in a world of facts, and how mind is more about axiological ("software") reality than a molecular ("hardware") reality! 

I believe that both the new axiological science and the old natural science (i.e., the fashionable neuroscience of today) are required for the successful study of human nature. I suggest that in our thinking about personality, motivation and behavior we need to apply the emerging science of axiology unfolding in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." 

The nature of my research findings begs replication by others in keeping with the nature of science and all the more so since it holds profound implications for the future of humankind. In the meantime, one of my future projects is to popularize the content of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" for a general audience. I hope the content of this web site helps to clarify the paradigm shifts launched by my research and what I see as the societal implications of our emerging axiological science which in turn gives birth to an entirely new orientation in science I call Multipolar Science.

 Multipolar science carries us beyond far beyond good and evil. It takes us beyond our four-hundred year old, asymmetric, historic, Monopolar Science that continues to weaken the moral fabric of societies while contributing to what Sigmund Freud has called "Civilization and It's Discontents!" Monopolar Science also continues to bait growing cynicism about science and in some parts of the world an ever expanding rebellion against science. Monopolar Science is poisoning the well of science and the remedy lies in appreciating the separate realities of values in a world of facts and the need for not one science but two systems of science giving us a science of values, and a science of facts. When integrated these two systems of science compliment each other

I call this stage of scientific evolution Multipolar Science !   

As a psychologist and biologist my work stands on the head and shoulders of a little known philosopher by the name of Robert S. Hartman. My research, applying the best tests and measures of my profession, effectively transforms Hartman's axiological theory into axiological science. I invite you to consider my empirical findings and views as you journey through life knowing it is very unlikely you will find my work and my views catching on, in the wider world, any time soon. There are good reasons for this, including the fact humankind isn't ready for a counter-intuitive science of good and evil, right and wrong, nice and nasty. It isn't ready to examine spirituality through the prism of axiological science. It isn't ready to reframe its religious beliefs in light of advances in axiological science. In some respects our emerging axiological science may threaten many in the manner of a collective existential crisis or collective identity crisis; admitting to degree. It will be a long time before axiological science comes alive within the mass mind or zeitgeist. This will take several generations. In the meantime, Monopolar Science, without Moral Science checks and balances, is a ticking bomb of sorts.     

I am content knowing my research has found an audience in the members of the Robert S. Hartman Institute, with Resources at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville: an institute that holds annual conferences every October devoted to the study and advancement of axiological science. A science sufficiently powerful that many men and women employ it as consultants in the world of business.

Those wishing to learn more or participate are encouraged to contact www.hartmaninstitute.org

  There you have it ! Our story in a nutshell !. A story destined to become one of the greatest stories ever told; but, not in any time soon!  I invite you consider my work and views, hopefully in a playful way, and see where this takes you? 

                                                              I

Axiological Psychology, grounded in axiological science, are new paradigms where each is destined to cause a clash of paradigms; given the fact that a science of values and morals (axiological Science) is tragically missing in today's social science; including psychology, economics, sociology, political science, etc.                                                    

The historic failure to develop Moral Science in a world dominated by by Natural Science and Technology, gives us what Sigmund Freud called "Civilization and Its Discontents" discussed in his book by that title; a book expressing concern, albeit little illumination, for humanity published before his death in London where he fled to escape Hitler's War in 1939.   

Shall we shout "wake up world" with our discovery of the foundations for a moral science with its promise of universal, culture-free, moral education; perhaps the world's single best hope for a "preventive psychology" to compliment evolving "preventive medicine?"  In days to come Moral Science is destined to play a role in science and medicine as well as the development of a much needed "theoretical medicine" discipline in the field of health care and for the same reasons theoretical physics serves physics and theory in psychology services clinical practice. 

Others in the pages of history have shouted "wake up world" and often with disastrous consequences. In most cases they derive passion from half-smart ideologies emerging from the fog of romanticized Darwinism (e.g., fascism) or pre-scientific thinking (e.g., communism). Armed with Moral Science ( i.e., Normative Axiological Science) are we obligated to shout "wake up world?" Certainly Moral Science, embedded in the general discipline of axiological science, seeds humanity with renewed hope for the future!                                                                            

              Somewhere in the Russian Countryside of 1992 Professor Sergei Potemko Asks: "Is Moral Science Possible?"                                                

    _____________________________________________________________

Many years later, Dr. Leon Pomeroy accumulated the tests and measures needed to systematically validate the revolutionary New Paradigms of Axiological Science and its foremost applications of axiological psychology and axiometrics. This advance in science remains a model for all the social sciences

This revolution in science is based on research summarized under the mildly misleading title of:    

"The  New  Science  of  Axiological  Psychology "   

EXTRAPOLATING and GENERALIZING ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING AXIOLOGICAL SCIENCE GIVING RISE TO "MULTIPOLAR SCIENCE;" TOMORROW'S SCIENCE TODAY !

  tWelcome to the world of Multipolar Science embodying the new paradigms of axiological science and its foremost applications of axiological psychology and axiometrics.

     ____________________________________________________________

Research reporting the discovery of a NEW SCIENCE, a SECOND SCIENCE, of values in a world of facts; where facts have been studied with natural science for four hundred years without a supporting science of values and morals. This asymmetric evolution of Galileo's "old material science," without our moral science (i.e., axiological science), has left humanity with tragically flawed civilizations and societies in the grips of run-away natural science and technology without moral science checks and balances.

Our new field of scientific inquiry "rights" this "wrong" while supporting "old science" against a rising tide of criticism and cynicism among great numbers of people the world over. In fact science as we know it is loosing its luster and becoming the poster-boy for Western materialism and decadence triggering in the minds of some acts of inspired domestic and foreign terrorism. 

Our new science, destined to save the old science from itself, will support the following disciplines and fields of inquiry as well: 

                                                       The Russian Lectures       

By 

 Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

                                                             Concerning         

    "A New Scientific Understanding of Values in a World of Facts" 

     and     

...the Separate Realities of Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Human Nature; Requiring Two Systems of Science Beyond the 400 Year Old One We Now Have ! 

...and What Lies Behind the Laws of Human Nature?

Answer: "The Moral Law Within"

...and What Lies Behind the "The Moral Law?"

Answer: Emergent Persistent Uniformities or "Axiological Laws" Given by the Selective Pressures of Biosocial and Psychosocial Evolution Organizing Habitual Evaluative Habits Favoring Identity (Being and Becoming), Adaptation and Survival ! 

... and What are "Axiological Laws?"

Answer: They Involve the Co-Play and Counter-Play of Underlying, Core Dimensions of Valuation (Deep Evaluative States and Evaluative Traits giving rise to beliefs, emotions, and behavior) Mapped by the Hartmanian Mathematical Model (See "Structure of Value" (1973) by Robert S. Hartman, Ph.D.; systematically Validated by my work) of Organized Habitual Evaluative Habits...Coming Alive Within Us, Over Time, With Use ! These cognitive structures (Underlying, core States and Traits) dedicated to valuation exist in response to the natural laws of thermodynamics and conservation of Energy embedded in Nature and Human Nature..   

Those Who Reject Our Valuecentric Scientific Approach to the study of human nature may include mainstream psychologists and social scientists resisting this paradigm shift producing a clash of paradigms, and others who prefer to believe in other agencies, forces, and phenomena Behind the Moral Law which so thoroughly defines Human Nature. Such views have been with humankind throughout history and often assume the outlines of what is called materialism, pantheism, the views of organized religions, spiritualism, mysticism, the Elan Vital or Vital Impetus of Henri Bergson, Life Force Philosophy in General, Creative Evolution, etc. These are untestable hypothetical explanations, replete with surplus meaning, linked with the phenomena of consciousness pre-dating our Work Developing Axiological Science. Axiological Science is the second science needed for the symmetrical advance of science and the understanding of human nature while securing and protecting our old natural science from a rising tide of public cynicism. Our old asymmetric natural science has given us half-smart modern medicine and many material comforts; but, it has also given us a science of war without a science of peace. Psychologists and social scientists have applied the old science to human nature with limited results. What's needed today is the application of our new science, axiological science, to all fields of social science. It is also needed to secure and protect the old natural science from a rising tide of public cynicism concerning this material science which is incapable of illuminating the nature of human nature beyond the nature of nature. 

Our World-View Holds the Spiritual, the Mystical, Consciousness, and Human Nature Itself, are Emergent Phenomena Rooted in the Nature of Nature Itself. However, Human Nature Intensifies Consciousness and this Requires a Second Science to Understand; a science we call Axiological Science! Understanding the Nature of Human Nature is Too Important to be Left in the Hands of the World's Religions, Humanists, Philosophers, or Materialists alone!

  Our very existence carries with it moral responsibilities we fail to fully appreciate and understand as individuals and collectives. Our very existence brings uncommon values into a world of common facts. Values and Facts are very Different Realities Requiring Not One but Two Very Different Systems of Science. Until the Publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" humankind as muddled through With Only One System of Science Called Natural or Material Science Given by Galileo Some Four Hundred Years Ago. Our tragically flawed civilizations make the obvious inescapable: Historic, Monopolar Science, Without the Checks and Balances of a Moral Science (Axiological Science) has given Humanity Run-Away Natural Science and Technology Without Needed Moral Science Checks and Balances (Restraint) Producing the Civilizations and Their Discontents that Sigmund Freud Wrote About while living in Exile in London where he went to escape the Nazis at the beginning of World War II. Further Discussion of Values in a World of Facts Follows: 

  My Research used the best test and measures available to me as a research scientist and clinician to validate a theory of values and morals that effectively transformed the theory into an empirical science of values and morals for the first time in all of recorded history. I then integrated the new science of values and morals (axiological science) with historic natural science to produce the first approximation of a new meta-science I call MULTIPOLAR SCIENCE, to be distinguished from today's dominant paradigm of MONOPOLAR (Matrial) SCIENCE. 

Introducing tomorrow's great intellectual revolution today; tomorrow's science today; tomorrow's revolutionary paradigm shift today ... embodied in the emergence of a second science, a new science, a science never thought possible, a science called axiological science focused on Values (Moral) Appreciation, Values (Moral) Clarification, and Values (Moral) Assessment. A paradigm shift correcting for the tragic failure of humankind to develop a science of values and morals...until now ! 

     Tomorrow's Preventive Psychology Today            

      Multipolar Science vs. Monopolar Science

      Beyond Good and Evil 

       The "Canaries" of Civilization

      Civilization and its Discontents

      Upgrading 3-R to 4-R Education                                                                                                                                                        

                            Contact Information:     drleonpomeroy@verizon.net     and    http://www.hartmaninstitute.org 

                  ________________________________________________          

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   Copyright © 2000-2009 Behavioral  Axiology™  Last Updated:  02/09/10

    _____________________________________________________________

The New Science of Axiological Psychology 

Exploring the Frontier of Value-Vision, Moral-Vision and thinking

HVP-Valuemetrics (axiometrics) 

   (Students of Psychology: All you're looking for in psychometrics you will find in axiometrics and more ! )

Values Assessment, Values Clarification, Values Appreciation for the 21st Century 

Morals Assessment, Morals Clarification, Morals Appreciation for the 21st Century 

                                          Copyright © 2000-2009 Behavioral Axiology™                                  

                                                        Last Updated: 02/09/10                                                 

    Amazon.com