Welcome!

Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

We explore the frontier of the metric for assessing one's General Capacity to Value Self and World (Value-Vision) and One's General Capacity for Normative Valuation (i.e., Moral Reasoning ir Moral-VIsion). As you might imagine this metric is derived from a paradigm shift in psychology grounded in emerging value science (axiologial science). This new science recognizes and measures values in a world of facts guess which historic natural science reaches for but cannot touch. The theory is Hartmanian value theory involving the mathematical modeling of human values and valuations systematically validated in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" (Rodopi Press, 2005). The discovery and validation of theory and metric is a big deal with profound implications for all the social sciences discussed in what I call my Axiological Manifesto which will appear in future installments of my Psychology Today (Magazine) BLog. Our new system of science and its foremost applciations of axiometrics (valuemetrics) and axiological psychology is the substance of an emeriging paradigm shift now in the hands of practicing axiologists, axiological psychologists, and business entrepreneurs the world over. The following discussion begins with a consideration of axiometrics or valuemetrics having to do with the methodology of profiling underlying mechanisms of human valuation giving rise to the content of human valuation. The distinction between "mechanisms" anbd "content" is important. By "content" we refer to expressions of aunderlying axiological mechaniisms such as ethiccal consideration, "Ten Commandments," and so forth. WGiven the universality of values our emerging science of values is relevant to all human activities including the dismal science of ecnomics that contributed to plunging the world into a Great Recession with little light at the end of the tunnel so far. This implciation and potential application of our new science falls under the heading of my Axiological Manifesto. We now turn to a consideration of the value profiling methodology derived from empirical axiological science ("Axios" is Greek for value; "ology" is greek for the science or study of...).

Axiometrics or HVP-Valuemetrics, and Axiological Psychology, are the foremost applications of axiological science born of an empirical validation of Hartman's theory of value (formal axiology) unfolding in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology"

The "Framework" is Axiologial Science Focusing on Values, Morals, and Thinking about Thinking in the 21st Century

The "Tool" is Dimensional and Categorical Axiometrics or Valuemetrics Promoting Values Appreciation, Values Clarification and Values Measurement for the 21st Century

You will find in axiometrics everything you were looking for in psychometrics and more !

The Foremost Applications of Axiological Science are Axiological Psychology and HVP-Valuemetrics; Accomplishing a Reconstruction of Psychology Around value science Establishing a New Paradigm for all the Social Sciences

Axiometric Instruments:

Standard HVP; Research HVP; Parallel Fors of HVP

HVP-Valuemetrics or Axiometrics Employs the HVP, or some parallel form of the HVP. It reveals Behavioral Axiotypes and Categorical Behavioral Phenotypes which have wide applicaitons in the building of Clinical, Vocational, and Personality Profiles.

The key unlocking the mysteries of axiological science and psychology lies in an understanding of the meaning of I, E, S. These are cognitive processing dimensions dedicated to three forms of value-vision forming the architecture and core structure of mind. The co-play and counter-play (dynamisms) among these dimensions builds belief-systems, attitudes, and thought-styles leading to emotions, motivations, transcendental value-vision, faith, and all behavior. We must come to know our IESs as we came to know our ABCs in elementary school. It's that elementary and its all about moral education which gives us tomorrow's preventive psychology today ! Any science of values and morals is a big deal and humankind has muddled throughout history without a science of values and morals and history proves as much. This changes with the publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" amounting to a revolutionary paradigm shift humankind will need more than one generation to digest and apply. We can only hope this happens in a timely fashion; for, the clock is ticking !

Know Your IESs

Know Your IESs is tomorrow's Moral Education and tomorrow's preventive psychology today.

Learn Your ABCs with 3R education. Learn your IESs with 4R education

What is 4R Education? See Below !

The HVP is a Values Assessment Methodology that Identifies and Measures the Major Pathways of Valuation including Moral Reasoning.

The Tool-Box is HVP-Valuemetrics. The empirically proven HVP-Valuemetrics employs the Standard Hartman Value Profile (HVP).

ABCs = Reading, Writing, Arithmetic

IESs = The Structure of Our Internalized Habitual Evaluative Habits and Moral Reasoning

4R Education = Reading, Writing, Arithmetic + Science-Based Moral Education

HVP Axiometrics is a POWER TOOL Focusing on and Measuring the Underlying Dimensions of Self, World, Faith, Transcendental Values, Mysticism, Spirituality, Faith, and Moral-Reasoning, Given by the permutations and combinations of Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E), and Systemic (S) Dimensions of Valuation radiating through all cognitive structures including beliefs, attitudes, and thoughts. and Thought as Revealed by Hartman's Mathematical Model of Habitual Evaluative Behavior Subsequently Validated by Pomeroy's Empirical Tests and Measures Summarized in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." From these Core Dimensions of Valuation (Value-Vision) Emerge all that makes us human!

What is HVP-Valuemetrics? It is a "Family" of HVP Power Tools for Values Appreciation, Values Clarification, and Values Measurement Derived From Hartman's Mathematical Model of Values, Valuations, and Morals. The methodology is empirically validated in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology."

1. First-Generation HVP-Valuemetrics

Employs the Standard HVP (Links 1 & 2). It is possible to build Parallel Forms of the Standard HVP (e.g.;, the Research HVP (Links 3 & 4). Those who construct parallel forms of the HVP must do their own first generation validity studies. .

2. Second-Generation HVP-Valuemetrics

Derivative Valuemetrics focuses on the application of HVP-Valuemetrics where scoring and interpretive procedures are developed and dedicated to specific applications. This use demands second-generation validity studies.

Valuemetrics is a Value Profiling Methodology Capable of Detecting The Sensitivity (S), Balance (B), and Order-of-Influence (O) of Personally Held Values Organized by Nature or God Around Three Axes or Dimensions of Valuation Identified Below. The Power of These Dimensions is Seeded by Nature, Evolution or God and Because They "Come Alive" Within Us With Use (They are Highly Internalized Core, Value-Structures and Value-Dynamisms). They Shape Our Value-Vision of Self and World!

Our Value Profiling Methodology (HVP-PIV) Identifies These Structures Providing Values Clarification, Values Appreciation, and Values Measurement. This Methodology is Successfully Employed by Business Consultants Over the Years and a "Cottage Industry" Employing Valuemetrics Continues to Grow With Great Success. Many of These Practitioners of HVP-Valuemetrics are Members of the Robert S. Hartman Institute, A Professional Society of Basic and Applied Axiologists. The Work of Axiological Consultants Amounts to An Informal Validation of HVP-Valuemetrics. The Publication of Dr. Pomeroy's Book Provides a Formal Validation of HVP-Valuemetrics and of The Mathematical Model From Which This Methodology is Derived.

Discovering the Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E), and Systemic (S) Lenses, Dimensions, or Axes of Mind With Hartman's Mathematical Model of Value and Moral Phenomena, and its Derivative Power Tool of HVP-Valuemetrics; A Value Profiling Methodology.

The Co-Play and Counter-Play of These Axiological Lenses (First, Second and Third Things of Axiological Science and Psychology) Determines The Fate of Individuals and Nations (Collectives). Axiological psychology is all about the axiology of mind (the organization of mind around three core dimensions of valuation) supported on a platform of brain studied by the neuroscientists.

On Vacation in New Zealand 2010: Herding Sheep

Herding Sheep in New Zealand 2010

Babson Boulder at Dogtown, MA

Babson Boulder

__________

Theoretical Considerations and Extrapolations of our Axiological Manifesto

Beyond The Manifest Content of Morality

A CONSIDERATION OF MECHANISMS UNDERLYING CONTENT

Exploring the Latent Structures and Mechanisms of Moral Reasoning With Axiological Science and Valuemetrics

Multipolar Science

Tomorrow's Science Today

Consider the Following:

There are Values in the World of Facts

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

We Need Two Separate and Distinct Systems of Science !

But, Our Tragically Flawed Civilization Has Given Us Only One System of Science !

The Asymmetric Development of Natural Science Without Moral Science Remains a Problem

Is an Empirical Science of Values and Morals Possible?

My Research Concerns Such Issues

I am the author of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology." It's more a textbook breaking new ground in the social sciences than anything else. However, there are several narratives advancing the story of my search for a science of values and morals having clinical relevance beyond the academic efforts of Allport, Kohlberg, or Rokeach in the field of psychology. I'm now working on a book to present my discovery of a second science (axiological science) capable of saving our first science (natural science), discovered by Galileo some four hundred years ago, from ever increasing levels of doubt and cynicism. More than that, my work begins the reconstruction of psychology, and the social sciences, around a science-based study of values and morals (axiological science). It does so by first transforming a philosophical theory of values and valuations into an empirical science of values, valuations, and moral reasoning. Unfolding in the pages of my book is the leading edge of a new 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:

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 Valuemetrics.

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.

My research 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 Science and Psychology 101

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

Axiological Science: 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 derivatives such as Freudian Psychoanalysis, Watson-Skinner Behaviorism, the dismal sciences of economics and financial engineering, health care, education, materialism, the loss of common ground, and so forth, are tragically flawed examples of run-away natural science and technology without moral science checks and balances.

Even worse, historic natural science continues to degrade what is left of the moral fabric and glue of civilization and its discontents. The common ground of shared, core values is missing and only possible when grounded in the universal language of mathematics and science. How do we get there from here? How can we evolve from today’s ambiguous moral philosophy to moral science in much the same manner that natural philosophies such as alchemy and astrology evolved into the natural sciences of chemistry and physics respectively?

Science is 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: From the Perspective of Multipolar ScienceScience

Only a Second Science can Rescue our Aging First Science now over four hundred years old. The New Science or Second Science came into existence with the publication of The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Rodopi Press, 2005).

Axiological Science and Psychology are manifestations of emerging Multipolar Science, being an integration of historic natural science (about facts) and emerging value science (about values). This new discipline promises to advance our understanding of Preventive Medicine & Preventive Psychology, Moral Education Grounded in Science, the conceptual entity of Moral Insanity and its relationshi8p to Clinical, Insanity, the Moral Hazards & Health Care and Economics and the general topic of Beyond Good and Evil

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 addresses tidal shifts in the zeitgeist, the mass-mind, related to social unrest. Axiological Psychology comments on the moral hazard of the crisis care, medical model and its influence on mainstream psychology with their focus on expensive "sickness care" rather than "wellness care," and the associated “pathologizing" of problems in living which undermine the virtues of self-reliance and rational 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.

The 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.

Be It Noted:

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 one of the web sites of Leon Pomeroy, B.A., B.S., M.A., Ph.D., FIAPM, FAEI, FRSHI. My published 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?

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!

Moral Science

Moral Science (Normative Axiological Science) is not Moral Philosophy; not Ethics; not Religious Morality; but universal, culture-free, Normative Value Science born of converging psychological and philosophical thought (The Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis) in the field of Ellisonian Cognitive Psychology. Dr. Pomeroy is among the first to complete a post-doctoral clinical internship under Albert Ells, Ph.D. while a young Assistant Professor collaborating with Professors G. M. Gilbert, Ph.D. (Formerly Chief Psychologist, Nuremburg Trials) and Professor Benjamin Wolman, Ph.D. (World renown psychoanalyst, author and editor.) in the building of a doctoral program in clinical psychology at Long Island University. At the time Professor Pomeroy edited "The Handbook of General Psychology" then published by Prentice-Hall (Benjamin Wolman, Editor; , Leon Pomeroy, Associate Editor). He later left teaching for an appointment as Senior Staff Psychologist and Chief, Behavioral Medicine, Outpatient Clinic, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York (Harbor View Medical Center) and the practice of psychology on Manhattan's Upper East Side for some thirty years. Following his retirement, Dr. Pomeroy moved to Northern Virginia where he continues to teach and practice as an axiological psychologist.

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

Professor Pomeroy: " Yes. Of Course! Let's not forget, the asymmetric evolution of natural science, without the co-evolution of moral science is a "doomsday machine" in its own right. The clock is ticking and it better be possible! Our new Scientific Paradigms of Axiological Science, and its foremost application Axiological Psychology, suggest it is possible. I believe our emerging axiological science clears a path well beyond Good and Evil for the first time in recorded history...

"...Morals are Normative Values! We now have a science of valuational phenomena (i.e., of habitual-evaluative-habits that come alive within us with use). We can get to a culture-free moral science and moral education with axiological science; but, because of its complexities, and counter-intuitive nature, plus the short attention-spans of new humans, it will be a long time in coming: generations! We can only hope humankind will awaken in time to save itself and its planet ?

"Then too, when we integrate our new axiological science with natural science (i.e., monopolar science) we have what I call Multipolar Science or Tomorrow's Science Today

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 " (Published by Rodopi Press, Amsterdam and New York, 2005, With Reviews Cited Below)

_______________________________________________________________________

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

This Book, summarizing many years of research, has profound Implications beyond psychology. The research findings summarized in the pages of this book point to a paradigm shift destined to impact all the social sciences and humanity the world over. This sweeping assertion rests on the fact that a science of values and morals gets at the very essence of human behavior.

Unfortunately the counter-intuitive and controversial nature of our research findings means it will take more than a generation to comprehend and apply.

However, developments in the opening decades of the 21st century may spark a sufficient sense of urgency to speed up this process.

In any case our research paves the way for an inevitable clash of paradigms, and intensive debate, in the social sciences and beyond. The historic inevitability of all this will, in the end, give future generations renewed hope for the future. AND

You're surfing the only Web Site in Cyberspace reporting Science-Based Advances in Values and Morals Appreciation; Values and Morals Clarification, Values and Morals Measurement, and Values and Morals Research...

Beyond Good and Evil Without Philosophy and Without Religion…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:

Critical Thinking, Moral Education, Preventive Psychology, Preventive Medicine, the Social Sciences, Law, Governance, Economics, and Financial Engineering...The scale, range, and scope of values research derives from the fact that we are prisoner's of our values. They are also beyond the range of Historic Natural Science (Monopolar Science) and well within range of an integrated axiological science and natural science; or, what we call Multipolar Science!

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

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.

An example of MONOPOLAR SCIENCE is neuroscience or brain science. This is the absolutely wrong science for the study of mind. Moreover, pre-scientific "social sciences," especially economics, have yet to learn and apply this simple fact: we must apply MULTIPOLAR SCIENCE to the study of human nature in all its activities and pursuits. Why is this important? Because MONOPOLAR SCIENCES, including psychology and economics, have been poisoning and destroying the moral fabric of civilization and its discontents for centuries. In this assertion I'm going beyond the content of Sigmund Freud's last book entitled "Civilization and its Discontents" written at the end of his life in exile, in London, where he fled for his life to escape Hitler's conquest of Austria and Vienna in the run-up to the evil of World War II.

Our Science of Values and Morals (Axiological Science) goes beyond good and evil. It reaches all aspects of human existence, from healthy and sick individuals to healthy and sick societies the world over due to the axiological nature of mind as distinguished from the material (atomic and molecular) nature of brain. Today's thinking about the human condition must strike a balance between today's excitement concerning advances in neuroscience with today's excitement concerning emerging axiological science.

TOMORROW'S MULTIPOLAR SCIENCE TODAY is the integration of Moral Science (Axiological Science) and historic Monopolar (Material) Science; the foundations of which appear in the pages of: "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" Grounded in the New Paradigm of Axiological Science Embedded within the New Paradigm of Multipolar 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 !

Back to basics: "The Concept of Value is at once the single most important concept in psychology, the least studied, and the least understood" (Professor Milton Rokeach, Social Psychologist). Habitual evaluative habits are the Building Blocks of Belief Systems and Thinking and we are now able to measure their structural organization, sensitivity, balance, and order of influence with proven axiometrics or valuemetrics derived from axiological science.

Axiological Science is the science of values (general value-vision) and morals (normative moral vision). Axiological Psychology and Axiometrics are the foremost applications of Axiological Science. ( "axios" is Greek for "value," and "ology" is science or study of " )

Ignorance of a Science of Values and Morals is behind our tragically flawed civilization and its discontents. It is also Behind History's Asymmetric Evolution of high tech natural science against a background of static low tech moral philosophy.

With the publication of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology" we enter the very different world of Multipolar Science or tomorrow's science today; but, not without resistance.

This advance in scientific thought amounts to a dramatic paradigm threatening today's pre-scientific and post-modern scientific establishment with its slaves to fashion resisting advances in science. The so called "social sciences" are not sciences at all: they are pre-scientific disciplines in search of science which can only be achieved when they find grounding in axiological science. You have only to consider how psychology and psychiatry have damaged the moral fabric of society on the one hand and how economic engineering of the financial world has negatively impacted the lives of millions in the opening decade of the 21st century to appreciate this.

The emerging clash of paradigms in the social sciences is destined to positively impact the lives of millions and for the better !!!! Let the paradigmatic struggle begin and let's its resolution through crisis begin; for, the clock is ticking. We can only hope for a zeitgeist to resolve this mounting ideological tension within the sciences and the sooner the better !!!

Historic Fact: Today's "run away" natural science and technology, without moral science checks and balances, is a ticking bomb, a doomsday machine understood by too few. We are witnessing as a consequence growing social unrest and cultural decadence.

Historic Fact: Natural philosophies such as alchemy and astrology evolved into natural sciences such as chemistry and astronomy; while ancient moral philosophy failed to evolve into moral science: this changed with the Pomeroy-Hartman Synthesis in the field of cognitive psychology building on the Ellis-Epictetus Synthesis in the field of cognitive psychology...unfolding in the pages of "The New Science of Axiological Psychology."

Needed: Compulsory 4R education (reading, writing, arithmetic, rational moral education grounded in axiological science) to replace compulsory 3R education

Humankind is witnessing ever increasing numbers of "moral canaries" as it sails in a leaky boat on the rough sea of the 21st century !

Axiological Psychology is The Royal Road to understanding the Moral Law, behind human nature, we feel pressing in on us and is a powerful clue to the Law of Human Nature largely ignored by psychology, economics and all the social sciences which aren't sciences at all for lack of a grounding in axiological science!

Axiological Science is value science and therefore a moral science; for, morals are normative values. . It gives us a metric (axiometrics / valuemetrics) capable of identifying one's value-vision (general capacity to value self and world) and thought styles basic to the practice or cognitive psychology and beyond. This metric derives from Hartman's mathematical model of one's organization of habitual evaluative habits around three axes or dimensions of value-vision: Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E), and Systemic (S). Axiological Psychology reminds us we've learned your ABCs and the time has come to learn our IESs> This is code for really "know thyself" and really "know the world" with the help of Axiological Psychology which is new thinking in psychology based on a culture-free, scientific, secular approach to virtues, values and morals enriching prevailing religious and philosophical approaches to values and morals.

Axiological Psychology IS THE FOREMOST APPLICATION OF AXIOLOGICAL SCIENCE. IT IS A MODEL FOR ALL THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, INCLUDING ECONOMICS. WITHOUT A GROUNDING IN AXIOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS AND FINANCIAL ENGINEERING OF ECONOMICS HAS ONCE AGAIN CAUSED NEEDLESS HUMAN SUFFERING IN THE OPENING DECADE OF THE 21ST CENTURY!

OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW, WITHOUT BASIC AND APPLIED AXIOLOGICAL SCIENCE, WILL NOT INSURE OUR FREEDOMS AND SAFETY IN THE LONG TERM

Paradigm Shift

New Science

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

My textbook presentation of new thinking in science is not written in the vernacular. It is written in the precision language of a new science, a second science, a science of right and wrong providing clues to the Nature of Human Nature and the Moral Law We Feel Pressing on Us which is more like mathematics grounded in evolution than a social construction (convention). Only the insane believe in absolute moral relativity and only a sick society will tolerate such nonsense !

My research identifies the equivalent of core moral absolutes pressing on us and arising out of the selective pressures of biopsychosocial evolution ! This is not to deny the layering of learned values and morals modulating such structures.

The scope of axiological science is sweeping and deep because we don't have values were are our values. The reality of Values in a world of facts present us with two separate realities demanding two separate sciences. We have muddled through the last four hundred years with only one science; the natural science of Galileo. Herein lies my story with its focus on presenting a new science of values and morals as we bear witness every day to events that must be seen as analogous to the canary of the coal mine.

I invite students of human nature to explore this new frontier of axiological science and its foremost applications axiological psychology and the measurement of value structures beneath thought and feeling. ...The Right SCIENCE Brings Value-Vision and Thoughts Styles into Focus 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™

Book Review # 1

Ronald Oltmanns

"The New Science of Axiological Psychology"

Leon Pomeroy, B.S., B.A., M.A., Ph.D., FIAPM, FAEI, FRSHI

Rodopi Press, 2005, Amsterdam, Netherlands and New York, New York

This book by Dr. Leon Pomeroy (published biologist and published licensed clinical psychologist practicing in Northern Virginia) might naturally attract a rather narrow audience of psychologists and academics. Let me share why I call this a sourcebook for value science and why it should be read by people beyond the apparently narrow intended audience.

BACKGROUND

In the modern (or post-modern) world, we are used to thinking of certain facts as irrefutable, backed up by the findings of science. We even talk about the division between the "hard sciences" (mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc.) and the "soft sciences" or social sciences (psychology, sociology, history, etc.). The areas of emotions, values, behaviors, morals are all classified as "soft", difficult or impossible to measure, and therefore not subject to the same kind of scientific scrutiny or validation as the "hard sciences." We're back to the Middle Ages in these fields; in sophisticated ways we're still battling over theories and philosophies with no final standard to help us think and act clearly about the subjects discussed.

It may strike some people as odd or audacious to claim there is a science of values. There is, in fact, an emerging field called Value Science, and though it is not well-known or yet enjoying the widespread academic attention that it deserves, it has enormous explanatory power within it and a great potential for widespread application in what have been known as the "soft sciences." It has a lot of practical everyday value as well for ordering our thinking and allowing more civil dialogue about the problems besetting us on an individual and international level in the 21st century. That's why I've recommended this book to many beyond the psychological field.

Leon Pomeroy makes a bold claim in the Introduction to this book: Galileo applied mathematics to natural philosophy, giving birth to a true natural science; in similar fashion the philosopher Robert Hartman applied mathematics to the study of values and gave birth to value science. What Dr. Pomeroy has done and reported on in this volume is based on 20 years of empirical research, testing and validation as a practicing cognitive psychologist. He has taken Hartman's theoretical value science and made it an empirical value science. How has he done that?

MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

Hartman constructed an axiometric test called the Hartman Value Profile (HVP) sometime between 1955-1965. It was expressive of his theory of value science called Formal Axiology based on a formal definition of the concept "good." Hartman answered the question "What is good?" that had puzzled G.E. Moore; he also elaborated a formal axiology that Edmund Husserl stated could be extended from formal logic (see Robert S. Hartman, The Structure of Value).

Pomeroy took Hartman's axiometric test, the HVP, which was developed from the relations found in formal axiology and validated it as one would a psychometric test with strong, positive results (see chapters 3-6).

Pomeroy also concurrently validated the HVP with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the gold standard of clinical psychological diagnostics, and the Cattell Clinical Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ). Pomeroy used many of the criterion measures from Cattell's 16PF, the Cornell Medical Index (CMI) and the index of Autolethality (AL) as well as his own instrument the Personal Belief Inventory (PBI), an Ellisonian test of irrationality validated against the MMPI. Pomeroy discovered that the HVP has many positive correlations at a level of high statistical signficance which support concurrent validity; he further found that the statistical signficance is highly meaningful and demonstrates causal relationships between values (shown through axiometrics) and emotions (shown through psychometrics). (see chapters 7-12)

Pomeroy also conducted cross-national comparisons of the HVP with people from Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the USA which produced some fascinating divergence and convergence of value patterns across cultures. Net finding: the HVP has transnational applicability and points to areas for further study of value differences and commonalities of people with different worldviews (see chapter 16-17).

MY CONCLUSION

This book is highly significant on many levels. It reaches across several disciplines and reader audiences. Much like value science, it cannot be pigeon-holed into one specific tightly focused genre or reader audience, but the facts, findings and questions that it raises will be highly engaging for people interested in values and the moral dimensions of politics, psychological health and everyday decisions. Besides the psychologists, philosophers, students and academics who make up a primary audience for this book, I suggest it also to consultants, business leaders, political leaders, and non-profit/non-governmental organization leaders for them to read and ponder the implications of what this important book has to say, especially in the introduction and chapters 1-2.
It is well worth the asking price given the breadth, depth and implications of its message. Just think: $100 will take you on an around-the-world trip that promises to start bridging the yawning gap between natural science and moral philosophy that began 450 years ago. It may also hold the key to helping us develop real solutions to the intractable problems we face today: How do we value the environment while continuing to enjoy the fruits of a technologically advanced civilization? How can multinational business be a force for positive social change and improvement and not a leveler and destroyer of cultural diversity or a force that operates beyond the law? How do we address global energy problems and avoid the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction? How do I find meaning for my own life and make a contribution in my own unique way? How can I live a life of integration emotionally, economically, socially, spiritually?