This rejection fails to address any of the content itself. It did serve good purposes to me in that it caused me to think more about SCA and how I need to recreate and put emphasis on an object before introducing frames and more complex functions of the subconscious mind observable through human behavior. As I thought more about it I am modifying as a theory of conscious motion, where SCA represents the variables that determine human motion. Presenting SCA to psychology is a lot like giving a dissertation about modern medicine to doctors from the 10th century.
Here is the rejection
Dear Mr. Simerl,
I have completed an initial reading of your manuscript, which has been submitted for publication to the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Before sending a manuscript out for full review, I conduct a preliminary screening to determine both its competitiveness for publication and its appropriateness to the Journal‘s mission. This screening can save authors and reviewers valuable time.
On the basis of my careful evaluation, I have decided not to send your manuscript out for full review. My reading of your manuscript indicates that it may be more appropriate for another journal. The most significant challenge is that the paper neglects previous theory on these topics. There are no citations and the paper constantly asserts claims about material (e.g. morality, consciousness) for which there has already been a lot of discussion. It read like a paper where one just asserts points about what one thinks and it is not clear why/how the article contributes to current discussion in theoretical psychology. It seems from your cover letter like it has been difficult to get this paper to review, but I cannot send it for peer review because of the lack of engagement with the field and lack of argument for your claims. If you are serious about publishing work in theoretical/philosophical psychology, then you need to show engagement with the field.
Thank you for submitting to the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. I wish you the best in your continued research.
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
I’ve read your rejection and will be sharing my response to your objection since I will be sharing it.
I agree, I’m not familiar with the journal’s content. I selected the journal based on the name where theoretical psychology implied the journal published novel theories of the mind that offer self evident explanations for the core functioning of the human subconscious. It doesn’t build on the knowledge or draw from contemporary research or ideas on the subject. Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment defines the only purposes of thought and the only basis for comparing details. It isn’t “what I think”, it is, what is, and you clearly didn’t understand the material which is probably good for both us and I’ll explain why.
I should have begun with an object and worked around the object instead of beginning with frames of impression. It’s beneficial to me because your response may have provoked the consideration required to better articulate the theory. It may be beneficial to you if you continue reading because there is an opportunity for you to understand something that will change human understanding forever.
First, it’s evident you don’t understand what was expressed because your response does not challenge anything presented in the article. Your explanation is generic speaking to the general criteria of the journal, and although it applies to my article, it could apply to any article that didn’t cite previous research on the subject or pertain to concepts and ideas in the field. Second, it’s clear you didn’t understand the material because had you understood it we’d be having a discussion about editing and not a generic rejection.
You claim the article consists of what I think, whereas I understand much of what was expressed as self evident or an observation. What we will do is at each point I will show you why what is being expressed is self evident. 1st I’m going to rehash a familiar scenario to show how existing content is self evident and then I’m going to present an object, an ink pen, and show you how the subconscious mind uses the object to produce thoughts and objectives. To prove it wrong is extremely simple, all I ask is that you present a thought about the pen that cannot be shown to be a product of Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment.
I defined the subconscious components of the decision making process and used the simple act of getting orange juice to illustrate how solving for these components produces thought. The short explanation is every decision begins with a valued objective, and the value of that objective (consuming orange juice for the anticipated feeling consumption produces) is compared to the energy required to obtain it, it is compared to any consequence that interferes with other long term objectives, and the objective is understood or felt to be morally consistent or inconsistent. You say this is what I think. I’m claiming it is self evident. Why is it self evident? It’s self-evident because there are no thoughts that have been, or can be produced, that are not a product of reaching these determinations. An act must be the highest valued object in the immediate setting, the value of the object must be greater than the negative value in terms of energy to complete the act, the value of the act must either exceed the value of long term objectives if there is the potential for a consequence that will obstruct those long term objectives, unless the consequence is perceived as unlikely to occur, and the act must be consistent with the individual’s morality or the value of the act must exceed the anticipated loss of self worth that will result from having violated one’s morality. If this is what I think and not what is, then it shouldn’t be difficult to produce or find 1 thought in human history that is not the signature of solving for these 4 components. Just 1 and you are right. Because you cannot, it is self evident and you’re arrogantly dismissive of what you do not understand. You present the thought that is not the product of these comparisons, and I will demonstrate how it is.
Not only are you incapable of producing a contradiction in the decision making process, but you cannot find an exception to SCA in a simple object. I’ve attached a picture of an ink pen. It is blue, it has a cap with a clip, on the cap there are 2 hearts engraved, the name of the manufacturer is written on the side of it as well as the diameter of ink distributed when pressure is applied to a surface. The aforementioned and the spatial dimensions are the details that the object consists of as well as the composition of the materials used to assemble the object. All of this exists in the subconscious mind as sequences or cause and effect.
What thoughts can the mind produce related to this object? All thoughts are a product of assigning distinctions of cause or effect that account for existing motion or to produce motion motivated by the anticipated feeling that the motion will produce which is value.
An object can be a cause or an effect depending on context and context is determined by objective. Using the ink pen as the object the statement “thoughts are a product of assigning distinctions of cause and effect to account for existing motion” pertains to objectives of how the pen is made, the production and assembly of its components which is a cause and effect sequence that ends on the effect of the finished pen. Another example are thoughts in the context of how the pen is where it is, which is a sequence that begins after production into distribution, and the movement of the pen for it to arrive at its present place.
Using the ink pen as an example “thoughts are a product of assigning distinctions of cause and effect to produce motion”, and this motion is considered for the anticipated feelings that it will produce. This represents the pens utility, where the pen in some circumstance is a cause that creates effects to complete objectives that produce positive feelings. Most commonly thoughts related to the pen consist of writing, but other sequences may be produced by considering circumstances where the pen can produce effects to fulfil other valued objectives. For example if one was attacked and had the pen the pen may be used as a weapon, or any other scenario where the characteristics of the pen are conducive to achieving a good feeling. This represents sequencing.
The value assigned to this particular pen on a person by person basis is determined by the feelings the pen produces both in utility as well as the perception and association of other characteristics. The functioning of the clip, how the ink appears on different surfaces it is applied to, the force required to apply the ink, are among some of the functions of emotion associated with the pen’s utility subjectively on a person by person basis depending on objective. Perception of the pens characteristics that contribute to value are details like the color of the pen, associations with the manufacturer, or the hearts inscribed on the clip. All of these characteristics contribute to the value of the pen, subtly where color has small feelings associated with it, the shape of a heart may have feelings, and depending on the familiarity of the individual with the company, there may be very strong feelings associated with the company name, where the value of this particular pen could be wholly determined by that one characteristic.
All thoughts associated with this pen are a product of sequencing and comparisons of value.
Morality is applied at points of action and requires context for an accurate assignment. All acts are a product of opportunities furnished by an individual’s immediate circumstances, where an immoral act may be necessitated or justified based on the circumstances that precipitated it. There are no thoughts of morality pertaining to the pen. The pen cannot be right or wrong absent an act.
You mentioned morality in your rejection while failing to acknowledge that I presented the basis for objective morality in the article, which is uncomfortable for moral philosophy because it demonstrates that the field doesn’t know what morality is and shows it to be entirely subjective. Is this what I think? No. Why? Because in all settings all people want to do what they want to do. If this is what I think, present an exception. You cannot which means it isn’t what I think, it is what IS. Morality, the question of what acts are right or what acts are wrong is determined by whether those acts impose on the ability of others to do as they please. Directly through physical imposition consisting of inflicting harm, spatial restrictions, or imposing on property; or indirectly as benefactors and participants in systems that circumstantially impose on others. This means, any act that is thought of as being wrong without that act imposing on others is imposing a subjective value onto others. This is why moral philosophy is subjective, not because I think it is, based on universal human interest and the preservation of that interest on a person by person basis.
All thoughts are the product of assignments of sequencing, value, morality, and truth. If this is what I think and not what is, then provide me a thought about the pen that isn’t a product of sequencing, comparison, and assignment. Since you don’t understand SCA, present your thought about the pen that it is not a product of SCA and I’ll show you where it comes from. I don’t know if this response will even be read by you so I don’t expect a response, but this response will be read by others.
I do appreciate the part in your message where you wrote that SCA “is what I think”. History will remember you for that statement because I credit that statement with advancing my ability to articulate SCA, not only in what I’ve attempted to clarify in this message but other ideas that will be forthcoming, that you’ll hear about eventually.