I am a retired professor of psychology (mainly cognitive and educational psychology) and I have fought against rigid categorization and labelling In psychology. E. g. Dyslexia: More important than the question whether a child reaches a value just above or below a threshold in a reading test are the questions: Which are the partial processes of reading, that pose problems to the Child. How canthey be overcome? Reading tests are helpful as a first Step, but not the whole story…

Dear Professor Scheerer-Neumann,

I am immensely grateful for your valuable comment. Your perspective, as a retired professor of cognitive and educational psychology, and your experience in fighting against rigid categorization, deeply validate and enrich my argument.

Your example regarding dyslexia perfectly illustrates the essence of my concern: the insufficiency of models that merely classify symptoms without understanding the dynamic processes underlying life. As I argue in my research, traditional psychometrics often focuses on linear and static models, and its philosophical and epistemological foundations have been extensively questioned for failing to capture the inherent fluidity and complexity of experience.

My work, through the Emergent Cartography of Consciousness, precisely seeks to build a science of the lived form, and the Neurotopological Psychometrics I propose attempts to go beyond mere classification. We aim to integrate algebraic topology metrics with phenomenology to understand emergent coherence and the dynamics of processes, rather than just categorizing threshold results. This allows for a deeper vision of the dynamic, neurotopological, and corporally integrated nature of consciousness.

It is inspiring to find colleagues who share this vision of building a psychology beyond reductionism.

Your comment strengthens the urgency of this dialogue. Thank you for your wisdom.

Regards,

Arturo Salazar Chon

Student, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente

Dear Arturo Salazar,

thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm responding to you personally, but I would prefer not to engage in a classic back-and-forth discussion. Not because I wish to avoid it, but because my path has moved significantly away from a purely psychological perspective.

Alongside my psychanthropological training, I have delved deeply into social neuroimmunology (Marxer-Tobler & Pineda, 2012), which has fundamentally changed how I view emotions and ethnicity.

It became clear to me that, before we attempt therapeutic interventions or assign diagnoses, we must first understand what emotions are, how they are generated in the brain, and what evolutionary purpose they serve. This led me to the field of social neuroscience, which regards emotions not merely as private experiences, but as biologically and socioculturally embedded phenomena.

What increasingly troubles me is the conceptual landscape of many psychological and psychiatric models – often populated with constructs that seem disconnected from the lived emotional reality. I believe it is essential to free these disciplines from a self-referential language system that has become detached from the actual emotional experience of human beings.

Because: Basic emotions are universal and innate. But the way they are expressed – or suppressed – is shaped by culture. A child learns very early on which emotions are “permitted” in their environment – and which are not. Those that are not permitted must be suppressed. Yet, because emotional impulses are biologically rooted and cannot simply be erased, this suppression creates internal conflicts.

And it is precisely these conflicts that, in my experience, often form the emotional soil from which what we later rather: call “disorder” or “illness” emerges.

So for me, the key question is not: What is wrong with this person?

But: What did they have to suppress in order to belong?

Dear Llewellyn,

I greatly appreciate your clear and balanced response. I fully agree that the central problem lies not in the existence of nomological or idiographic approaches, but in the lack of adequate integration and the improper use of one to justify the principles of the other. Your clarity regarding the function and purpose of each is fundamental.

My research in the Emergent Cartography of Consciousness precisely seeks a way to overcome this dichotomy. The Neurotopological Psychometrics I propose is, by design, a mixed-methods methodology that articulates quantitative with qualitative aspects. Its objective is to measure the coherence, incoherence, and decoherence of information patterns using algebraic topology metrics (persistent homology, network entropy, functional curvature) while integrating with the phenomenological exploration of subjective experience. This allows us a deeper vision of the dynamic, neurotopological, and corporally integrated nature of consciousness.

In this way, we aspire to build a science of the lived form that does not limit itself to classifying symptoms, but embraces the irreducible diversity of human experience and allows for personalized qualitative and quantitative measurements. Your comment reinforces the urgency and relevance of moving towards a paradigm that addresses complexity through rigorous integration.

It is worth mentioning that my work, originally in Spanish, will be translated into English soon to broaden its reach and foster international dialogue.

Regards,

Arturo Salazar Chon

Student, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente

Dear Emma,

I deeply appreciate your valuable and insightful response. Your trajectory in psychoanthropology, deepened in social neuroimmunology, resonates with a fundamental understanding of human experience, especially in the intertwining of the biological, psychological, and sociocultural.

I fully agree on the urgency of understanding what emotions are, how they are generated, and their evolutionary purpose, as well as the need to free psychology from a self-referential language disconnected from lived emotional reality. In my Emergent Cartography of Consciousness, emotion is a fundamental pillar, conceived as a complex and multiregional psychosomatic resonance that modulates conscious experience.

Your point about the cultural suppression of basic emotions and the "internal conflicts" it generates directly echoes the states of incoherence and decoherence that my Neurotopological Psychometrics seeks to map. We aim precisely to go beyond superficial classification to understand the underlying dynamics when emotional integration is compromised.

The question "What is happening to this person?" is at the heart of our effort to build a science of the lived form. My Neurotopological Psychometrics is a mixed-methods methodology that integrates algebraic topology metrics with phenomenological exploration precisely to capture that individual reality, allowing for personalized qualitative and quantitative measurements.

Your final question, about what had to be repressed to belong, is vital. It reveals the tension between intrinsic emotional dynamics and the demands of the social environment, a crucial point for understanding the coherence or disruption of the mind-body system. Thank you for enriching this dialogue.

It is worth mentioning that my work, originally in Spanish, will be translated into English soon to broaden its reach and foster international dialogue.

Regards,

Arturo Salazar Chon

Student, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente

Dear Arturo,

thank you sincerely for your rich and respectful response. Your Emergent Cartography of Consciousness and the approach of Neurotopological Psychometricsspeak a language that not only thinks in systems, but takes human complexity and vulnerability seriously – I find that deeply meaningful.

What especially resonated with me was your effort to understand emotional incoherence and fragmentation, rather than just classify symptoms. It shows that you are searching for the inner tensions – those subtle fractures between body, emotion, language and social expectation – which I also see as essential.

I find it inspiring that you bring quantitative and phenomenological approaches together. I believe that only such integrative efforts can help grasp what is actually happening to a person, not merely what diagnostic label they carry.

Your reflections on the suppression of emotional impulses in order to belong go to the heart of my own work. I, too, believe that much of what later appears as “disorder” grows from this conflict: the learned need to silence a part of oneself in order to be accepted from the society.

Thank you for enriching this dialogue with such depth and openness.

Warm regards, Emma

Absolutely, Arturo Salazar Chon , the integration of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches holds great promise for advancing psychology and psychiatry. By fusing mathematical precision—such as computational modeling, network analysis, and quantitative data—with phenomenological richness—like subjective experience, narrative, and contextual understanding—we can develop a more comprehensive science of lived experience.

This convergence can help address current limitations, such as the reductionism of purely biological models or the lack of quantifiable rigor in purely phenomenological approaches. Embracing diverse methodologies allows for capturing the complexity, nuance, and depth of human experience while maintaining scientific rigor. Ultimately, such a synthesis could lead to more personalized, context-aware, and effective interventions, as well as a deeper understanding of mental phenomena in their full richness.

It's an ambitious but necessary evolution—one that calls for collaboration among neuroscientists, mathematicians, philosophers, clinicians, and lived experience researchers—to build a more integrated and human-centered science of the mind and psyche.

Best, stephen

The Comenius Project

Non-Profit Corporation

Neuro&Learning Sciences Research

Dear Emma,

Your message is, without a doubt, one of the most gratifying I have received. I am immensely grateful that my ideas resonate with your profound insight and that you value the essence of Emergent Mapping of Consciousness and Neurotopological Psychometry as a language that effectively takes human complexity and vulnerability seriously.

I am extremely pleased that you share this concern about emotional incoherence and fragmentation, understood as those "subtle fractures" between the body, emotion, language, and social expectations. Your perspective illuminates the urgency of understanding these internal tensions that you consider essential.

Your validation of the combination of quantitative and phenomenological approaches is crucial. I agree: only through these integrative efforts can we truly understand what is happening to a person, beyond a superficial diagnosis.

Your reflections on the suppression of emotional impulses in order to belong are, as you rightly point out, fundamental to my own work. We share the conviction that much of what we call "disorder" arises from this inherent conflict between the authentic self and the need for social acceptance. It is a privilege to encounter such a lucid and courageous mind that addresses these complexities with such depth.

Thank you for enriching this dialogue and for your immense intellectual generosity.

Best regards,

Arturo Salazar Chon

Dear Esteban,

I greatly appreciate your valuable and lucid comment. Your words encapsulate with astonishing precision the central vision that drives me.

I fully agree: the integration of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches is, indeed, the most promising path forward for psychology and psychiatry. Your description of merging mathematical precision (computational modeling, network analysis) with phenomenological richness (subjective experience, narrative) is precisely the essence of the Neurotopological Psychometrics I propose.

You have perfectly identified the limitations my work seeks to address (biological reductionism, lack of rigor in phenomenological approaches) and the benefits of a science that captures the complexity and nuances of human experience with scientific rigor. Your call for collaboration among neuroscientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and lived experience researchers is the path I firmly believe we must follow to build a more integrated, human-centered science of the mind and psyche.

It's an honor to meet colleagues who share this deep conviction. Thank you for your wisdom and for joining this dialogue.

Regards,

Arturo Salazar Chon

Although the different processes are admirable the evidence of their working remains with the doctor, This of course is the medical approach which in this arena may lack efficacy, the end result never going beyond an opinion.

although this is not the best example, it is an example.

Testing the value of treatments.

Psychodynamic treatments are long and financially are not efficient although some appear to make effective change in some cases. i will leave out some, as all these are not cost effective and although they may work it is to a degree. nevertheless, the therapist can get motivation wrong and fantasise over the patients motivations or backgrounds. as with many kinds of medicine, if not all, it is the therapist who confirms illness and treatment process.

I have been brief with the above.

Drugs. Long favoured by doctors. more cost effective, if they work. But i and many others have pointed out they have addictive and psychological effects, and only appear to work because they suppress the patient and therefore to the doctor they are better. some of my clients admitted to short term memory loss, denied by the medical profession. I noted inability to control feelings over time, violent outbursts, original difficulties not considered and manufacture of further problems.

Doctors recommended drugs.