My Library

To this I might add that during the two second decades of this century, sociologists and psychologists had opined that human nature didn't exist -- and was a myth redolent with superstitions. Later futurology also ignored this topic.
This was in keeping with the scientific supposition that inherent behavioral attributes and patterns such as might be ascribed to "human nature" didn't exist, and so the human nature "fabric" didn't exist either.
Man, it was said, was his own vehicle, and by logic and reason could self-improve without taking cognizance of the myth of human nature -- which, after all, contained many destructive attributes.
Those destructive attributes, the early sociologists said, arose from faulty nurturing, not from any inherent nature.
All in all, the literature of sociology is quite boring and turgid. But my interest in it was stimulated by an idea of my own which amused me.
If open and closed doors of perception existed, then there ought to be a sociology of open and closed doors of perception.
In this sense, the sociologies of open and closed doors of perception ought to be dramatically different -- and, as well, have meaning to creative perceptual processes as well as to psychic perceptual ones.