The Black Watch: The Journal of Unconscious Psychology and Self-Psychoanalysis

Truth is

Submissions

Submissions and peer review

This journal accepts submissions for publication in online form only.  All submissions are to be double-spaced in either Word, rtf, or pdf format, #12 Times font.  APA citation form is to be used from the sixth edition. Short work between 500 and 1500 words is welcome.  Length may vary to suit the topic, but the author should generally avoid lengths in excess of 10,000 words.  Please limit abstracts to 200 words or less.  This is only a guideline.  Quality and originality are of the greatest importance.  Send all files to: editor(at)thejournalofunconsciouspsychology.com.

Topics must include one or more of the following:

1.  Unconscious processes.
2.  Clinical techniques relating to self-psychoanalysis.
3.  Neuroscience underlying unconscious processes and content.
4.  Diagnosis of mental conditions via quantitative means.
5.  Unconscious aspects revealed in a clinical, historical, mythological or social setting, e.g., an analysis of unconscious motivations in group behavior, or, an analysis of unconscious aspects revealed in myth.
6.  Clinical vignettes.  Examples of specific and unflinching analysis.
7.  Large new psychological ideas.  E.g., Complete new systems and concepts rightly spelled out in detail.  
8.  Work detailing the relationship between the unconscious and creative function, and how to augment said function.

This journal is not peer reviewed.  It is far more strict than that.  I am the peer review process.  This is to be understood as an advantage, and a guarantee of the highest integrity.  I am not a product of the academic system.  That system, often, promotes bias.  My methods and "tastes" are a product of experience in the subject, and extensive study.  These notions work.  Efficacy alone creates value.  

Today, the plethora of journals are in the main, all cut of the same cloth: conformity.  What is right, is seen not as a function of truth, but of academic agreement.  Although some superior work of a deeply impressive sort has emerged, the work of Mark and Karen Solms comes to mind, the result is, in the main, ineffective and confused.  There is some clarity in the mainstream, a few sparks most bright, the praise of which you will hear ring out, but, read the major psychoanalytic journals to see the effect…try the techniques discussed and see for yourself.  Are your symptoms really any better to be "transformed," left as a guess, an "unnamable dread," an "ineffable substrate," rather than brought to direct and sure conscious recognition?  Psychology, specifically unconscious psychology, is guarded by resistance.  The many agree on but one thing: we will avoid what is unconscious in every case.  Consensus is anti-truth, consensus is the delineation of a limit past which truth is excluded.  This journal is the antidote, even if only in a small area––quantitative pathological diagnosis and typological identification of unconscious content, and self-psychoanalysis.  A road to clear, demonstrable, instrumentally efficacious psychological practice, and a solid new quantitative empirical framework are needed.  Consensus has no place in achieving these ends.  I have had fine papers tossed from journals for contrived "reasons" which were contradicted within but sentences of being offered.  The unconscious calls resistance up as its subject matter is exposed to examination.  The prospect is alarming:  The more clearly a paper is written, the more poorly it will be received.  This is as one would expect, but it is disheartening none-the-less.  This journal is the bastion of uncomfortable truths too plainly spoken.  As I am beholden to no viewpoint of "tolerance" regarding what are facts, which are never subject to modification by agreement, intellectual integrity and cleanliness need not be sacrificed to compromise, consensus, or other mediating factors.  Truth is painful and curative, the result of consensus is sustained resistance, a psychoanalytic toxin, an inertia just as potent as the seductive lie upon which it is based: Consensus = Truth.  Social acceptance and denial make even the most trustworthy intellect buckle.  However, I do not seek a confrontational approach with the status quo.  This is wasteful and of no use.  However adept, the gadfly never succeeds in toppling the elephant––a bit of irritation is the best he can expect, and our efforts are in the main better spent to accept, rather than reject:   

If you have thought or a new idea, something which will change the face of the discipline, you have found a home.  A new method, a new system, a new idea which is large enough to be worth caring about: these things which are so very frightening to so many, are my very easiest friends.  Please do let me know, and I will gladly consider publishing an idea which requires the reader hold more than two matchsticks in mind at once.  The entire world should be redefined every twenty minutes, or we as thinkers, are worth nothing.  Read the Quantitative Unconscious paper and know:  Sweeping new ideas which are grounded at every point in a testable framework, these new definitions and worlds are welcome.  What is demonstrable and earthshaking, what is new and large, is welcome.  Theory should please be presented within a testable framework.  I will ask for the references in your paper.  I check everything.  Be ready to provide that level of detail.  New thought and the redefinition of reality, if experimentally or instrumentally demonstrable, are welcome.  The Quantitative Unconscious could, if funded, change the entire of psychology within a few years.  Do you have an idea that is too large?  Do you have a real idea?  Not a small thing, but one that matters?  I will consider it.    

This acceptance of the sweeping and new, is not to be confused with a rejection of the micro.  The deeper the better.   I love a mystery, and must know…how is it solved?  Science is passionless as currently written.  Psychology is, in no small part, the study of the emotions, and does not benefit from their exclusion.  Please write well.  I do not need to be bored to death.  A bit of affect is fine, but not needed.  Only factual analysis I can use is required.  What is new and true?  What is too difficult, too right and sure to be spoken aloud?  If you have fortitude sufficient to the task, write it up properly without ducking, and I will publish it.  Nothing is taboo here, except the mutilation of truth to fit the view of the many.  Today, one can hardly escape the subjective morass and confusion.  I offer you a place to do just that.  Let us write and speak the impossible aloud, let us say it without a hint of subjective indecision: Truth Is.

––Rich Norman