“…There are purportedly 465 therapy models….” – gw I will guess that there are more, especially when other cultures are included.
On Sep 21, 1:52 pm, [email protected] wrote: > I agree Frantherman - There are purportedly 465 therapy models which must be > good for some people. It is also true that not all models are equally > effective. The model I think that is most comprehensive allowing for maximum > flexibility, uniqueness of personality structure, depth and complexity of > differences in personality and the likes is psychodynamic depth psychology. > This allows and encourages what I refer to as > > an individuals' Rashomoning their unique experience which enables them to > find a path through their confusion in ordering the raw data of their > > experience. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:27 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > he marvellous thing about that which we call "reality" - the world as > e experience it - is its amazing depth and complexity. For this > eason we can use many approaches/models. They don't always dovetail > nto each other, but neither are they necessarily in contradiction. > here's a lot in the fable of the blind men and the elephant - the > ifference being that each of the blind men is right and the elephant > an never be explored in its entirety. > As a therapist, gw, I imagine you encounter this all the time. > veryone finds their own answers/openings/ways forward for themselves. > sychologically, reducing our existence to a singular linear vector - > hile in certain situations, perhaps, temprarily behaviourally helpful > s a possible way out of confusion - is=2 > 0not really helpful. It is > eeing, relishing the complex richness of experience which opens all > orts of possibilities for growth. Rand's approach strikes me here as > omewhat shallow. > Francis > On 21 Sep., 21:21, [email protected] wrote: > Try this out - A quote from the philosopher Abraham Kaplan in his book: The > ew World of Philosophy > > "… The facts of experience are not “data” – what is given – but what is > aken: a “fact” is etymologically something made. The > > experience from which knowledge issues is more like reading the expression in > face than it is like solving a cryptogram or a crossword > > puzzle. What is at work is not a process of sheer ratiocination, but > processes > f identification, introjection, and other such mechanisms, > > largely unconscious and preconscious. (Kaplan, 1961, p.152) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:51 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > inally someone has brought this discussion into the area in which it > elongs. The reference to Husserl was apposite. Thank you, Justin > I've been following this discussion without taking part - apart from a > ew one-line Socratic questions to Skip - because I see the question > f "facts", or, relatedly, "things-in-themselves" (to use Husserlian > erminology), as very deep and quite complex - even if, as many claim, > =C > 2sublime simplicity may come into view when one has reached a certain > tage in the investigation. Furthermore, I am very much aware that my > wn position in this investigation is very much conditional. > Justin goes much farther than I can, indeed, my view is=2 > 0that he goes > arther than philosophy can. (Not for the first time,) this post > eminds me very much of the later Heidegger, where his search for the > eing of being (Sein des Seins) leads him to language and expression > hich I understand more in poetic and mystical terms. This seems to me > o be inevitable, given our basic position as perceiving subjects. > oing beyond this is like trying to get out of our own skins. I doubt > f this is possible in terms of strict philosophical analysis, because > despite Husserl's own attempts to "bracket everything out" - I see > o way to bracket out the analysing subject. Concepts and language > onstrain our analysis to the phenomenological, making our > onclusions, ultimately, conditional. For my own position > conditionally!), I see certain elements of confirmation in many > nterpretations of quantum theory as well as in aspects of Popper's > hinking. > I emphasise once more - conditional. I see philosophy - the search for > isdom - very much as a journey; a journey into the depth of things > phenomenologically perceived :-)). To use Heideggerian language, I > ind myself in the clearing, waiting for Being to reveal itself. It > oesn't. At the moment. This may change. But such a revelation (o > rn > ight call it "apprehending") is something which, I believe, goes > eyond philosophical analysis. And so, conditionally, I remain in the > xpectant agnostic position (philosophically) of atheistic > xistentialism. > Francis > On 21 Sep., 16:22, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Husserl made a distinction between fact and essence. > > Essence is roughly the content of the fact or its meaning which is > subject to interpretation but not wholly determinable by > interpretation. > > In addition to the essence there is the statement of "facticity" which > basically means that the fact "is". > > You can look at the back side of the moon as an example. Let's say > there is a 500 ft crater on the back side of the moon. Now facts are > always in terms of essence so the terms here are "a 500ft crater" > which is meaningless or not, independent of its facticity. If you > refer to some experience, not necessarily one that you have had, that > gives meaning to the phrase "a 500 ft crater" then the term ends up > with meaning. However, if you in fact get the meaning of "a 500 ft > crater on the back side of the moon" then it still, "in fact", might > not be there. > > You can also look at something that unlike the back side of the moon > is right in front of you and, for a time, choose to not consider what > it is. You still realize that there is an experience you are having > and it has a corre > late that is there, or, perhaps better, happening. > You can choose to examine it. It is from those correlates that the > meaning of that which we don't see it constituted and without those > references the meaning itself falls away into nothingness. > > The real problem is when you consider essentially the fact of > facticity itself or the essence of facticity if you will its > "manifestation" in meaning.=2 > 0It is difficult to know how do give it > meaning.... difficult but when known...or seen... when one sees that > one is confronted by the "facting" of the world and that this is not > "semblence" or 'mere appearance" then the absolute nature of Being is > encountered. It is neither external nor internal. Then all kinds of > strange things come out of your mouth when trying to say what you mean > and people think you haven't a clue and that you are making elementary > mistakes in epistemology. The reality is that you have experienced the > meaning. > > People also have trouble with the fact of essence and often even with > the fact of history. In some very narrow understanding of being the > past "is no longer" which gets interpreted as the past "isn't". The > same with all meaning including Being. In that way of thinking to say > something is your "interpretation" means that it is inherently > subjective and, again, in that way of thinking therefore not objective > or real. It is "only" > meaning. Not the "real thing". That is just a > failure to realize Being I think. The possibility of concealment will > of course always be there but that does not negate the fact of the > reality of the semblance as semblance. This is where Truth intersects > with Being, and it is in unconcealment or revealing that the truth is. > Some think there is some "other" concealed thing that is the reality > and we experience only its shadow but I think that misses the meaning > of unconcealment an > d revelation inherent in the meaning of Being. > > I could be wrong, but then, I could be right. > > On Sep 21, 6:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Umm okay well let me try it this way instead then. > > > I agree that that 'facts are facts and our subjective understanding of > > them does not change them' > > > What now? You and I have agreed on that point, you have won me over, > > I'll admit that my talk of subjective facts was wrong, now where do we > > go now that we both understand this? > > > On 21 Sep, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Okay Slip, so we accept that, now what is the porpose of your stance? > > > > > Is it really merely to say 'facts are facts and our subjective > > > > understanding of them doe > s not change them'? > > > > (seems simple enough) > > > > > It seem to me that in expressing such a thing you side with Rand, I > > > > for one would love to move this thread forward and get to the meat of > > > > the matter. You have said two things here: > > > > > The first I can only say is blatant lie by you and that is your > > > > comment about getting of the ride, umm you still take your seat I > > > > notice. > > > > (I said and repeat, IF the thread reaches an impasse then in a sense > > > it is a carousel at which point I get off the ride. > Obviously some > > > have returned to break the stagnation, I don't see why this is not > > > clear, so you are rash in your attack and unjust in your assessment.) > > > > > The second is that you have just said you have no interset in > > > > discusing Rands Objectivism vs Altruism, > > > > (Is that what I said? I thought it was something like "examining > > > facts". You might try reading my post, not reading into it.) > > > (If you want to bring up something that you want to discuss concerning > > > Rand then bring it up and we can discuss it.) > > > > Blah blah...........Let me say this Lee, IF you and anyone else wanted > > > to > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
