Congratulations and good luck Krim. Ian
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bravo Krimel! Terrific news. - You are great!!! - Marsha > > > > > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Krimel wrote: > >> dmb, >> A couple of times you have attempted to pinpoint some critical fulcrum or >> point of balance over which our differences teeter. Psychology versus >> philosophy, materialism versus radical empiricism (which in your formulation >> of it, I take to be nothing more than idealism) or as I have tended to see >> it romanticism versus classicism. I found another useful way to characterize >> our differences in a book on communication theory by Em Griffin. He talks >> about two kind of theorizing: objective and interpretive. >> >> "The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect >> contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of >> human nature, questions of value, the very purpose of theory and methods of >> research." >> >> I freely admit to leaning heavily on the scientific method. This, for >> reasons I have covered with you in exhaustive detail over the years. >> Essentially while I do not think "science" provides a full account of >> meaning, I think any account of meaning that ignores science or runs counter >> to it, is worthless. Pirsig's account of evolution for example. Likewise, >> your own fledgling attempts to use Bolte-Taylor and Damasio. >> >> Our frequent battles in which you accuse me of reductionism or SOM or where >> you rail against a correspondence theory of truth I think reveal a telling >> lack of insight on your part. For example, while certainly a pure >> correspondence theory gives an inadequate account of "truth," no theory that >> offers an account that runs counter to our observations or has no relation >> whatever to them deserves to be taken seriously. Theories that have no >> possible perceivable consequence, that can't be tested for an observable >> consequences also seem to me to fail in this respect. Wilber's claim that >> Spirit must precede the Big Bang for example. Or take reductionism; which I >> fully agree cannot provide a sufficient account of very much; certainly does >> provide an account of the necessary conditions from which a sufficient >> account make proceed. >> >> Whichever the sets of poles we cast ourselves in, you and I take opposite >> positions, (romantic/classic, objective/interpretive...). But it seems to me >> the whole point of Pirsig and James is to seek some kind of synthesis. >> Understanding how to keep your motorcycle running is suppose to the enhance >> your ability to enjoy the quality of the ride. Appreciating the beauty of >> the rainbow should stimulate an active curiosity as to how and why it >> shimmers. >> >> As you have pointed out before, we do have very specific differences of >> opinion on the MoQ, the meaning of its terms and the conceptions of >> experience that it allows. Your contention that the terms Quality and DQ are >> equal for example grates on my nerves as obviously absurd. I'm sure my >> insistence that DQ means uncertainty and SQ means certainty must grate on >> yours. >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> Note: This BTW, is the essence of my understanding >> of the MoQ. I have tap danced around it since >> my first post here but I understand the MoQ >> as stating: >> >> 1. Shit Happens. >> 2. Quality is Chaos >> 3. Quality (Chaos) has two aspects DQ (uncertainty) >> SQ (certainty) >> 4. Value (meaning) is reduction of uncertainty. >> (That is, meaning results from and results in, >> our ability to create and manipulate static quality) >> 5. Biological organisms are the meaning that evolution >> derives from chaos. >> 6. As such organisms, we derive meaning from chaos >> 7. We are beings that create SQ from the DQ around us >> or to use James' terms, We derive concepts from >> experience >> >> Or, simplistically speaking, something like that... >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> I recently voiced support for the points Dave Thomas raised as failures of >> the current conception of the MoQ. About all that I disagreed with was his >> pessimism that the whole business is irredeemable. But then I have never >> seen the MoQ the way you do. I think my version places it in a much better >> position to play a part in the intellectual revolution that Pirsig >> foreshadowed. That revolution is well underway by the way from Mandelbrot, >> Shannon and Nash in mathematics; Ekman, Damasio, Ariely in psychology, Taleb >> in economic, Wolfram and Kurzweil in future studies to name a few. >> >> But that's just me... >> >> >> >> >> Oddly in light of that objective versus interpretive continuum I find myself >> headed in a surprising direction. Despite your claim that I am hopelessly >> obstinate in my views, in about a week I will be entering a completely new >> phase of my "career" (a "career" BTW that has been fraught with radical >> changes in direction) I will be entering the Communication program at the >> University of South Florida. By my count that makes three of us; you, Matt >> and I who will be currently pursuing advanced degrees. I believe Ant, Arlo >> and Mati are already ensconced in the ivory tower. While I doubt that this >> move will contribute much to a resolution of our differences, I think my >> choice of this program and the reasons for it illustrate in many ways how >> you have misjudged my positions. >> >> About three years ago I returned to the field of academic psychology as an >> instructor at the local community college. Obviously this renewed interest >> in a field I had mostly abandoned for 30 years has colored my posts here >> ever since. The moment I entered the classroom to teach that first session >> three years ago, I fell in love. I loved studying the subject, I loved the >> students in my class, I loved preparing my lectures. At the time I recorded >> most of them and in offline correspondences with Marsha I made them >> available for her to listen to as "podcasts". She claimed to enjoy them and >> while I make no pretentions as to their "quality" but I think something of >> my enthusiasm must have come through. >> >> My position for the past three years has been full time but temporary. As >> soon as I took it I began thinking in terms of a return to school to get a >> Ph.D. in the hope of enhancing my possibilities for a permanent position. I >> looked at various online program and ironically the one I considered most >> seriously was something in transpersonal psychology at the California >> Institute for Integral Studies. I thought about studying under Alan Combs of >> "Wilber-Combs" matrix fame. I ultimately gave up in this when I saw Combs on >> TV seriously suggesting that telepsychic John Edwards really does have >> supernatural powers. >> >> USF is close to home put the psychology program wants full time students >> involved in full time research projects and that didn't fit my needs. I also >> looked at their philosophy program but they require two languages that I >> don't know and don't care to learn. The Communication program on the other >> hand claimed to be interdisciplinary and would let you study pretty much >> whatever you choose to study. I took a course in Semiotics last Fall and >> decided to apply. Against all expectation they not only accepted my but >> invited me to come full time on a Graduate Fellowship. >> >> In the continuum of objective versus interpretive, the department is heavily >> skewed toward interpretative. In fact some the main people in the department >> have been key in developing the field of autoethnography which is a direct >> response to some of the kinds of criticisms of anthropology, or in this case >> sociology, that Pirsig levels in Lila. They are attempting to construct a >> new genre of social science writing that includes the qualitative >> perceptions of the researcher. >> >> While I seriously doubt that emersion in this environment will ultimately >> make me more sympathetic to what I regard as your wooly headed analysis, who >> can say. I originally entered graduate school 30 years ago as something of a >> mystic and emerged as a behaviorist. Perhaps the reverse will happen at this >> late stage. I rather hope not but I think this should illustrate that with >> my deeds, if not so much with my words on this forum, I do try to remain >> open in my thinking. >> >> All this is to say that I will be bac >> >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
