Well , Hell , congratulations , Krimel, I'l hope you make it a nice path of growth, and walk it all the way. No doubt you are capable for it.(Adrie)
2010/8/10 Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > 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 > -- parser 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
