Hi Matt, Perhaps we are talking past each other. Perhaps I am projecting concern where there should be none. Perhaps as you say, people do not take the behavioural aspects of psychology too seriously and take Dr. Phil with a grain of salt. Perhaps the use that advertizing agencies make of Pavlovian tactics is indeed benign since we always have free choice. Perhaps psychiatrists are seen more as friendly counselors useful for getting problems off ones chest and delivering some friendly advice. I don't know, but I have heard stories to the contrary.
I would agree that psychiatry, if done by a good psychiatrist, is beneficial. I suppose the same would be true for heart surgeons. If it is done by a misguided psychiatrist then perhaps not. The psychiatrist holds great power over the patient since they become privy to all their inner anxieties. Such patients are looking desperately for solutions. Now that psychiatry has gone into prescribing drugs, it does matter how they think we should think, since their opinion is important in suicidal cases, for example. My great grandfather, Jan Egbert Gustaaf van Emden (whom my father got his first and middle names from), was a collegue of Freud's. Jan van Emden was based in the Netherlands, and I believe the first Dutch psychiatrist. My grandmother used to tell us funny stories about all the wierd people that used to come to her house when she was young. She said that the wierdest was Freud. I do not have too many friends who are professional philosophers, so maybe it is all relative (heh, heh). I suppose, that in a nutshell, I do not believe that our minds can be objectified. To do so is to put ones thinking into an artificial place, and surround it with rules. If it was the intent of psychology to "understand" the mind through rigorous data collection, and if it was the perception that psychologist are those who truly understand the mind, then perhaps you too would agree with me that perhaps it is wrong. Perhaps I have seen Clockwork Orange one to many times.. Perhaps, Perhaps. If the ideal is to attenuate the SOM form of reality, I do not see how psychology helps us with that. My guess is that when you read ZAMM you were ready to receive the message. Many of us were. In fact, the message sounded familiar. During our schooling, we had to receive the message whether we liked it or not. "Now children, it has been conclusively proven that we came from monkeys". At least we know better now. There is no proof. Regards, Mark On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > I think we are largely talking past each other. You have associations > with the discipline I largely don't, which isn't to say I "agree" with > psychology, but more that these horrible things you ascribe to > psychology (and I agree sound horrible), I don't ascribe. If I had to > press the one difference that makes the most difference at the most > abstract level, it's that you treat "psychology" monolithically, as this > one object you ascribe things to. I don't really treat it that way. I > deal more at the level of individual psychologists (for example, > mistreating and misdiagnosing patients) and individualized research > programs (some of which can be pernicious, though I think most of > the pernicious ones have withered away). But here's some > scattered remarks: > > Mark said: > Yes, perhaps I am taking the term psychology too literally. However, > modern psychology claims that our feelings are simply a result of the > environment, or our DNA. It is this reductionist notion from > psychology that is detrimental to MoQ in my opinion. It takes > determinism into the subjective. > > Matt: > I'm not sure all research programs do this. (I should also remark > that I should differentiate "research program" from "therapeutic > program," but I'm not sure how much it matters. Therapists, in my > experience, are usually pragmatic in their approach, and choose > whatever tool from a research program, like from Jung or Adler, > that works. They don't it seems to me really care that much about > pressing for one program's ultimate truth over another.) However, > I also don't really know how wide you are casting "simply a result > of the environment." It would perhaps help to know what you > thought the missing element(s) are in addition to environment and > biological makeup. > > Mark said: > I forget exactly what he said (and I couldn't find it, so maybe I made > it up) but is was something to the effect that our philosophy is rooted > in our psychology. This is saying that science or reason can explain > why we do science and reason. When I hear psychological terms > bandied about, I become concerned. That is, when "such and such" > explains why we do things or feel certain ways. > > Matt: > It might have been me, too, but I guess I don't see what's so > inherently pernicious-sounding in the root metaphor. (And when did > "motive" become a narrowly disciplinary term? I'm not sure I saw > the bandying you did.) And remember, "our" psychology. Why > wouldn't our motivations for opening our mouths matter to what > comes out? I guess I still have a very vague grip on what you mean > by "psychological terms" and what I should feel stand-offish about. > Maybe I just don't fear reductionism as much in this area because I > don't hear the reductionism in the formulations (or the members of > the discipline). > > Mark said: > A comment to you list of names. There is a difference between > drawing from all these men, and finding that what they profess is > resonates with what you feel. If something written by these people > resonates with you, it is not because you are being unduly influenced > by these writers, it is because what they say is in harmony with you > at that particular time and place. Nobody can dictate the reality of > things, they can only share their reality. If it sounds good to you, it is > because you are in the right place. If it is a round peg which fits your > round hole, then that is good. If it happens to be square, then it is > nonsense as far as you are concerned, until perhaps you get there. > > Matt: > I'm not sure I catch the purport of these remarks. It sounds like > you're making the transition between a square hole to a round hole > mysterious. Because if I were to be asked how I transitioned from > the square hole of non-philosophical thinking to the round hole of > philosophical thinking, I would say, "Pirsig's ZMM." But then, I give > a lot of credence to Percy Bysshe Shelley: "Poets are the > unacknowledged legislators of the world." > > Also, if you think the above, how could you also think that the > discipline of psychology has changed our psychology? Perhaps I > don't understand what you mean by "unduly influenced" as it is > assimilated to "nobody can dictate the reality of things." > > Matt said: > What is this study? Hard to say, but if you accept the proposition that > philosophy is a human response to life, then you will be concerned > about the state of the mind when it responded in a particular fashion. > That doesn't mean the "particular fashion" (e.g., "philosophy") can > be _reduced_ to the "state of the mind." But pragmatists were really > big on emphasizing the continuity of philosophy to other tools > humanity had constructed to help itself deal with reality (like fire, > airplanes, or science). And because of that it verged into uncharted > territories about what certain kinds of beliefs do for us, in all kinds of > facets of "do for us." > > Mark said: > Well, I do not accept that proposition as written. For it is incorrect to > separate philosophy from life. I would prefer to say that philosophy is > one aspect of life. > > Matt: > I guess I don't see the difference between what you said and I said. > To supply an analogy, you do separate "philosophy" from "life": one > is spelled one way, the other another way. If they weren't different > in some fashion, we wouldn't continue to need two words for them. > If there weren't different in some fashion, you wouldn't have the > traction to make the distinction you do want to make. For I agree, > philosophy is, as you say, an aspect of life, just as I pointed out fire, > airplanes, and science are. > > Mark said: > The term "a state of mind" if used as a term for reduction is on the > road to modern psychology. If we are reducing philosophy to the sum > total of what has happened before, then this is an oversimplification. > For, as the "before" was happening we were in a process of > evaluation of that happening; I do not believe that our way of > thinking can be simplified in that way. It is like saying that the mind > is a machine and stuff goes in then comes out depending on how the > gears are oiled. But to deal with the broader context of your > paragraph, it is hard to differentiate between "dealing with our > reality", and "creating our reality". But, yes, so long as we see all > these things as tools that we can take or leave, then perhaps we > have a modicum of freedom. However, after fourteen years (to start) > of education, how much freedom do we really have. We are taught > how to march; how then can we dance? > > Matt: > Maybe this is another difference: I don't see the "free will vs. > determinism" debate as an issue that could muck up what we do in > life. I don't think our actual freedom is ever at risk by philosophical > positions. Or, perhaps I should say that if people really were > convinced that they were a slave to a certain thought-process and > could not do otherwise (which seems to be what you are conceiving > of the evil of reductionist psychology), then yes, they wouldn't be > able to free themselves. But I think such an outcome highly unlikely, > and I would present the analogy of the history of Western religion, > in which creedal dogmas eventually lost their efficacy. (A wonderful > book to see the kind of cultural process I see at work is Chinua > Achebe's Things Fall Apart, though ironically (and for its author, too) > it is the fading away of indigenous Igbo beliefs in the face of a > usurper Christianity.) > > What you describe in your paragraph as "an oversimplification" is, I > agree, exactly that. I don't think either Dave or I wanted to imply it, > and my invocation of Hegel is designed to ward off that specter, as > he conceived of "experience" as a process (at least on Robert > Brandom's reckoning) which required us to take into account the > output in addition to the uptake. In fact, when you say it is "hard to > differentiate between 'dealing with our reality' and 'creating our > reality,'" I quite agree and think it is another version of the > conundrum I didn't think it terribly important to worry over, about > whether we altered because we better understand or we better > understand because we altered. > > Mark said: > Again, it is the intrusion of a quasi-science into the realm of the > subjective that I find inappropriate. For, by making the subjective > objective we create a reality which leaves out the self. These times > present much credence into science, to the point that we believe > what the "great scientists" say just because they say it. > > Matt: > Maybe you and I live in different "times," which is a function of being > part of different local communities. I don't see so much blindness, at > least no more than the kind everyone shows. And I start there as a > reply to this bit because I don't know what you mean by > "quasi-science" or "realm of the subjective" or "leaving out the self." > I think I would understand them if I were using presuppositions from > SOM, but it would be inappropriate of me to willy-nilly attribute that > to you. > > Mark said: > As I see it, the discipline of psychology as it stands has little to do > with philosophy. It is trying to use equations to predict one's reaction > to a sunset. > > Matt: > I think we're acquainted with different psychology books and > psychologists. > > Mark said: > What ever happened to experiencing reality without having to read > how to do it. > > Matt: > Yeah...I don't know who does do that, so I guess I don't get the > thrust of your rhetorical question. > > Mark said: > I do not believe that psychology has anything to do with > understanding ourselves. Again, I am using the term as it is taught > in universities. > > Matt: > We must have gone to very different universities. > > Mark said: > Yes, psychology is creating our understanding of ourselves because it > is in vogue and we read about it in books. Is there really a "science" > behind understanding oneself? Did people not understand themselves > in the past? Are we now so much better at understanding ourselves? > Or are we just going along with the head trip? > > Matt: > Depends on what you mean by "science." If you use it like a > materialist-SOMist, then no, there can't be a science of the self. If > you use it like a Greek would, then sure, there can be a science of > self, though it's doubtful it could ever be codified and systematized > (too many different selves). > > I don't know. I guess I do think we understand ourselves better > nowadays. Part of this is because of fields like psychology, though > it's also because of every other branch of knowledge (from physics > to literature). I can't think of why I should view psychology as evil > nor why I shouldn't view us as having made strides in cultural > progress. > > Matt > > 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
