���Michael Sylvester wrote: >One way to look at a non-Eurocentric approach is to consider the example of intelligence. Intelligence to me is the ability to adapt to "existing" environments and should not be confined to what was deemed as intelligence by a few European based scholars.<
I agree with Michael that intelligence could well be defined as the ability to adapt to existing environments (though this would then make all manner of creepy crawlies and plants "intelligent"!). I have long felt that what is described as "intelligence" in many instances should actually be called cognitive intelligence, or some such. Not that I have much sympathy with Howard Gardner's notions of multiple i ntelligences, aka all shall have prizes. :-) Michael Smith wrote: > But 'understanding' other people, cultures, etc? I'm not so sure. >Perhaps one of Michael Sylvester's basic points is that in trying to >'understand' another culture one must do so within your own culture >and so one can never really 'understand' the other one. Of course on similar grounds one can never 'understand' another person, though one does one's best (well, most people do some of the time :-) ). >For example, the penchant of 'Western' culture is to quantify as >Michael is pointing out. But this would fly in the face of lets say a >culture based on Zen Buddhism which by its nature is >on-quantifiable if you are g oing to 'understand' the culture. I think, with an open and questioning mind, it is *possible* to gain quite a lot of understanding of different cultures. The nearest to the kind of culture I think you might have in mind (i.e., one in which certain beliefs and practices having a similarity to Zen Bhuddism pervade the whole society) was Tibet. Of course one can never get 'inside' the culture if one is not born and bred within it, but that doesn't mean that one cannot get a sense of what the culture is like if one is prepared to be open-minded about it (and maybe experiment with their practices, eg, meditation). (It seems to me that two different things are involved here � 80� the propensity for Western 'scientific' psychology to quantify, and the degree to which we can 'understand' other cultures.) I think someone who accepts science-based medicine, as, eg, I'm sure Jon Kabat-Zinn does, can still make use of a well thought out system of meditative practices. I don't regard Kabat-Zinn's work as outside of scientific medicine, any more than a Japanese doctor using antibiotics is practising an alien medical culture. Reference: Jon Kabat-Zinn (1990). *Full Catastrophe Living: How to Cope with Stress, Pain and Illness Using Mindfulness Meditation*. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
