'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by coberst, Jul 1, 2007.

  1. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    ‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

    Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

    I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

    Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

    The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

    Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

    The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

    The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

    The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

    I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

    Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

    Questions for discussion.

    Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    By god man. Do your research on your own time, don't post yout hypothesis here, they're annoying as hell, and we'd prefer not pour out our thought on your insane thought to help you out anyway.

    Jusus christ I hope you're not a professor or something, you need to do some more reading

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Preferably around here on sci-forums, oops, never mind that's right you don't post no where else but here in the philosophy section, (at least I would SERIOUSLY doubt that you do...) and when you do post in the philosophy section oh never mind you won't change your attitude even if i was right

    *rolls eyes*
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    rolls eyes
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    What's to discuss. Any other approach is doomed to failure and disappointment.
    However, now that I am better informed I can assure you that Jung, Freud. Adler and any of their ilk may be safely ignored. All they had to offer was the asking of a few relevant questions. (And those were important as intiators of the field.) None of their answers were worth a damn.
     
  8. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    I often encounter such statements on these forums and I discount them as being the bluff and bluster of a sophomore. Perhaps you can substantiate your opinion with some authorities’ source and convince me that yours is not just additional sophomoric bluff and bluster.
     
  9. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    Are you suggesting here some kind of belief in God?
     
  10. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949

    No, why do you ask?
     
  11. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    Just the bit about suspending self-knowledge until we're better informed...I was wondering who was going to do the informing.

    It reminded me of a bit from the Qur'an which says something along the lines of you won't understand everything but after you die God will tell you what you didn't know.

    Off base perhaps in this instance.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2007
  12. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    What do you mean psychology began as a protest against religion? Before Hume and Nietzsche, there has 'always' been epistemology, from which psychology may be traced. And that was never divorced from religion.
     
  13. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    Jungs practice of 'psychology' was deeply connected to the world and events around him, bordering on the mystical.

    In one anecdote I remember him using the landing of a flock of birds on his lawn as a cue to change the direction of therapy with one of his patients.
     
  14. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    I think that all adults need to develop an intellectual life. They need to be constantly forming a critical analysis of their world and to be constantly seeking the knowledge necessary to understand them self and their world. All adults need to get acquainted with their nearest college library. Get a "Friends of the Library" card from a local college library and for a small yearly fee we can have access to a great library.
     
  15. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949

    It seems to me that psychology and philosophy are different domains of knowledge. Psychology seeks to find empirical answers whereas religion seeks answers in the supernatural.
     
  16. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    I think you need to read his ideas more deeply and not put such importance in such statements.
     
  17. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461
    You consider what Jung did trivial?
     
  18. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    I think a better way to word this question is Can you tolerate a mode of learning that includes the attitude of 'hold judgement until you have more experience.'

    'better informed' gives me the impression of receiving verbal ideas from someone else. It could be because of the context: your posts.

    My answer is 'yes'. I am capable of seeing what happens when I explore new areas and/or modes of experiencing. And so the 'things' that I believe in has expanded greatly since I was, say, 20. I have also found that experiences - encouraged by readings, but most by other individuals - has led me first to doubt/question and then no longer believe many widely held beliefs.

    I find that quote about the BIG FOUR rather silly. Freud, for example, disagreed heartily with Jung and felt betrayed by him, not only personally and professionally but because of Jungs ideas. I still think you get an odd pleasure out of quoting one person's esteem for another person (or persons) and confuse these accolades with facts about their knowledge or greatness, etc.

    As someone who definitely has made use of depth psychology, I would suggest you follow your own rule and

    tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”

    when faced with my suggestion that you have unresolved introjects in relation to father figures. My guess is that you would suppress aggression and even self-assertion and over identify with father-figures. The concept of reaction formation probably also applies.

    You might explore the ways in which you look down on those who do not accept the ideas of the men you admire (introject) and otherwise react to them. The pattern there will be the same as how you react to your own doubts adn questions about these 'experts' 'father-figures' and ultimately repressed aggression at your own father.
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Non-material = abstract (in my world at least). If you mean the mechanics of it aren't readily defined, of course. It's fairly easy to define otherwise though... but perhaps not precisely.

    True but:

    - many (probably MOST) aren't equipped to do as you've stated. perhaps many of these could have been were their perception of what it means for them to survive to have included such programming.
    - many aren't inclined to do as you've stated, as their "survival function" (ego) has developed to utilize petty judgement to their social advantage.
    - circumstance can easily command forfeiture of the luxury of such procrastination (e.g. "is that a gun? is it pointed at me?")
    - and yes, the notion of delayed judgement can be at least loosely equivocated to procrastination.

    Okay.

    Sure, though I'm only loosely familiar with freud and jung... sounds like a fair assessment.

    Some anyway, not all. Not even most, and if I'm wrong, then not for long. The invidual latches onto whatever gets them through the moment. Bonding and whatnot seems incredibly reactive to "shared circumstance".

    Really? Hmm. Not sure if I agree, but sure for the moment okay.

    I'd have thought him "authority of knowledge".

    Well then you're not particularly familiar with the current state of AI! As it stands that I'm aware of, they'd suck. Allowing your metaphor however, you're only half right I'd think... as the robot I see in the picture you've painted can't reason, and reason is the foundation. These robots could test hypothesis', but couldn't construct them...

    Yet most people can only name a few scientists at best. "he or she" will probably not even get "rich" off their science, as those who funded them will reap the majority of the spoils. The "major participants" to me is utility, marketing and trendiness, as far as I can think of it at the moment. "man" is not the showcase, but what the man's gadget does, and how well it was packaged, blah. The science of man is a wonderful tool for the expansion of human knowledge, and the source of neverending marketing to the next version of device xyz that you can't live without. Meh. Sorry if I'm missing the point entirely.

    Ah, but will humanity allow it? No, not until they're ready or circumstance demands it from them. Seriously - most people are so wrapped up in their perception of their survival (ego) that the advancement in this area of comprehension only matters to them when their Iwhore starts talking too much smack and needs a slappin. Not until there's some direct impact on their lives can the idea that you're trying to get across become part of their reality.

    I think "the unconscious" is generally utilized in a bullshit manner. If you mean "the part of mind that isn't in focus at this moment" then I'd concur with the term. If you mean "the part we hide from ourselves", then I'd say it's a bullshit term except as applied to a particular case. Why are you led to this conclusion? I think understanding consciousness and mind is as a general case, fairly straightforward - it's the particular cases that are difficult to fathom as we cannot wholly relate.

    Why, generally it's an imperative for me (sometimes to my detriment)... until circumstances demand otherwise.

    How does one know when they are well enough informed?

    Pardon if my piecemeal approach rendered your intended meaning to dust. It's the only way I seem to be able to process things without great strain.
     
  20. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    DeepThought:
    I doubt very much that the word mystical plays for an intriguing role in their otherwise qualified and discontented vocabulary. Try demystify.
     
  21. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    wesmorris


    In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

    This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

    Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.”

    Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

    Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization

    Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

    When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

    When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.

    Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language.

    The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”


    Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff
     
  22. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    Grantywanty

    My "Big Four" comment comes from "The Death and Rebirth of Psychology"--Ira Progoff


    Quickie from wiki:

    Ira Progoff (1921–1998) was an American psychotherapist, best known for his development of the Intensive Journal Method while at Drew University. His main interest was in depth psychology and particularly the humanistic adaptation of Jungian ideas to the lives of ordinary people. He founded Dialogue House in New York City to help promote this method.


    [edit] Works
    This is a partial, chronological list of Progoff's books

    1956. The Death and Rebirth of Psychology: An integrative evaluation of Freud, Adler, Jung and Rank and the impact of their culminating insights on modern man.
    1959. Depth psychology and modern man: A new view of the magnitude of human personality, its dimensions & resources
    1971. The Star/Cross: A Cycle of Process Meditation
    1972. The White Robed Monk;: A cycle of process meditation
    1973. Jung, synchronicity, & human destiny;: Noncausal dimensions of human experience1974 Death and Rebirth of Psychology
    1975. At a Journal Workshop: The Basic Text and Guide for Using the Intensive Journal Process
    1977. The Well and the Cathedral: With an Introduction on Its Use in the Practice of Meditation
    1979. The White Robed Monk: As an Entrance to Process Meditation
    1980. The Practice of Process Meditation: The Intensive Journal Way to Spiritual Experience
    1985. The Dynamics of Hope: Perspectives of Process in Anxiety and Creativity, Imagery and Dreams
    1985. Jung's Psychology and Its Social Meaning: An Integrative Statement of C. G. Jung's Psychological Theories and an Interpretation of Their Significance.
    The Symbolic and the Real
    Jung, Synchronicity, and Human Destiny : C.G. Jung's Theory of Meaningful Coincidence

    Now whose opinion should I accept yours or Ira's?
     
  23. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    Coberst, think for a second.
    You should read them and other 'major' psychologists and decide FOR YOURSELF.
    And when you read Freud, for example, you will find out why he would have thought Progroff is wrong to include Jung. Who will you, oh, so dependent on male authority figures, believe then?
    You simply repeated the pattern I commented on above and clearly did not take some time to learn something new about yourself.
     

Share This Page