Gregg:
I'd be very interested in your take on how "thinking about thinking"
is required to arrive at the "truth" -- when considered in
*psychological* terms.
In the 20th-century, psychology seems to have been a demonstration
that such a process effectively never happens and, when it does, what
results is a just a "rationalization" of a *subconscious* process
anyway. Or, what you call "justification."
Here's how I characterized it on my "Digital Life" list on Saturday
(to which you belong), using Peterson's theme of "separating the wheat
from the chaff" --
DLers:
Last night, on Good Friday, UofToronto Psych prof. Jordan Peterson
"debated" Slavoj Zizek, a leading "leftist philosopher," in Canada's
largest hall. As Peterson quipped in his introduction, tickets to
attend were being scalped at higher prices than the Mapleleafs hockey
playoffs. I was busy watching Frank Zappa's "hologram" instead.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D78BFFq-5F8XvM&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4g7tu7Y7VU-3xfNd8V3CQAuJkWbiiLeKq3RBSslB9RY&s=rLapGvqwldvOyk_bpTcFv0W7iSMCBu5macKhjz2I_EU&e=
After the moderator launched the showdown re: "search for the truth,"
Peterson doubled down in his opening comments about the 1848
"Communist Manifesto" by saying that "almost all ideas are wrong" and
said that he had rarely read, even in his undergraduate's essays, a
"tract" with so many errors-per-sentence. He then fanned the stink of
this dead-fish by quoting his "mentor," Carl Jung, about the need to
"think about thinking" instead of just taking for granted whatever
"just appears in the room" which you then "just accept as true." He
described that as the "typical thinker," as contrasted with "critical
thinking" (a favorite in Zizek's circle.)
What a doofus! A psychologist (pretending to be a philosopher) and a
philosopher (pretending to be a psychologist) walk into a bar . . . <g>
Jung famously tried to be "scientific." But he wasn't. As had Freud
before him. And he wasn't either. In their world, precisely to get
those "ideas that just appeared in the room" accepted, experimental
"evidence" was needed. So, they made it up (alas, as many scientists
do all the time.) Yes -- I'm trained as one, so I should know.
In fact, instead of "concepts," we operate on the basis of our
*subconscious* "percepts" -- just like McLuhan told us we do. How
could Peterson have missed the obvious . . . ??
As it turns out, the "intellect" has many faculties. Some are used
for "thinking" -- which never drives human affairs -- and that's what
is called "dialectics" (also a favorite in "Marxist" circles.") Quite
trivial. But, however important as the "active intellect" might be
(particularly if your profession is "philosopher"), that isn't were
the crucial *action* occurs. Instead, that occurs in the "Pattern
Intellect" -- which is a subconscious activity. That's what underlies
Grammar.
It's like trying to equate machines and humans based on
"intelligence." WTF is that, in human terms? The result of an IQ
test (designed by Alan Turing)? Does anyone designing robots have a
clue how the human soul actually operates (hint: no)?
If "rationality" was the test -- which it isn't -- which would you
prefer as the royal road to the "truth": a perfectly *rational*
machine or a logically-faulty "meat-puppet"?
McLuhan re-wrote the introduction to "Understanding Media" (1964)
within months of its first publication (both intros are reprinted in
the "Critical Edition.") He did this so that he could introduce the
most important phrase in the book -- which he had forgotten to
include. It was "pattern recognition."
Over the next few years, Marshall repeated this phrase over-and-over.
Alas, however, few remember. "Medium is the message" is much better
*meme* -- since few have any clue what it means (hint: formal cause),
so it became very helpful for the TELEVISION-types who promoted it
(along with promoting McLuhan.) What a marvelous weapon against the
RADIO-types. Yes, Howard Gossage, you're to blame.
"Pattern Intellect" is a phrase I invented (with Marshall in mind.)
This faculty has many other names, like "cogitative power" and
"particular reason." Under DIGITAL conditions, it deserves a new
name, or so it seems to me.
Percepts = Wheat (insights generated in the Pattern Intellect,
subconsciously, or what the Gestaltists called the "ground")
Concepts = Chaff (rationalizations generated by the "Intellect," at
Oxbridge debates, or what the Gestaltists called the "figures")
Zizek is also a psychologist (actually a psychiatrist) -- a follower
of Jacques Lacan, who, in turn, championed a strange French version of
Freud + Marx. Zizek/Freud vs. Peterson/Jung. How epic! No wonder
the tickets cost $1000s . . . !!
Zizek/Freud/Lacan/Peterson/Jung are the ones who "buried the truth"
about human psychology. Let them debate. Dumb vs. dumber. Enjoy the
contest as if this was happening in the Roman Coliseum. Lions and
tigers, oh my. With their preferred water-bottles all lined-up.
Peterson likes Pellegrino.
The Center is designing an "Inner Sense" psychology -- complete with
detailed philosophical explanation, with help from Center Fellow Brian
Kemple (yes, his new book is very good) -- to deal with these "modern"
ELECTRIC distortions. No, none of that is going to with hockey
playoffs and we like it that way.
Mark
P.S. In 1997, I traveled to Ljubljana, Slovenia, for the last-ever
large meeting of the nettime gang. That's Zizek's hometown and
attempts were made for us to meet. But he seemed to have unexpectedly
left town, so, instead, I got to meet with a half-dozen of his
associates. It was an avalanche of "things showing up in the room,"
without any pretense of "critical" anything. Such is life.
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Thanks for this note, Vinny. I did not watch the Peterson-Zizek
> debate, but I have been following the reports of it.
>
> Here is one from the Guardian, for example:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theguardian.com_world_2019_apr_20_jordan-2Dpeterson-2Dslavoj-2Dzizek-2Dhappiness-2Dcapitalism-2Dmarxism&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4g7tu7Y7VU-3xfNd8V3CQAuJkWbiiLeKq3RBSslB9RY&s=MITYginOTHyhQPQwHvRmEs0blENQzbOqEpmGdzOqlE4&e=
>
> Discussion on another list I am on (Intellectual Deep Web) suggested
> it was interesting, but nothing earth shattering. Alexander Bard
> argued that neither offered much in the way of a vision for the
> future. That is, neither have an understanding of how to generate a
> “post postmodern grand metanarrative” that effectively incorporates
> science, values, technology, and ecology in a way that offers a
> direction for folks across the “socio-ecological scales”
> (individual/agent to family to tribe to nation to globe).
>
> On that note, in the next week or two I will be offering the TOK
> Society a summary of the mini conference.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Vinny Vallarine
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 7:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Unlatched Mind podcast
>
> Thank you Gregg for sharing this. I enjoyed the discussion and am
> brainstorming our next discussion for an episode! The comments I've
> received so far on this episode have been, in summary "...who is
> that guy?... I like him...". : )
>
> I've published a couple more episodes
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__unlatchedmind.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4g7tu7Y7VU-3xfNd8V3CQAuJkWbiiLeKq3RBSslB9RY&s=Ty0mUxHcZyBJy624-S12z4JNziDu2vz-4VVesybyx0c&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__unlatchedmind.com_is-2Dtruth-2Dbeing-2Dredefined&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=02w66BD9pfzIVDOcsuUjS4Oh4jArwt0v1rhlVgy9qV0&s=BOrFgKIQgShauhE_H4IqdqZFVnICNOsDA1f7maY-aGc&e=> and Unlatched Mind podcast can be found on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher and Google Play. Subscribe for free and share and, most importantly, let me know how it can be improved. I would highly value this group's opinions. If you have interest in doing an episode, let's
> chat!
>
> On a separate note, anyone looking forward to this
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jordanvsslavojdebate.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4g7tu7Y7VU-3xfNd8V3CQAuJkWbiiLeKq3RBSslB9RY&s=2Qmv1HucFGgH_7tBKo04lSCoIkvYaZOO33WX_e2QuKs&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jordanvsslavojdebate.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=02w66BD9pfzIVDOcsuUjS4Oh4jArwt0v1rhlVgy9qV0&s=HhsrLFxWES0_K-0ad_ZS2mLhxEBM2EEVrq3Mm_vCIQo&e=> this
> evening?
>
>
> Thank you all,
> Vinny
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|