Gregg:

Good reply . . . !!

Of course, the alternative is that "modern" psychology (and its  
associated "philosophy of mind" aka "consciousness studies") invented  
a problem that can't be "solved" by forgetting the "ancient"  
psychology (and its associated philosophy) in the first place . . . <g>

Aristotle invented psychology (c. 400BC) -- as the study of the  
"psyche" or soul -- and, until the late-1800s that seemed to "work"  
for the purposes at hand.  But, if the "soul" was discarded (i.e. "God  
is dead"), then something new had to be done and look what a mess it  
has generated.

My view is that modern psychology was invented to try to "engineer"  
humans.  Thus, its original "experimental" approach in Leipzig --  
itself a long-time center for "alchemy" (and where Nietzsche first  
took his "organic" LSD.)  This is why "psychological warfare" became  
so important in the 20th-century.  Thus J.R. Rees's 1945 "The Shaping  
of Psychiatry by War" and Tavistock, plus the ensuing Cold War &c.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_shaping-2Dpsychiatry-2DWilliam-2Dmemorial-2Dlectures_dp_B0007DV91Y&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=gJALfVmfM-YgfuRfOFOT2IFC__oRwFmEXctVKxKkJ7E&e=

Maybe "soulless" psychology can't be fixed?  Perhaps humans can't be  
engineered?  As you know, I consider you to be very *brave* for trying  
. . . <g>

Mark

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi List,
>   I thought I would send along a note I just shared with a  
> consciousness scholar I just started corresponding with. He was  
> intrigued by my 10 problems of consciousness post and I explained to  
> him that I was coming at this issue from the "problem of psychology"  
> angle, which I described as the "ugly step-sister of the mind-body  
> problem" that no one new about. He thought that was interesting, so  
> here is how I explained it to him. Just figured I would share so you  
> could see how it might be presented along these lines.
>>>>
> Dear X:
>   Ok, I will see if I can get to the core of this quickly. First,  
> you want to check out this link on my home page, which provides an  
> overview of my  
> system<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_overview-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dsystem.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=iKoamJJTQxXohMP3y4oNvU9XrZyfL4DAqZ7h7lIXpXA&e=>.  
> The short story is that modern psychology lacks a coherent  
> paradigm/model for defining what it is, and I developed a new  
> approach. Please by aware that I am offering a "many layered"  
> solution, so there is lots of extras that might not be relevant,  
> depending on the "door" you are entering from. Try not to get bogged  
> down in all the new terms like "UTUA" or the weird cartoonish  
> picture of the Tree.
>
>   I started my blog on the 10 problems with the "language game  
> problem" because that is the key. There is no good language game for  
> either consciousness (i.e., mind-body problems) or psychology. Keep  
> in mind that the science of psychology is born (by convention) in  
> 1879 in Wundt's lab. What is its first subject matter? Human  
> subjective/perceptual experience! In other words, more or less what  
> we call qualia (and first person perceptual experience). So, the  
> elements of conscious experience was the first thing people thought  
> psychology should be about. But, just as Dennett's (confused)  
> philosophical analysis suggests, it is very hard to objectively  
> study subjective experience (the subjective epistemological problem  
> of EC). So hard in fact that Dennett has convinced himself nothing  
> is there. But Wundt's project (and every waking moment) suggests he  
> analysis is  wrong on its face. (BTW, I do have a lot of respect for  
> Dennett, but I find his analysis of consciousness way off base).
>
>   Wundt had trained introspectionists, but it wasn't enough.  
> Moreover, other people had other notions for what psychology should  
> be. William James liked the idea of consciousness being psychology's  
> subject matter, but not in the lab, but rather in real "mental life"  
> and the roles it played in adaptive living and everyday life and  
> extraordinary things like religious experiences (and the fact that  
> other animals might have it). In other words, he was a mental  
> functionalist, not a structuralist. Then you had Freud, who  
> emphasizes both the unconscious (instead of conscious) and  
> psychopathology (instead of "normal). You also then get the animal  
> behavioral experimentalists, who say clearly that the language of  
> subjective experience/consciousness violates the "language game" of  
> natural/empirical science. And, boom, you have a completely  
> fractured psychology that has fundamentally different subject  
> matters (experiential consciousness proper by structuralists, mental  
> functionalism, psychodynamics and behaviorism). This NEVER gets  
> resolved. Instead, layers of complexity and confusion add to it,  
> such as the cognitive/infor model and Skinner's radical behaviorism  
> and social constructionism and so forth.
>
> Here is the reason why: We lack a "metaphysical language game" for  
> talking about "psychology" and all it means, which includes science,  
> behavior, mind, consciousness (both experiential and self) and the  
> animal versus person distinction, not to mention issues of values  
> and the profession versus the science. Ultimately, psychology is all  
> messed up for the same reason that philosophy never developed a  
> comprehensive synthetic approach to knowledge. And it also relates  
> deeply to the many conceptual problems associated with the nature of  
> consciousness (or mind-body problems, as the Horgan book I  
> referenced in the blog reviews).
>
> In 1997, I stumbled across a solution with my Tree of Knowledge  
> system<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Tree-5Fof-5Fknowledge-5Fsystem&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=yqxIDT0Y19GdjT_hiF7SAzCZVKwxxo9yvnMcFp8NTWg&e=>. I  
> did not have the language at the time, but I now realize stumbled  
> upon a new "metaphysical system" that could organize our empirical  
> scientific knowledge. And do so in a way that solves the problem of  
> psychology. My first book in 2011 (linked  
> here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dbook.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=S7KKu1aMiA3kcZRn7bhKQUV9m8GERsO5E4JNrWObItA&e=>)  
> outlines the solution. The language I used at the time was  
> "metatheoretical," because it was a meta-perspective that could  
> assimilate and integrate the key ideas from the major paradigms. I  
> am now on sabbatical doing my second book. This book makes clearer  
> that what I am really offering is a metaphysical system solution, in  
> that I am carving up reality in a new way.
>
> My focus in it is how the system is the first to effectively define  
> psychology's core concepts, which are behavior, mind and  
> consciousness. And it is the trifecta that is key. That is, to solve  
> them each, you need to solve them all. They all are tricky terms  
> that have overlapping but also different meanings. I have developed  
> a, forgive the phrase "Big MaC" solution, because it is the first  
> "big" solution that tackles Behavior, Mind and Consciousness,  
> simultaneously.
>
> Ok, that is the summary for now. FYI, I have a list serve, called  
> Theory of Knowledge  
> Society<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_theory-2Dof-2Dknowledge-2Dsociety.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=IH5qkxDotyy7hMlNdRRwKFJIvBVHBoVYIRK9i1guJCI&e=>  
> that I could put you on if you are interested.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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

############################

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