Gregg:
Yes, "slightly different." Your approach is Plato. Mine is
Aristotle. And, as it turns out, those are pretty much the only
choices -- in the Alphabetic West (where, to be sure, some have
abandoned the West altogether and instead opted for primal Eastern
"chaos").
Like Plato in his "Republic," you would like to "engineer" humanity
towards an "ultimate good." Needless to say, that approach has a long
history and, alas, it ain't a pretty one . . . <g>
Newton was an "alchemist," for whom mathematics was just a side-show
to his real concerns about the timing of the end-of-the-world, which
is why he spent so much of his life trying to find the "secret
messages" in the Bible. He was an "Arian" (or what we might today
call a "Unitarian"), since the Trinity wasn't "perfect" enough for
him. That's how Platonists think. Parfait, n'est pas?
Leibniz, on the other hand, was an Aristotelean (and a Lutheran) --
pointing to the real basis of their conflict, not the typically cited
ones. When Leibniz was satirized as Dr. Pangloss by Voltaire (on
behalf of Newton &al), this might as well have been another classic
"drama," complete with masks and a Greek Chorus. Oh, wait, that is
what Leonard Bernstein provided!
The problem is that Plato never had a "psychology." Actual human
beings -- not the "ideal" creatures in need of "dignity" engineering
-- cannot be manipulated into becoming "good." Instead, psychology
was invented by Aristotle, which he could do because he dealt with the
actual world -- not the make-believe one Plato had imagined. Rarely
read, Plato's "Laws" (his last dialogue) might be an interesting
exercise for those interested in where this all takes us.
Modern psychology set out to remake humanity, in full-blown Platonic
splender (apparently ignorant of Aristotle's understanding of the
"psyche"). The simple fact is that it has utterly failed. Yes, that
could be because it doesn't "make sense" and a new "Plato" needs to
emerge to set things straight (gee, I wonder who that might be?) Or,
alternately, it could be because it was a bad idea in the first place
and could never be achieved, any more than Plato's Republic.
Once-upon-a-time, I too was a "Platonist" -- which in my case meant a
"Trotskyist" in cahoots with Lyndon LaRouche. In 1978, Lyn published
a fascinating essay titled "Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites,"
in which, in his own inimical style, LaRouche rambles on about the
age-old battle between Plato and Aristotle's followers (getting most
of the details quite wrong.) Perhaps some of you will also be amused
by its "engineering" potential.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wlym.com_archive_PDF-2D77-2D85_CAM7806.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=e6-Gs2p_cX-kT30p6eS_sOqTnCKWg-M6Rd1ph6KYTQc&e=
For a rollicking account of the Plato vs. Aristotle in Newton's times,
I'd recommend Neal Stevenson's trilogy "The Baroque Cycle:
Quicksilver, The Confusion and System of the World." I particularly
recommend the final book, in which Newton and Leibniz fight it out
across the roof-tops of 17th-century London. Quelle surprise!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_System-2DWorld-2DBaroque-2DCycle-2DVol_dp_0060750863&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=TgyPxtGwXQ16Ka7Cy33bclhN_SOzqkTPHVfn7_RDKwY&e=
As it turns out, my "godfather," Norbert Wiener, was a devotee of
Leibniz. Furthermore, Leibniz was quite important in the failure of
Europe to deal with China -- only now beginning to be reconciled.
When I first left Wall Street (after taking AOL public in March, 1992)
and decided to build my own library, one of those I focused on was
Leibniz. Like Aristotle, most of what is taught about him is
inaccurate (perhaps deliberately so.) A thoughtful biography has only
just been published in English. I also highly recommend it . . . !!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_System-2DWorld-2DBaroque-2DCycle-2DVol_dp_0060750863&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=iufnU6VpFkHn6Mk9T_bEfqQwOvWXS2ME4hlqwThz4fk&s=TgyPxtGwXQ16Ka7Cy33bclhN_SOzqkTPHVfn7_RDKwY&e=
Alas, a "new metaphysics" isn't possible. It has *all* been done
before. The only question is whether DIGITAL psycho-technological
environment will favor Plato (as did ELECTRICITY and, before that,
PRINT) or Aristotle (who had a pretty good run under SCRIBAL
conditions)? Or, alternately, the West might just collapse and the
East could take over. Or, maybe the robots are coming?
May you live in interesting times -- a Western proverb, often
mistakenly attributed to China.
Mark
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the questions Waldemar! Defining science, mind,
> consciousness (and behavior and psychology) is very much where the
> action is at as far as I am concerned. I have a slightly different
> version of reality than Mark's Aristotelian techno-constructivist
> view. But there is clearly a lot of validity here.
>
> Let me say that I ended up asking, "What is psychology?" because I
> wanted a coherent way to help my clients "design" better lives. That
> is, much like Mark's point that science relates to human needs for
> engineering, I saw psychotherapy as essentially a form of human
> engineering, and I needed a scientific description of my subject
> matter (i.e., distressed human persons experiencing maladaptive
> psychosocial patterns) so that I could operate much like a modern
> engineer who uses physics to design bridges or a modern medical
> doctor who uses the bio-physiological sciences to design medical
> interventions. (Psychotherapy is a formal professional relationship
> with the goal to foster psychosocial well-being) . . .
>
> Re science, I think of basic, modern science as "empirical natural
> philosophy." Modern science obtains its firm foothold in the
> pantheon of human knowledge with Newton, of course, building on
> folks like Galileo. Although not often characterized like this
> nowadays, Newton offered a different space time metaphysics than
> Aristotle (especially regarding the concept of inertia) and
> developed calculus to map behavioral change and formulated his laws
> of motion (i.e., macro-physical behavior). And that was a game
> changer in human understanding. (After Newton, then there was
> light!) It gave people the fantasy that you could empirically map
> the world mathematically, without any human knower components.
> (Ultimately, the anti-subjective knower problem is at the root of
> many of modern science's core difficulties, from quantum mechanics
> to consciousness to post modernism).
>
> Here is my bottom line. Modern scientific psychology needs a
> language game that actually makes sense. "Behavior and mental
> processes" clearly is fallacious. If we can all agree that the
> modern textbook definition of psychology is obviously wrong (i.e.,
> conceptually confused and unworkable), then we should also agree we
> should be on the lookout for a new way to go, and studying various
> proposals accordingly . . .
>
> Let me conclude by saying I find it useful to be able to engineer my
> life toward the ultimate good (i.e., Aristotle's eudaimonia), which
> is found on my signature line. It is my ultimate justification, and
> it is how I position myself when I do therapy.
>
> Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
############################
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
|
