Hi Mark,
You may be right. Of course, I disagree in that your analysis doesn't jive well my experience or claims of successfully defining and unifying the field and laying the groundwork for psychology to be a successful science.
But only time will tell if my formulation results in generalizable success.
Best,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: prob of psychology versus consciousness
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.wikiped
> ia.org_wiki_Tree-5Fof-5Fknowledge-5Fsystem&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb
> 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz
> 4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=yqxIDT0Y19GdjT_hiF
> 7SAzCZVKwxxo9yvnMcFp8NTWg&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.gregghen
> riques.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dbook.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A
> &m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=S7KKu1aMiA3kcZRn7bhKQ
> UV9m8GERsO5E4JNrWObItA&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.gregg
> henriques.com_theory-2Dof-2Dknowledge-2Dsociety.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYn
> pnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j
> IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9hn3WY43dvg0cToWUJR0kq-mY8GzYM_Nru1iYcxni4Y&s=IH5qkxDo
> tyy7hMlNdRRwKFJIvBVHBoVYIRK9i1guJCI&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
############################
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
|
