Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
|
Ward, you have a tendency to dodge the hard questions that are put to you.
You said: "I am saying that not only are the archetypes shaped by "history, culture, and personal context..." But as I indicated in my earlier post ,put simply, that is all they are shaped by. Jung himself understood that culture played an indispensible role in the manifestation of these archetypes. I disagree that the archetypes, or the collective unconscious ,represent essential structural forms superimposed a priori upon human experience; either by a genetic or a transcendental component."
What Stevens tried to make clear was the difference between the basic archetypes, what Plato called "forms," and the specific shape the archetype appeared as, culture to culture. That is, The Trickster is an archeptype, and it manifestd as Coyote in American Indian lore, and as Ali Baba, etc, in Persia lore (Arabian Nights). If you are saying that both the arcetype AND the particular manifestation are cultural inventions, I through what "substantive" means of investigation did you arrive at this conclusion? My sense of this is you are mentally speculating, and perhaps have done litto to no empirical work at all to back up your dismissal.
You used the word "substantive" in your first assay. What do you mean by this word? You also suggested that Jung and Freud - who interviewed thousands of people between them - were basically projecting their own internal content on their findings, and that at bottom, that's ALL that was there.
If Freud and Jung were to have done things diferently - or "substantively" - by what specific methods would they (both MDs) have proceeded, and what might their findings have been?
And BASE, what do you mean by "mystical?" Materially based? But we have already seen that material itself, when reduced to the most basic levels, "has no physical extent." If that isn't mystical, what is?
JL
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
|
Explain what you mean by "substantive." And specifically what scientist failed in his/her "hard scientific inquiry" of the collective unconscious? In fact, what scientific inquiry has ever proven or defined what consciousness actually is, collective or oth
First the easier one: No individual scientist needs to be identified as having failed ---in order to establish the fact that Jung's theory went nowhere fast (empirically ) since he unveiled it a century ago. No proof or validation has ever emerged . Part of this was Jung's attitude which itself either grew out of his frustration or unwillingness to have his theory challenged in the normal scientific ways.As one writer correctly put it:
Unlike many modern psychologists, Jung did not feel that experimenting using natural science was the only means to understand the human psyche. For him, he saw as empirical evidence the world of dream, myth, and folklore as the promising road to its deeper understanding and meaning. That method's choice is related with his choice of the object of his science. As Jung said, "The beauty about the unconscious is that it is really unconscious".[2] Hence, the unconscious is 'untouchable' by experimental researches, or indeed any possible kind of scientific or philosophical reach, precisely because it is unconscious.[c
When I said "substantive" I meant ,among other things, that no genetic foundation for the collective unconscious has been determined. There has been a scarcity of supporting work by other psychologists . Both Freud and Jung had always hoped that their theories would one day be vindicated by concrete physical evidence. None has been forthcoming. Although Freud's idea of 'unconscious' or 'subconscious' has been determined to exist ,after a fashion---he got all the details wrong but the general idea suffices. Unfortunately this does not atone for all that he got so egregiously wrong.
Many of Jung's concepts have endured and have been quite useful, such as the analytical tool of "introvert/extrovert" of which we're all familiar.
By what empirical methods do you think Jung ever arrived at his theory about the collective unconscious? Were those methods "substantive" in your opinion?
I can't say for sure on that one, but I don't think either could you. If Jung left a body of tantalizing evidentiary descriptions of the archetypes/collective unconscious clearly at work in the lives of his patients (in sessions at Kunsnacht) then that would be news to a lot of people.
Fact of the matter ---is that Jung's theories did not largely grow out of those sessions or his clinical work---me thinks they were pedagogical and the result of some very astounding creative scholarship.
I'll address your remaining questions a little later, my IPad needs rechargin'
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
The structure of the universe is mediated by what we call the laws of physics. The basis of science is the deliberate and reasoned analysis of what is and what is not possible and what is and is not “real.” The laws of the physical universe are just that: mediations of what might otherwise be pure chaos and therefore unknowable.
Within that structure of mediated possibilities we find life and consciousness. We know this to be true by virtue of their existence and our experience. We can say that in the beginning consciousness was a potential within a universe mediated by physical laws allowing for the existence of some things and the proscription of others. In the language of evolution, given the lavish nature of time and the immensity of opportunity, life and consciousness seem likely to have been inevitable. And from what do they come if not the very structure of what is.
Where is the composition of consciousness, which is ubiquitous in life on this planet, to be found if not within the mediated universe itself? What is the model of self- awareness, experience, being? How easy to envision consciousness, through which the universe comes to know itself, as a kind of final term or necessity.
Science views consciousness as evolutionary accident.
What needs exploration here is the very notion of accident. What is really accidental in a universe so rigidly governed and so extravagant with time?
As the universe unfolds over incomprehensible eons won’t all possibilities manifest themselves as inevitabilities? The mediated structure of the universe will allow A and not allow B. And so possibilities are not infinite but limited and within that peculiar set of limitations we find ourselves… thinking.
That science will explain emotion and reason as complex chemical processes and electrical charges leaves us with nothing but a brain in a vat. Science will find a much more difficult time dealing with the experiences of emotion and reason as well as the experiencer and what he has come to know as virtue, how to live a good life and the human need for love. If these things are the products of evolutionary necessity they are nevertheless born of a mediated universe, which through its structure, has determined their existence.
Archetypal ideas/dependencies are modeled after the very physical experiences of living and are then collective in the broadest sense to human experience where they take on local social inflections. The form of an experience shared by nearly all lies in the genetic make up of the individual in the sense that that genetic makeup is human. There may be no genetic marker for the trickster or hero but our genetic makeup as human beings leads us to certain experiences that then lead us to that archetype.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 04:50pm PT
|
As Jung said, "The beauty about the unconscious is that it is really unconscious".[2] Hence, the unconscious is 'untouchable' by experimental researches, or indeed any possible kind of scientific or philosophical reach, precisely because it is unconscious.
---
What this means, Ward, is exactly what it says. The unconscious is untouchable with instrumentation. That this is incontrovertibly true is no fault of the unconscious. Even Liebnitz realized centuries ago that you were not going to find "mind" or sentience in the cells, any more than you were going to find the unconscious in the brain.
What you have done, imo, is once more found yourself trapped by reductionistic materialism. if you can't reduce something down to a genetic "cause," or driver, or source, then that something must be imagined, or is merely a cultural artifact. Only when that something is "vindicated" (proven) by way of a material source is it then "real." So what you've done is simply dragged us back into quaint old materialism, which has been done away with because material, when reduced down far enough, "has no physical extent." Just notice how people cling to this Newtonian substance-as-real belief like a life raft. But verily, it done sank.
Of course none of us actually believe gross materialism, as seen in our actual lives. A feuding man and wife don't go to an MD for a genetic cure, believing that all real things (their problems) are real only when "vindicated" with material sources. The couple wisely seek couples therapy, knowing that one, there really is a problem, and two, the problem is not likely biological. It i a meta-level problem.
If the psyche was really so simple we could vindicate all manifestations by way of purely genetic drivers, psychology would be biology.
As has been said many times by many people, objective studies of the brain would eventually have betrayed processes that were not known to the conscious mind, but the unconscious was only found and could only be found not in a biological study, but at the meta level in which Freud and Jung worked. They didn't have it all correct. Who does. But the idea of archetypes, which dates back to Plato and before, has by no means been disproven by science. Show me one scientist who has actually studied archetypes whatsoever.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 04:51pm PT
|
The structure of the universe is mediated by what we call the laws of physics. The basis of science is the deliberate and reasoned analysis of what is and what is not possible and what is and is not “real.” The laws of the physical universe are just that: mediations of what might otherwise be pure chaos and therefore unknowable.
I think this misses being an explanation by a long shot. "Deliberate and reasoned analysis" is used to predict the outcome of experiment or observation, and when the results of those experiments and observations are in, we learn whether or not the analysis agrees. Where it does not agree, we know that the analysis was flawed, and we go back to the chalk board (or white board).
The "reality" of it all is not an issue, rather, it is the ability to predict the outcome of the behavior of the universe. Given the successes (and the failures) it is irrelevant what the "nature of the universe is" as implied by the statement that these are "meditations on what might otherwise be pure chaos and unknowable."
The priority that science has over, say philosophy, is its predictive capability. And in the discussions of consciousness, we know when we have a scientific theory and when we do not. Philosophy, on the other hand, has no idea whether it has or has not anything relevant to say on the matter, there is no way to establish philosophical "truth."
It is the very basis of science, this empirical manner in which we observe the universe, make our measurements and observations and then analyze those to create a set of synthetic principles with predictive power that sets it a apart.
The criteria of predictability and the rigor with which it is applied, makes doing science very difficult, you can't prevaricate in science. And while all the foibles of human beings are brought to science, somehow science manages to produce these wonderful insights of the universe, and these predictive theories, challenged by empirical observations, builds the basis for the innovations that power the technologies that make humans distinct.
As for human emotion, that produce such a powerful narrative of the human state, one can thank the hormonal "reward" system of a complex organism... our own ability to create narrative may not yet acknowledge the importance of our biology. And in most cases, we wouldn't want to.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
|
The "reality" of it all is not an issue, rather, it is the ability to predict the outcome of the behavior of the universe. Given the successes (and the failures) it is irrelevant what the "nature of the universe is" as implied by the statement that these are "meditations on what might otherwise be pure chaos and unknowable."
That science is not interested in the nature of the universe seems a bit of a tap dance. My point was simply that the universe supports certain structures (laws) or certain laws support the universe and these laws produce certain effects and those effects result in what is.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 05:31pm PT
|
"As for human emotion, that produce such a powerful narrative of the human state, one can thank the hormonal "reward" system of a complex organism... our own ability to create narrative may not yet acknowledge the importance of our biology. And in most cases, we wouldn't want to."
By attaching electrodes to the brain emotional states may be induced...
But what is experiencing those emotional states? What is the experience of those emotional states? What desires to know scientifically or philosophically? And how does the structure of the universe allow that desire?
If these things are the products of evolutionary necessity they are nevertheless born of a mediated universe, which through its structure, has determined their existence.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 05:51pm PT
|
take an adolescent dose of testosterone daily and see how your consciousness changes...
or do you think it won't?
what do you think the nature of "desire" is then?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 05:54pm PT
|
My point was simply that the universe supports certain structures (laws) or certain laws support the universe and these laws produce certain effects and those effects result in what is.
that would seem somewhat circular, or are you saying that the "laws" of the universe that we have constructed make the universe...
that would be a solipsism.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
|
There is no reason that I can think of or imagine why science as a method cannot be applied in areas other than empirical studies. But for the differences in measuring devices and metrics, the approach should produce interesting results no matter where applied. The body is the penultimate measuring device. (Seems like the Duck has said something similar to this.)
Metrics can be logic, the sound of a mantra, what a good story or archetypal symbolism might bring to one, feelings that community provide, or the unconsciousness in sleep. Elevating one (e.g., rationality) over other metrics constitutes a modern prejudice and does not allow for triangulation of findings. Not one approach can go beyond itself. Even the mind is limited; it is only what it thinks. Each method has its failings.
We seem to infer an unconsciousness when memory or communication is lapsed.
Mysterious connections to the unconscious show up when the mind gets engaged with routine or mundane activities and let run on their own. I also get what appears to be the same connection to an unconscious in sitting contemplations when subject and object, experience and experiencer, drop away. Mysterious outcomes of the processes are becoming regular and predictable for me as I gain practice. I can’t explain or define it, but I can generate it.
I don’t feel that consciousness is a counterpart to unconsciousness. It seems that matter is a counterpart to consciousness.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:15pm PT
|
Ed: take an adolescent dose of testosterone daily and see how your consciousness changes...
I don’t think you have this quite right, Ed. Your consciousness doesn’t change; you are still Ed (or whomever is doing it). What changes is your experience.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:25pm PT
|
"that would seem somewhat circular, or are you saying that the "laws" of the universe that we have constructed make the universe...
that would be a solipsism."
The laws of physics are not created by us. I certainly wouldn't say they were. What I'm saying is that consciousness exists in the universe because of the structure of those laws. That the physical laws of the universe favor consciousness or it wouldn't exist. Consciousness was an undeniable potential at the very beginning as was life.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:29pm PT
|
Given the successes (and the failures) it is irrelevant what the "nature of the universe is" as implied by the statement that these are "meditations on what might otherwise be pure chaos and unknowable."
The priority that science has over, say philosophy, is its predictive capability. And in the discussions of consciousness, we know when we have a scientific theory and when we do not. Philosophy, on the other hand, has no idea whether it has or has not anything relevant to say on the matter, there is no way to establish philosophical "truth."
-
Where all of the above breaks down is at the level of consciousness itself. What is predictable, in Ed's philosophy, is the behavior of stuff. But that stuff, as Ed pointed out earlier, "has no physical extent" when redcuce it down far enough. What is left? Nothing. Or no-thing. When we reduce mind or consciousness down far enough, and all the predictable stuff drops away, we find that consciousness itself is empty. No thing. There is no way to establish this by way of stuff (Ed's "truth"), since the absence of stuff by way of reductionism (all viable meditation is a form of conscious reductionism), but that's no to say there isn't truth to be found, and that certain "philosophers" have something relevant to say on the matter. They don't have anything rlevant to say on stuff, perhaps, but that's not their path. All the stuff that is so predictable is ultimately seen as being entirly empty.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:32pm PT
|
A thread of teachers. Everybody's here to teach, lol!
.....
Flip the script...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:33pm PT
|
except that you can't prove, philosophically, that there isn't some empirical path to understanding consciousness... that it will all be "understood" (read: predictable) by using reductionist scientific methods.
to attempt to just state your view as fact doesn't cut it...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:41pm PT
|
"what do you think the nature of "desire" is then?"
This is a great question. Desire requires a desiring entity and therein lies the mystery-a self realizing consciousness that stands both apart and as a part of its experience.
It's a consciousness that can imagine a suggested perfection underneath the aggregate chaos of nature, a consciousness that can realize perfect forms from the suggestion of the imperfect.
Desire is the imagined need of that entity and it's the mystery of that isolated entity and its ability to see the eternal in number, numerical relationship and in geometric forms that suggests deity.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 06:57pm PT
|
"except that you can't prove, philosophically, that there isn't some empirical path to understanding consciousness... that it will all be "understood" (read: predictable) by using reductionist scientific methods."
Science may very well reveal consciousness, but you don't want to mistake that knowledge for the necessary relationship we must make with that consciousness in order to live a "good life" to know ourselves" and so on, better such matters are left to philosophy.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!