[MD] Krimel vs dmb

[MarshaV]

Bravo Krimel!   Terrific news.  -  You are great!!!        - Marsha   





On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Krimel wrote:

> dmb,
> A couple of times you have attempted to pinpoint some critical fulcrum or
> point of balance over which our differences teeter. Psychology versus
> philosophy, materialism versus radical empiricism (which in your formulation
> of it, I take to be nothing more than idealism) or as I have tended to see
> it romanticism versus classicism. I found another useful way to characterize
> our differences in a book on communication theory by Em Griffin. He talks
> about two kind of theorizing: objective and interpretive. 
> 
> "The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect
> contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of
> human nature, questions of value, the very purpose of theory and methods of
> research."
> 
> I freely admit to leaning heavily on the scientific method. This, for
> reasons I have covered with you in exhaustive detail over the years.
> Essentially while I do not think "science" provides a full account of
> meaning, I think any account of meaning that ignores science or runs counter
> to it, is worthless. Pirsig's account of evolution for example. Likewise,
> your own fledgling attempts to use Bolte-Taylor and Damasio. 
> 
> Our frequent battles in which you accuse me of reductionism or SOM or where
> you rail against a correspondence theory of truth I think reveal a telling
> lack of insight on your part. For example, while certainly a pure
> correspondence theory gives an inadequate account of "truth," no theory that
> offers an account that runs counter to our observations or has no relation
> whatever to them deserves to be taken seriously. Theories that have no
> possible perceivable consequence, that can't be tested for an observable
> consequences also seem to me to fail in this respect. Wilber's claim that
> Spirit must precede the Big Bang for example. Or take reductionism; which I
> fully agree cannot provide a sufficient account of very much; certainly does
> provide an account of the necessary conditions from which a sufficient
> account make proceed. 
> 
> Whichever the sets of poles we cast ourselves in, you and I take opposite
> positions, (romantic/classic, objective/interpretive...). But it seems to me
> the whole point of Pirsig and James is to seek some kind of synthesis.
> Understanding how to keep your motorcycle running is suppose to the enhance
> your ability to enjoy the quality of the ride. Appreciating the beauty of
> the rainbow should stimulate an active curiosity as to how and why it
> shimmers. 
> 
> As you have pointed out before, we do have very specific differences of
> opinion on the MoQ, the meaning of its terms and the conceptions of
> experience that it allows. Your contention that the terms Quality and DQ are
> equal for example grates on my nerves as obviously absurd. I'm sure my
> insistence that DQ means uncertainty and SQ means certainty must grate on
> yours. 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Note: This BTW, is the essence of my understanding 
>      of the MoQ. I have tap danced around it since 
>      my first post here but I understand the MoQ 
>      as stating:
> 
> 1. Shit Happens.
> 2. Quality is Chaos
> 3. Quality (Chaos) has two aspects DQ (uncertainty) 
>   SQ (certainty)
> 4. Value (meaning) is reduction of uncertainty.  
>   (That is, meaning results from and results in, 
>   our ability to create and manipulate static quality) 
> 5. Biological organisms are the meaning that evolution 
>   derives from chaos.
> 6. As such organisms, we derive meaning from chaos 
> 7. We are beings that create SQ from the DQ around us
>   or to use James' terms, We derive concepts from 
>   experience
> 
> Or, simplistically speaking, something like that...
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> I recently voiced support for the points Dave Thomas raised as failures of
> the current conception of the MoQ. About all that I disagreed with was his
> pessimism that the whole business is irredeemable. But then I have never
> seen the MoQ the way you do. I think my version places it in a much better
> position to play a part in the intellectual revolution that Pirsig
> foreshadowed. That revolution is well underway by the way from Mandelbrot,
> Shannon and Nash in mathematics; Ekman, Damasio, Ariely in psychology, Taleb
> in economic, Wolfram and Kurzweil in future studies to name a few.
> 
> But that's just me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly in light of that objective versus interpretive continuum I find myself
> headed in a surprising direction. Despite your claim that I am hopelessly
> obstinate in my views, in about a week I will be entering a completely new
> phase of my "career" (a "career" BTW that has been fraught with radical
> changes in direction) I will be entering the Communication program at the
> University of South Florida. By my count that makes three of us; you, Matt
> and I who will be currently pursuing advanced degrees. I believe Ant, Arlo
> and Mati are already ensconced in the ivory tower. While I doubt that this
> move will contribute much to a resolution of our differences, I think my
> choice of this program and the reasons for it illustrate in many ways how
> you have misjudged my positions.
> 
> About three years ago I returned to the field of academic psychology as an
> instructor at the local community college. Obviously this renewed interest
> in a field I had mostly abandoned for 30 years has colored my posts here
> ever since. The moment I entered the classroom to teach that first session
> three years ago, I fell in love. I loved studying the subject, I loved the
> students in my class, I loved preparing my lectures. At the time I recorded
> most of them and in offline correspondences with Marsha I made them
> available for her to listen to as "podcasts". She claimed to enjoy them and
> while I make no pretentions as to their "quality" but I think something of
> my enthusiasm must have come through.
> 
> My position for the past three years has been full time but temporary. As
> soon as I took it I began thinking in terms of a return to school to get a
> Ph.D. in the hope of enhancing my possibilities for a permanent position. I
> looked at various online program and ironically the one I considered most
> seriously was something in transpersonal psychology at the California
> Institute for Integral Studies. I thought about studying under Alan Combs of
> "Wilber-Combs" matrix fame. I ultimately gave up in this when I saw Combs on
> TV seriously suggesting that telepsychic John Edwards really does have
> supernatural powers.
> 
> USF is close to home put the psychology program wants full time students
> involved in full time research projects and that didn't fit my needs. I also
> looked at their philosophy program but they require two languages that I
> don't know and don't care to learn. The Communication program on the other
> hand claimed to be interdisciplinary and would let you study pretty much
> whatever you choose to study. I took a course in Semiotics last Fall and
> decided to apply. Against all expectation they not only accepted my but
> invited me to come full time on a Graduate Fellowship. 
> 
> In the continuum of objective versus interpretive, the department is heavily
> skewed toward interpretative. In fact some the main people in the department
> have been key in developing the field of autoethnography which is a direct
> response to some of the kinds of criticisms of anthropology, or in this case
> sociology, that Pirsig levels in Lila. They are attempting to construct a
> new genre of social science writing that includes the qualitative
> perceptions of the researcher.
> 
> While I seriously doubt that emersion in this environment will ultimately
> make me more sympathetic to what I regard as your wooly headed analysis, who
> can say. I originally entered graduate school 30 years ago as something of a
> mystic and emerged as a behaviorist. Perhaps the reverse will happen at this
> late stage. I rather hope not but I think this should illustrate that with
> my deeds, if not so much with my words on this forum, I do try to remain
> open in my thinking. 
> 
> All this is to say that I will be bac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___