[MD] Krimel vs dmb

Tue Aug 10 01:08:53 PDT 2010

Congratulations and good luck Krim.
Ian

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>