[MD] Krimel vs dmb

Tue Aug 10 10:21:40 PDT 2010

Well , Hell , congratulations , Krimel, I'l hope you make it a nice path of
growth, and walk it all the way.
No doubt you are capable for it.(Adrie)

2010/8/10 Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>

> 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
> >
> 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
>

-- 
parser