The Many Pathways to Bliss.

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

The Many Pathways to Bliss.

Post by noman »

Hello Everyone,

It seems to me Campbell had an equal respect for psychology and spiritual disciplines. And it seems the line between psychology and religion gets more and more hazy. But, I get exhausted with the competition among psychologists, sociologists and self-help gurus in coining new words and techniques. It doesn’t mean I think that their work isn’t useful. They play the game by the rules. But as a spiritual consumer/seeker, I just wonder how many methods we need.

I see three steps to becoming a psycho/spiritual guru.

Step 1: Start with a name for the ‘energy’ or ‘force’. I think the word ‘energy’ was the most common word Campbell used:

• Qi
• Holy Spirit
• Tulpas
• Prana
• Geist
• Paideuma
• Life Force
• Transcendence
• Karma
• Gestalt
• Archetypes of the collective unconscious
• The Tao (or Dao)
• Bliss

Step 2: Describe a method for harnessing or channeling such ‘energy’ for the purpose of life enhancement or healing:

• Yoga
• Tai Chi
• Zen meditation
• Reiki
• Core Shamanism
• Bibbliotherapy
• EST
• Fasting and Prayer
• Cognitive therapy
• Transcendental meditation
• Feng Shui
• Flow of mind
• Becoming Clear (Scientology)
• Follow your Bliss

Step 3: Sell, sell, sell - market, promote, and advertise. The best technique in the noosphere is no good unless one has a way to make people aware of it and generate public interest.

It may sound like I’m saying that it’s all a big con game – but I’m not. I could see a person attending a shamanism workshop for a few days and saying it was a life altering experience – that they are a new man or woman for it. Or I could see a person going to a Christian revival and saying the same – smug in the fact that the whole event only cost them forty bucks. Or someone extolling the benefits of cognitive therapy.

So my question is this: do we have enough pathways – or do we need a few more? Is someone going to hit on a new technique that’s better than anything we have? Have you ever experienced a pathway you were thrilled about at the time but later look back on it as silly or inconsequential? What is your most favored pathway(s)? And what pathway(s) do you consider the most ridiculous?

- NoMan

jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am

Post by jufa »

:idea: Perhaps it all comes down to our asking ourselves the question, how did all these techniques come about to begin with?

I'm pretty sure the conclusion one would come up with is that a thought came to an individual and they began from there. So the real answer to your question lies with you.

Life is no respector of person. So until a person find their own way, well the many ways are the confused ways.
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

wags
Associate
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: columbus, ohio

Post by wags »

hi,
i remember starting out and believing certain things about life and how to live it and then the more i found out the more i changed my beliefs. this continues, as i get to know one step of the journey the next step is revealed to me. i think this is the case for any of the energies you mentioned. us moving forward to God is like God revealing Himself to us through different energies(religions....). i remember talking with a friend who believes that his religious ways are the only way to God and i asked him if he thought God was so powerful how could he not contact more than one group of people at a time, through all the languages and methods of communication? through all the time the earth has existed? how or why would he think that religion started with Jesus? stuck with what the powers that be in his church, he just keeps repeating "the bible says.." over and over again. he can not step outside the views of someone else and feel his own thoughts. i have met others of their religion and they too, reply the same. while they can recite the bible verse by verse, their understanding is a tad bit off center. i can never have them explain to me their own personal walk with God and that concerns me, as a friend. but i know "to each their own" and i still engage them in conversations about each of our beliefs and never let it come between us. so i guess, though each step ahead is already paved, finding which way to reveal it is the rub.
and so on this sunday, i am off to the firehouse to touch the lives of God's children in their time of need. may you all take a moment and look at the world from the outside looking in, watch a show about the universe and beyond and may your goal for the day be laying peace down for others to tread on.
may peace preceed your every step, wags

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Hello Jufa and wags,

I’ve always surveyed the field of pathways but never have gotten deeply involved, until being exposed to Joseph Campbell after listening to POM. From then on my pathway has been reading - and particularly reading Campbell, Jung, and Alan Watts.

But whether one has found a permanent pathway or not, one thing is certain; we will never find ourselves with a lack of choices. Not in our culture.

-NoMan

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

But whether one has found a permanent pathway or not, one thing is certain; we will never find ourselves with a lack of choices. Not in our culture.
Hi again, NoMan. Sometimes an overabundance of choices can startle and confuse us and make things harder. Kind of like missing the forest and only seeing lots and lots and lots of trees.

The following is from on article about "positive psychology" on the APA (American Psychological Association) website:
Freedom of choice

Scientists are also focusing on what personal experiences make people feel stronger and happier. A study looking at the effect proliferation of choices has had on people's lives shows that the more choices people have, the more miserable they become.

Barry Schwartz, PhD, a professor in the psychology department at Swarthmore College, said that people feel overwhelmed when given too many options. To illustrate his point, he told a story about how he was assaulted by a dozen choices of jeans when he went to the Gap to buy pants.

"I finally said, 'I want the kind of jeans that used to be the only kind.' Buying a pair of jeans should not be a day long project....Excess choice leads to unfreedom."

People with jobs who are always "keeping their eyes out" for other jobs, he says, tend to be more anxious and less happy. Why?

"It's a satisfaction treadmill. The more options we have available, the more we think that another option out there is perfect. With so many choices, there is no excuse for failure. And when it happens, the fault lies with you. This detracts from the satisfaction derived from the choices you make and contributes to the clinical depression we are seeing in America."

People who tend to check out all the options, a category he calls "maximizers," tend to ultimately question whether they've made the right choice and later regret their choices. Studies show, he said, that people report higher rate of satisfaction when choosing items that have fewer choices. In colleges, he said, students wrote better essays when given fewer subjects to choose from. The task positive psychologists face, he said, "is to make people aware of this darker side to the proliferation of choices we face, then figure out a way to make the choice questions more manageable."
Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan01/positivepsych.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was written a few days ago and has been traveling with me on my flash drive for a while. It's possible that some of it is redundant with other discussions we had in different threads. Sorry, if it gets old or boring...
:wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it seems the line between psychology and religion gets more and more hazy.
It's interesting how different people can experience the same circumstances in very different ways. I am currently studying psychology, in an undergraduate B.A. program and am considering going for postgraduate instruction in Psychology or Anthropology afterwards. My minor is religious studies. To me, the areas of psychology and spirituality (which I prefer as a term to the word "religion" which to me denotes the institutionalized expressions of spirituality) are distinctly different, which seems to become clearer and more pronounced as I continue my studies. What you describe in your "how to become a guru" instructions to me falls rather under snake-oil sales, not under either psychology or spirituality, I feel.

Even though you can find snake-oil sales people with psychological and spiritual backgrounds, it seems to me that they are usually in it for one of two things: money and/or ego-gratification. But it's of course possible that I'm simply too cynical to see their sincere altruism and that they are only asking for a small donation so they can "further the good cause"...

It seems to me that most of those self-declared "teachers" don't truly practice psychology and that they also don't truly practice spirituality. Many discussions on this forum decry the loss of meaningful myth and ritual in people's lives. The ensuing spiritual hunger leads to seekers, and seekers tend to lead to parasites making a living off them. Most of those are pseudo-teachings rather than actual wisdom. Of course, it's hard to sometimes tell the difference, because many snake-oil sales people utilize terminology from either psychology, philosophy, sincere studies and practice of comparative mythology, or (in my eyes) respectable spiritual practices, including but not limited to Zen, Yoga, the Jewish Kabbalah, or mystical Christianity.

What is the difference between "true" spiritual practices, Psychology, and snake-oil sales practices?

Psychology is the study of the mind with scientific methods. Through methodological increasingly refined methods, we are coming up with hypothesis about causes and effects of psychological factors and behaviors, which we then test through experimentation. Psychology has its roots in philosophy, which still confuses some people who think all they need to do to be psychologists is cook up some theoretical scheme and hit the speaking circuit. Unfortunately, there are many people who are lacking the ability to distinguish strong methodology from a mix of jargon and repetition of what's already been found. Media tendencies to sensationalize content as well as lack of proper science education and hostility towards science of fundamentalists aren't helping. While spirituality is looking at big questions such as "Why are we here?" and "Where do we go?," psychology's emphasis is on the "how": How do we think? How do we feel? How do we act? How do we live? In addition to research psychologists, you also find clinical psychologists, who ideally utilize research findings in order to apply them in their helping people, thus asking such questions as "What is functional or dysfunctional? What can we do to discourage dysfunctional behaviors and encourage functional behaviors? Some of the people in those fields might make a living off them and get moments of ego-gratification, but ideally that's rather incidental and not the core purpose of what they do (lest I would actually place them in my third category, that of snake-oil sales person/merchant in the temple).

"True" spirituality has in common with clinical psychology that it tries to help people and ease suffering. However, its methods differ. There are different paths that lead to the same mountain top (to just use one of a gazillion metaphors for true spiritual experience). In my opinion, people who pay a guru in order to buy such an experience might even sometimes have one, but not due to the guru but despite of him or her. I personally appreciate the many different "true" paths (not the pseudo-spirituality you mention in your original post), because different individuals have different obstacles that hold us back from being true to ourselves (and others) and kind with others (and ourselves). For example, a person who is shy and cautious by temperament and/or upbringing might gain insights from a practice that encourages pushing oneself out into an out-of-character (for that person) group experience, and (s)he might be gaining different insights from a quieter more solitary and more contemplative practice. Somebody who is an extrovert who would enter the same two practices (a dynamic group-experience putting people "on the spot" or quiet contemplation) might be getting more out of the latter than the former, which would most likely only result in a quick high with no lasting effects or, worse, even solidifying that person's ego-stories. Not only do different people need different practices to grow personally and spiritually, but we also may need different practices at different times in our lives. A true teacher doesn't force a one-size-fits-all solution on each student but intimately opens her- or himself up to the students' needs, coming up with tasks that fit this student in this circumstance and nobody else. Some of those tasks, such as "wait" might not even be recognized as such. Some of the people in those fields might make a living off them and get moments of ego-gratification, but ideally that's rather incidental and not the core purpose of what they do (lest I would actually place them in my third category, that of snake-oil sales person/merchant in the temple).

Interestingly enough, we might sometimes find teachers that aren't even that skillful but actually present just the lesson we need at the time. For example, being sold some hooey for good money and suddenly realize that I had the answer all along and wouldn't necessarily had to shell out a few thousand dollars for an enlightenment-spa-experience might be a good lesson. I just hate the fact that these few thousand dollars could have fed thousands of people in a soup kitchen or done otherwise good and instead land in a clever sales dude's (or dudette's) already stuffed bank account. It just seems wrong to me, but maybe I'm just being narrow-minded about this.
But, I get exhausted with the competition among psychologists, sociologists and self-help gurus in coining new words and techniques. It doesn’t mean I think that their work isn’t useful. They play the game by the rules. But as a spiritual consumer/seeker, I just wonder how many methods we need.
As the movie Matrix so eloquently states, "There's only One." You are more likely to find it as a seeker than as a consumer, I feel, but that's my opinion, and I make room for the possibility I might be wrong. New words can be helpful if they in fact describe a new approach or method (which they sometimes do in the area of Psychology) or they can be a sign that somebody just dressed up something old into new clothing in order to make money. A lot of times a specific terminology is used in a cultic way, to separate my group of teachers and students from the outside world. If that is done in a spirit of openness, it might not necessarily be a bad thing, but if it's sold to you as "we found something new that nobody else knows," I would certainly view it with suspicion.

So, how can you spot a snake-oil sales person?

-- "By their fruits shall you tell them" is how Jesus answered the question as to how to tell false from real prophets. Is there more healing or more hurt around that person? It's of course also important to keep in mind that "gurus" naturally attract hurt people, because those who feel perfectly at balance with themselves might not seek too hard for anything or anybody and are simply content being who they are (not necessarily a bad thing!).

-- Do they practice what they preach? Are they talking about authenticity but lie? Are they talking about humility but pridefully peacock around? Nobody is perfect, not even a spiritual teacher, and some of the most flawed people might be really great in getting you to see a certain point you wouldn't see otherwise. But hypocrisy is always a red flag and deserves further skeptical investigation.

-- Even in the most authentic tradition, there might be individual teachers who just aren't a good fit. Does the practice you take up make you a kinder, more compassionate person? If yes, there is something to it. If no, it might just be a big bunch of baloney...
Step 1: Start with a name for the ‘energy’ or ‘force’.
[...]
Step 2: Describe a method for harnessing or channeling such ‘energy’ for the purpose of life enhancement or healing.
[...]
Step 3: Sell, sell, sell - market, promote, and advertise. The best technique in the noosphere is no good unless one has a way to make people aware of it and generate public interest.
I respectfully disagree that step 3 is necessary. In my experience, quality "sells" itself over time, and I deliberately stay far away from people with too shiny teeth and infomercials. It's possible that I'm missing out on something fantastic, but so be it. Related to this, I also trust artists who have day-jobs more than those who can make a living off their art. The latter often compromise for the sake of commerce. Again, it's possible these are simply "sour grapes" on my part.

I guess, I might disagree just a wee little bit with steps 2 and 1, too. In my opinion most of the energies that you mention in your list are metaphors for the changes instilled in the person through practice rather than anything external that could be "harnessed." As such, they don't always describe the same thing. Some of them are bolder, others more subtle. Different changes are best approached in different manners. I remember a funny and spiritually sensitive friend of mine telling me once that to go with psychological issues to a Western practitioner rather than a Buddhist teacher is as hazardous as to go to a Tibetan mechanic with one's high tech Mercedes. Maybe a bit exaggerated and unfair towards hardworking Tibetan mechanics but there might be some truth to that. I was at a women's retreat in the middle of the woods once. After some tension between me and the lady running it (and attempts of mine at trying to get her to back off and give me some space), we ended up in a shouting and hair pulling match during one of her biggest rituals. Not something I'm too proud of. I really didn't want to cause trouble, but one thing led to another. I ended up walking away (to the tune of "you're not kicking me out; I'm kicking myself out"), through the middle of the woods that I didn't know, all my stuff in a back back, and carrying a big jug of water, to keep hydrated, in the scorching sun, tears running down my face because I usually prefer avoiding conflicts (would you know that from how I come across in my writing here...?) and was grieving what could have been a friendship under different circumstances. After walking for hours, a car picked me up. The whole thing (my exit, not the formal pseudo-spiritual retreat situation) ended up being a tremendously transforming experience for me.

I guess that's another way of telling snake-oil sales pitches from true practice. Snake-oil sales people don't truly challenge you and tell you what you want to hear. True practice encourages you to approach life in completely novel (for you) ways, in order to expand your idea of who "you" are.
It may sound like I’m saying that it’s all a big con game – but I’m not.
In my opinion, much of it is.
I could see a person attending a shamanism workshop for a few days and saying it was a life altering experience – that they are a new man or woman for it. Or I could see a person going to a Christian revival and saying the same – smug in the fact that the whole event only cost them forty bucks. Or someone extolling the benefits of cognitive therapy.
Yes, that's true. If we are fully open for it, we can find an opening of our heart and spirit in the most unusual places. If we are not yet fully open for it, a patient and skilled teacher may help us with that opening, ideally without driving us into the poor house in the process. A snake-oil sales person has no interest in your actual changing and growing, because you are his or her cash cow. So they will mostly offer feel-good-pseudo-change. It can sometimes be difficult to at first distinguish pseudo-change from actual change.
So my question is this: do we have enough pathways – or do we need a few more? Is someone going to hit on a new technique that’s better than anything we have? Have you ever experienced a pathway you were thrilled about at the time but later look back on it as silly or inconsequential? What is your most favored pathway(s)? And what pathway(s) do you consider the most ridiculous?
Despite my problems with snake-oil sales, I am of the persuasion that the more pathways the merrier. I hope in the end it will all sort itself out in one way or the other. I do have a problem, though, with some "all-natural" prophets spreading lies and misleading pseudo-information about science, that in fact does cause harm and suffering to people (for example people who suggest to new moms that there is a supposed connection between autism and vaccines, not knowing or admitting that every shred of actual evidence for that connection has been shown to be simply wrong or based on faulty methods, while the evidence for other cause, e.g. genetics, keeps mounting). Or with people who, for their own gain, tell cancer sufferers to distrust their oncologist in favor of a faith healer. Or certain beliefs who give all people with mental illness the advice to stop their meds. Pseudo-science can actually kill, harm, and maim. As such it's not necessarily all games and play.

Still, I'm enough of an optimist to trust and hope that truth and quality will prevail in the end, even if it sometimes takes a while. The practices that work(ed) best for me were WingTsun kung fu (which I've been practicing for 14 years now) and Soto Zen Buddhism (8 years and counting). The practices that I found helpful for a while but then discontinued were a rather informal Women's Wiccan circle (the origin of the above mentioned blow-up between myself and the founding self-declared ueber-witch), singing in a Pentecostal Gospel choir (after a while all the fellowshipping and the hour long, screaming loud services got a bit overwhelming, but the way one of the preachers prayed stuck with me and still influences my own attitude towards and practice of prayer), and a Sufi dance group (which I stopped going to when I realized that a trans-gendered acquaintance of mine was kindly encouraged to no longer come since some people felt uncomfortable about her/him). But even those I still respect and feel they might be good for some people with very specific needs (community, personal experimentation).

Therefore, the only pathways I find problematic are the pseudo-scientific ones and the pseudo-spiritual ones that actually hurt innocent people in the process in order to make money for the people who sell them.

As to "ridiculous," I actually don't find any of them or all of them ridiculous in one way or the other. I am ridiculous myself, and have no problem with that. I actually consider it a great gift to be able to see and accept my own ridiculousness... and always get cautious when I see people who get too serious in their quests...

Respectfully,
:-) Julia

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Hello SomeHopes,

I’m sooooo glad you found this thread. This thread was actually the result my research into the culture wars in the ‘worst generation’ thread.


SomeHopes wrote in another thread:
I got a book contract, but at some point my editor told me she was going to quit her job to write a novel and none of the other editors at her publishing house wanted to take on a novice author at the time. So, the book worked for her, I guess, but I didn't have the energy to search for another publisher right then and there.

SomeHopes

I’m not the least bit surprised you’re a serious writer. Your expressiveness and command of the language comes through in your posts. And I know this is spontaneous writing for you – almost like a journal – save that we get to bounce our ideas off other people.


This may be yet again old news to you (yawn), but the same the same thing happened to Joseph Campbell with his “Hero with a Thousand Faces”. He got an advance from the publisher, spent about five years working on it – but when he was finished the publisher told him they had a new staff, and they aren’t interested in his book. They were under contract to publish it and they said they would if Campbell insisted. But they explained to him that it wouldn’t be good for either of them if they publish a book they don’t like. No promotion – you know the game.


So he took it to another publisher who read it and said, “It’s nice, but who will read it”. Then he went to Bollingen. It turned out to be one of the most popular nonfiction books of the 20th century. The JCF is about to release a 3’d edition, with new photos. And hopefully, with the help of the people here at the JCF, it will be one of the most popular books of the 21st century.


As you know – ‘Self-Help’ is big business. I haven’t dove into a self-help book since the 70s – except for Joseph Campbell’s work to the extent that it is self-help. But the guy who always irked me the most was Dr Wayne Dyer. Whenever PBS needs money you see him lecturing. But it is just pure feel good success pornography.


About the same time as “Iron John” and the “Mars/Vnus” book came out, a book came out by Thomas Moore called “Care of the Soul”. Since then, there have a lot of books with the word ‘soul’ on the shelves: You know, ‘Won Ton soup for the Asian Soul’, ‘Clam Chowder for the New England Soul’, ‘Tortilla Soup for the South Western Soul’, etc. I don’t know about these soupy soul books but what little I’ve read of Thomas Moore is really good. It’s a very subtle art – this word therapy game.



Sometimes an overabundance of choices can startle and confuse us and make things harder.
SomeHopes
Ironically, I’m struggling with this with your posts. Do I want to talk about gender wars, genetics, the problem with postmodernism, self help, sociological models, the Hume/Kant contrast, or East/West religious syncretism? But I can’t complain. When I was young I would sometimes get physically ill in bookstores and libraries because there was so much I wanted to read and learn. Too many choices. I’ve learned to narrow my focus and adopted a systematic approach to learning.


I remember reading about that unhappiness/choice correlation study in a different magazine. But it seems to me the idea has been with us for some time. It started, I think, with Erich Fromm’s ‘Escape from Freedom’ 1941. Of course, in 1941 he had German and Italian fascism on his mind. But this profound truth about the human condition is still very much with us. Ernest Becker, in his book, The Denial of Death called transference the ‘nexus of unfreedom’.


And Joseph Campbell, in 1972, compared the youth to what he remembered in Germany in the 20s – as part of the ‘lost generation’. Of course, the big difference is that there was not as much economic hardship in 70s America as there was in 20s Germany. So, having fundamentalists in the White House is not as severe as Nazi Germany. But it’s the same social/psycho phenomenon – of yearning for some kind of authority – a mythology if you will. I believe John McCain will be elected because the nightmare of ‘hippyism’ and the delusions of postmodernism still haunt us.


Think this doesn’t relate to the study you cite? Mick Jagger sang of the ‘satisfaction treadmill’ in the 60s with: ‘I can’t get no – satisfaction’.


One thing that I’d like to point out is that pop psychology didn’t really take off until the 60s. I still think of there being a difference between clinical psychology and what came about in the 70s as 'pop psychology' as a result of the mythological meltdown of the 60s. Ya follow that? There was no ‘self help’ section in a 50s bookstore (to my knowledge). But if a person has a serious problem of compulsive behavior, or depression, for example, you don’t tell them to browse the ‘self help’ section of the book store. You send them to a psychologist or psychiatrist.



And to some folks, all pop psychology is snake-oil sales. All non-traditional religion is Satan at work in the world. But I was looking back on this parade of options in the 70s, all the cults, all the New Age ways, and I realized that this cottage industry, that I had forgotten about, is still going strong. You see, in the 70s there was this sense that the turmoil, or turnover of ‘ways’ was a temporary condition of society. That a mythology would find its shape, the way aircraft found their optimal shape from the early days of aviation.

Despite my problems with snake-oil sales, I am of the persuasion that the more pathways the merrier. I hope in the end it will all sort itself out in one way or thae other.

I'm enough of an optimist to trust and hope that truth and quality will prevail in the end, even if it sometimes takes a while.

SomeHopes

Things work out for individuals, hopefully, as they progress through life. A person learns to distinguish between charlatans and authentics. Joseph Campbell is an authentic. This, I think, is the most important message the JCF needs to deliver. I don’t like to see him on presented on PBS along side Wayne Dyer. Thomas Moore is an authentic – IMHO. I think Dr. John Gray is genuine, despite his own marital record and the weak scientific evidence. All he’s trying to do is make marriages work. I can’t imagine how he could become so popular if what he offers doesn’t do any good – even if it is myth. Don’t underestimate the power of myth. But this gets into the gender wars and that’s a topic for another thread. Trying to focus.



(Your complaint of John Grays track record reminded me of a long time idea I’ve had for a novel or sit-com. Imagine a central character whose life is a complete disaster, alcoholism, drug addiction, restraining orders, custody battles, can’t forgive his or her parents, children always in trouble with the law. All of societies worst problems they have to the nth degree. The ultimate modern anti-hero. But as a living this person writes a ‘dear Abbey’ column. So at the end of each chapter, or at the end of each episode, they give the perfect advice on a particular problem – but they themselves have just made a mess of their own life doing exactly the wrong thing on that particular issue.)

Therefore, the only pathways I find problematic are the pseudo-scientific ones and the pseudo-spiritual ones that actually hurt innocent people in the process in order to make money for the people who sell them.

-SomeHopes
You cannot believe – how many – there were – in the 70s. I say this being from the west coast. Don Lattin’s book, ‘Following our Bliss’ gives a great general description of the parade of ‘ways’. One of Lattin's major themes is that we ‘New Agers’ if you will, could never cross the line between personal enlightenment to social engagement. (from spirituality to religion you might say)

From ‘Following Our Bliss:’
P57 What we need, Williamson says, is love. And, as Jesus said, that means loving our enemies. “What I need healed is my left-wing arrogance that I know more than they do,” Marianne confessed. “I have to be harmless in my heart toward George Bush. As Martin Luther King said, you have no persuasive power among people who feel your underlying contempt.”


Williamson’s confession points to one of the pricklier legacies of the Sixties, the feeling that it was us against them. There was a real feeling of “Whose side are you on?” It was culture or counterculture. Establishment or antiestablishment. Black or white. Gay or straight. Sexist or feminist. Young or old. Those divisions remain in many ways, but especially in the realm of race, economics, religion, and politics. Blame the white man. Blame the black man. Blame the Jews. Blame the religious right. Blame the secular left.


Can the New Age Left get it together, form real political coalitions, and truly change the world? It’s a tall order, Williamson says, but now is the time. “This is the baby boomers’ last chance.”


In the sixties, we were stopped by conditions outside ourselves and conditions inside ourselves. Often, we were stoned on one thing or another. But there is a sobriety among us now – at least among enough of us. We want to take one more shot at it.”


We can always hope, but it seems like Marianne Williamson took her shot and missed. Her efforts to go beyond personalized spirituality and to inspire social engagement were admirable but ultimately unsuccessful. Williamson was supposed to be one of the big draws at MasterPeace 2001, but the Stanford conference was a financial disaster.



Following Our Bliss, Don Lattin, 2003

The prickly legacy of which Don Lattin speaks is what I was ranting and raving about in the ‘worst generation’ thread. Hopefully, it’s boomer thing.


But the idea of the New Age getting it together is for me, becoming more and more one of those hippie delusions, like the idea of gender 'sameness’, or of communal marriages, or of no religion, or of wishing away war. Huston Smith one time said that Americans have three religious options, traditional Western, Eastern, and New Age, the latter he says tends to be a little flakey.


Ya think? I’m starting to wonder if the New Age will ever be ‘de-flaked’.
I respectfully disagree that step 3 is necessary. In my experience, quality "sells" itself over time, and I deliberately stay far away from people with too shiny teeth and infomercials.

- SomeHopes

You’re right. Good ideas sell themselves. But you can’t ignore promotion. How popular would Joseph Campbell be without PBS to get the message out? Even good messages need help. (If you don’t think Campbell is an authentic we keep a vat of hot tar and a bale of feathers at the Foundation to help you rediscover your true Buddha nature. :lol: )



You say psychology uses science, spirituality uses other methods.


As much as I love science, there came a point where I threw in the towel on scientific psychology, and looked only to spirituality as a pathway to bliss. It was after reading Earnest Becker’s The Denial of Death. He described psychology as an outgrowth of religion. Campbell answered the problem for me by declaring science as mythic, a ploy not well appreciated by hard-headed scientists. But it’s the answer to the problem of trying to rationalize religion. It’s something that can’t be completely rationalized. So we have it encompass science.
I actually consider it a great gift to be able to see and accept my own ridiculousness... and always get cautious when I see people who get too serious in their quests...
- SomeHopes
I hear ya. It’s a lot of fun trying on and off different pathways. And I think that is how a lot of people took the 70s – and are still taking the quest. I’d love to take part in a witches convention – if they’d let me in. But really, there’s this flakey side to it that I fear is here to stay. Perhaps that’s the way it should be.

- NoMan

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Campbell answered the problem for me by declaring science as mythic
It seems to me that you might be accidentally misrepresenting what Campbell is trying to teach. Are you sure you don't get him mixed up with certain postmodern deconstructivist philosophers here? In his 1961 lecture "The Impact of Science on Myth" (published in Myths to Live By), he presents science as a way of approaching (but never ending that approach by reaching any point of finality) outer truths, that present factualized state of the art accounts of what is going on in the material world.

In contrast to that, there are myths that, when used wisely, can function as benign illusions about and projections on the material word, but not factual explanations of the happenings in that material world. Myths, in the way he describes them in that lecture, are stories that help us explore our inner worlds as well as support psychological and social stability. In this view, both science and myth have clearly assigned (different!) areas of responsibility.

He is rather clear in this text that he considers both...

(a) ....classification of science as merely another myth or...

(b) ...classification of myth as a clumsy and now outdated precursor to science in our attempts at explaining the outer world...

....dangerous misinterpretations.

Instead, he encourages a fruitful dialogue between science and mythology rather than one of them simply swallowing up and digesting the other.

I'll try to find the actual quotes over the next few days. The girls' sleeping patterns have been off a bit, so I haven't gotten that much time to write this week. Bear with me, and, hopefully, I'll get those together soon. Also, if you have any Campbell quotes that would demonstrate that he might have changed his mind about this after 1961, I'd love to see those. I'm not being facetious here but simply curious.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until then, here are a few other random thoughts that your most recent post tread loose:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is just pure feel good success pornography.
Love this. Yes, that's such a good way of putting it.
:lol:

And, yes, also to Campbell being the authentically real deal. I never got the feel from him that he was in it for the money at all, and I'm not envious about his success. The opposite, I'm actually happy when, like in this case, something that's really good becomes (moderately or wildly) successful. Gives me hope for (hu)mankind. Not sure how I'm doing it (or maybe I'm simply wrong and delusional about it), but I generally have pretty reliable authenticity/bullshit detectors. Especially when I see somebody in person or via media, I tend to get a tingling down my spine when it's something "real" and worth listening to and a kind of inner anti-bull-alarm at other times. Never had a doubt about Campbell. From the first sentences I read I knew I had pure wisdom gold on my hands and that there was so much I could learn from him.

There's of course also the occasional time that I read or see something and then later change my mind about it. For example I read the "Celestine Prophecy" and liked it so much that I bought three of them in paperback to make sure I could lend them out to other people and not worry if they didn't bring them back. Now, years later, I look into it and it seems like new age fluff writing to me, but at that time it really touched a nerve. But most of the time, the initial impression I get of somebody's work holds, even if I spend more time researching that person. And I have no idea how it works. Some kind of "vibes" sensitivity, maybe? Or simple skepticism that's pushed into high gear whenever I see anything that sounds just too conveniently good and easy to be accurate.
And I know this is spontaneous writing for you – almost like a journal – save that we get to bounce our ideas off other people.
Funny. I just talked about this with a friend in real life (who I was trying to lure here). He asked why I like it so much, and I said "It's like journal writing, but the cool thing is that the journal talks back!"
:-)
Ironically, I’m struggling with this with your posts. Do I want to talk about gender wars, genetics, the problem with postmodernism, self help, sociological models, the Hume/Kant contrast, or East/West religious syncretism?
Same here... I actually have a Word file on my computer with notes for potential posts and musings.
When I was young I would sometimes get physically ill in bookstores and libraries because there was so much I wanted to read and learn. Too many choices. I’ve learned to narrow my focus and adopted a systematic approach to learning.
It helps to also accept that there are limits to what we can explore in depth in one life, a realization that can trigger grief. To translate such understanding into our daily lives requires self-discipline and surrender, not exactly wide-spread qualities in most contemporary Western cultures.

It's interesting. In a conversation with a past boyfriend I once found out that he considered libraries rather depressing, because they were to him a physical reminder that, no matter how much and how fast he would read, he'd die before he would have read it all. I, on the other hand, always loved libraries, because, no matter how much I would read and how long I would live, I would never run out of new things to discover and to learn. I guess that might be the bookish geeks' version of the old "glass half empty/glass half full" idea...

I also ran into difficulties with too many choices when writing the book. I had met with a freelance editor for consulting with my first draft, and she said that I had plenty of good ideas but was lacking focus. I took that advice to heart and rewrote the whole thing. It might at this point still be too broad for some people, but I really trimmed it down. Very encouraging to hear that Campbell had a similar experience with his first publisher. No, I didn't know that!

Back to choices/choice reduction:
I remember reading about that unhappiness/choice correlation study in a different magazine. But it seems to me the idea has been with us for some time. It started, I think, with Erich Fromm’s ‘Escape from Freedom’ 1941.
Yes, I think it sparked people's fascination, because it seems like such a counterintuitive finding at first. How can more not be better? It seems to me that Fromm's ideas from the 1940s were inspired by others before him. The idea of a simple life as key to happiness (as opposed to an over-abundance of choices) is found in the 19th century in Thoreau, in the 18th century in Rousseau, much earlier than that in the Zen tradition in China and Japan, as well as, even before then, in some of the ancient Greek philosophical schools. The debate what we need more, refinement or simplicity, (and if there even is one single answer to that question) is an old one, it seems, that continues to this day, sometimes in the same person, for example when I live my own inner contradictions by sitting Zen meditation in the morning yet, just a few hours later, catch myself obsess about trying to find just the perfect dark chocolate amongst the fine Swiss and Belgian varieties available to the 1st world's average cocoa lover here, exploitation and gas prices be d*mned... This one has a different bite, that one a slight crackle and a delicious scent, yet another an almost velvet like texture. So, who I am to call other people on their hypocrisy? Don' t know if that is my particular brand of the middle way or simply a weakness.
Think this doesn’t relate to the study you cite? Mick Jagger sang of the ‘satisfaction treadmill’ in the 60s with: ‘I can’t get no – satisfaction’.
I think it relates quite well.
I still think of there being a difference between clinical psychology and what came about in the 70s as 'pop psychology' as a result of the mythological meltdown of the 60s. Ya follow that? There was no ‘self help’ section in a 50s bookstore (to my knowledge).
Sure? Where would they display Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? In general, I agree with you, though. There is a bit of a tradition of pragmatic how-to advisories (wasn't Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac" self-help literature in the widest sense of the word?), but no pop psychology before the 60s with its passion for introspection combined with a disdain for institutionalized authority (including medicine/psychiatry).
But if a person has a serious problem of compulsive behavior, or depression, for example, you don’t tell them to browse the ‘self help’ section of the book store. You send them to a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Unfortunately the science of psychology is still rather young, so even if the person seeking help for such difficulties mindfully looks at potential helpers' credentials, there might be some luck of the draw (or stubborn persistence in working one's way through different providers) required in finding the right fit between therapist/psychiatrist and patient. Even people trained in the science of psychology sometimes fall for the wishful thinking represented in some new age schemes. Or they have success with certain methods in some people and, as a result, turn into one-trick-ponies. I like that about mythology, that, if we learn to read and live it wisely, it warns us of such traps.
You see, in the 70s there was this sense that the turmoil, or turnover of ‘ways’ was a temporary condition of society. That a mythology would find its shape, the way aircraft found their optimal shape from the early days of aviation.
There is something beautifully hopeful, yet woefully naive about that belief. Also, interesting that both the counter-culture of those days and their counterparts, the most extreme capitalists, both believe in a certain kind of "invisible hand," one regulating the market, the other lending form to mythology and the spirituality surrounding it. Both forget that the aircraft doesn't form itself but that hardworking engineers and the occasional plane crash tend to be part of the process.
Things work out for individuals, hopefully, as they progress through life. A person learns to distinguish between charlatans and authentics.
Yes. And each time, we get these grand schemes that try to generalize from individuals to societies, mayhem seems to happen (the once "real existing socialism" of the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries with its restrictions on citizen's travel and freedom of choice, widespread spying on their own populace, supply problems, and bloated bureaucracies only being one of many examples).
Don’t underestimate the power of myth.
True. However, don't underestimate the dangers of literalism, either. Myth used with awareness is a beautiful thing. Myth sold as (and confused with) facts can clutter people's minds, hearts, and spirits. I don't know what's worse, no mythology at all or misunderstood mythology.
(Your complaint of John Grays track record reminded me of a long time idea I’ve had for a novel or sit-com. Imagine a central character whose life is a complete disaster,
Looks as if somebody might have beat you to the punch (even though, based on the article, you might have done a better job with the idea):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... 8B63&fta=y
One of Lattin's major themes is that we ‘New Agers’ if you will, could never cross the line between personal enlightenment to social engagement. (from spirituality to religion you might say)
But to me, that is the exact difference between narcissistic self-absorption (which characterizes most of today's new age and many "positive thinking" schemes such as "The Secret") and true spirituality. True spirituality such as the Christianity of a Martin Luther King, the Hinduism of a Mahatma Gandhi, or the Buddhism of a Thich Nat Hanh, doesn't make a difference between social engagement and personal enlightenment. One comes with the other and vice versa. There is no true separation between the two. Any personal "enlightenment" without social engagement is empty words, nothing but hot air and therefore just another layer of delusion. Any social engagement without personal enlightenment (I'm using my definition of the term, which is Zen influenced, rather than the way many new agers use it) tends to be an ego-maniacal waste of time.
you have no persuasive power among people who feel your underlying contempt
So true.
Williamson’s confession points to one of the pricklier legacies of the Sixties, the feeling that it was us against them. There was a real feeling of “Whose side are you on?” It was culture or counterculture. Establishment or antiestablishment. Black or white. Gay or straight. Sexist or feminist. Young or old.
See, and to me that's no true "enlightenment," but simply good old duallism dressed in new bell-bottoms, with a cool soundtrack. But I wonder if that was the entire movement or just the political activist angle. I personally love the ideas of "Make love not war" and "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity." And in some of what Bodhi and Clemsy wrote in their contributions to the "worst generation" thread, I do sense that kind of quality. Yes, maybe some of it is slightly distorted "when we were young" romanticism. But both of them are smart dudes, and I doubt that they let their romanticism pull the (bio-dynamically farmed and fairly traded) wool over their eyes. So, maybe, like in any other time and generation before that, there was lots of self-absorbed posturing and then the occasional true gem.
Can the New Age Left get it together, form real political coalitions, and truly change the world? It’s a tall order, Williamson says, but now is the time. “This is the baby boomers’ last chance.”
Tough to say. It almost looks as if it's easier to unite people with hate than with love, because love makes us more complex and intensifies our individuality, it seems, which helps us be more useful to the world as individuals but makes us bad followers and therefore hard to unite for one political goal (because many of us are rightfully skeptical of one-size-fits-all goals). I'm very generously including myself here into "New Age Left," even though I'm more of a Pentecostal Buddhist Mystic than a New Ager.
You say psychology uses science, spirituality uses other methods.
Ideally. In my own studies of psychology, I meet many fellow students on the flakey side of things, people who hate math, somehow make it through the required statistics courses without learning much, and then look for and find their own ecological niche within the field of psychology. Such people give the science of psychology a bad name, I feel.
As much as I love science, there came a point where I threw in the towel on scientific psychology, and looked only to spirituality as a pathway to bliss.
In my opinion science is, by itself, ill equipped as a pathway to bliss. But the same thing can be said about spirituality, by itself. Like anything in life, the quality of our answers depends on the questions we ask.

More later, next time I get around to writing.
:-) Julia

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

...to me that's no true "enlightenment," but simply good old duallism dressed in new bell-bottoms, with a cool soundtrack.
:lol:

That's precious.

Lordy, but I wish I had time to jump in here. However, between end of school year stuff and manually 'dreading' my 16 year old's hair (b-day present... we had no idea what we were getting into... got 3 done last night in 2 1/2 hours) before he goes off for a month at a language immersion camp, all I can do these days is skim.

I'll be back, in depth in a week or two.

Great reading!

Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Campbell answered the problem for me by declaring science as mythic

- NoMan

* * * * * * *

It seems to me that you might be accidentally misrepresenting what Campbell is trying to teach. Are you sure you don't get him mixed up with certain postmodern deconstructivist philosophers here?

-SomeHopes
Hello SomeHopes,

Campbell contradicts himself sometimes. I think all truly wise thinkers do. This is why certain thinkers such as Plato, Emerson, Nietzsche, and Jung, will always be argued over – what they really meant. So I can appreciate your take on Campbell and the relationship of myth and science, and could even argue in your favor.

But here is a quote from Hero with a 1000 Faces:
P3 …myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man,prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth.

- Joseph Campbell, Hero With A Thousand Faces, 1949
I think you’re right though. Campbell would not say science is another form of myth. Only that myth is at the root of science, or any other discipline for that matter.
P103 As Barbara Sproul notes , myths proclaim values and declare meanings – the opposite of data-amassing scientific explorations. Myths announce value structures.

P94 Myth is not unsophisticated science but sophisticated poetic enunciation of meaning and significance.

- Mythography, William G. Doty, 2000
In both of these quotes, the italics are not mine. The sense of these quotes, that I believe is part of Campbell’s theory of myth, is that science could not function without the ‘value structures’ proclaimed by myth.

Here is more from Doty:
P92 Modern science, however, is in many ways just as “mythical” in the sense used here as was medieval Catholicism. When operating as a world-view, modern science rests upon a foundational (Cartesian) mythic story of reality, although this “God’s truth” story claims to be anything but mythical. We are so impressed with our scientific advances that we soon label as “primitive” or “unsophisticated” any viewpoints that call the underlying mythic frames of science into question; within the sciences, it is not unusual for one researcher to tar an opponent with the “That theory is just a myth!” brush.

- William G. Doty, Mythography, 2000
Carl Jung, in his autobiography said he got a sense of his own mythology when he was visiting the Native Americans of Taos, New Mexico. One of the Natives said he had been watching Jung for some time. He described Jung with his white wrinkled forehead, and eyes darting around, looking, searching, hawk-like. He asked Jung what it was he was looking for. What did he hope to find?

I see this as part of the Western scientific mythos. Leave no stone unturned. Always searching. Always discovering. Jung was living a myth he was not fully aware of.


Robert A. Segal, is a leading authority on myth (if not at the very top of the heap). He is also an outspoken critic of Campbell:
To rationalists, science makes myth both unnecessary and impossible for moderns, who by definition are scientific. To romantics, science runs askew to myth, which does not refer to the physical world and is therefore still acceptable to scientific moderns. Like Carl Jung, Campbell dares to pronounce science itself mythic. To rationalists, nothing could be more anathema.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=766
In a collection of essays on Campbell titled Uses of Comparative Mythology Robert A. Segal authors the third essay. The fourth essay is an answer to Segal. It’s the best articulation I’ve found to counter the criticism of Campbell from academia, and particularly the assertion of a scientific, rationalist approach to myth:
Segal’s final and most telling criticism of Campbell, at least according to his own assessment, is that “Campbell spends too much time reveling in myth and not enough time analyzing it.” This certainly is a provocative, indeed, and instructive statement. It exposes at the same time the mythologies of both Campbell and Segal. Campbell does revel in myth, and his is the mythology of the mystic (among others). The assumption behind Segal’s statement, however, betrays an equally powerful and complex mythology that goes under the name of science or objectivity. Segal is thus correct that Campbell revels in myth. The question that remains, however, is whether or not he is right to criticize Campbell for it. If we continue to probe the criticism, other questions emerge: What myth is Segal reveling in, in order to make the criticism? Which mythology is aware of its status as myth? Which mythology makes better sense of Campbell?

Segal’s mythology may be termed the mythology of the disinterested observer, and it finds its provenance in the rise of the empirical sciences over the last two centuries.

- Gregory Salyer, Uses of Comparative Mythology Edited by Kenneth L. Golden (1992)
The previous quote has become my favorite quote in all of my Campbell studies.

To get the gist of this difference of opinion, is to understand what later in the 90s would be called the science wars. It was a war between the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. The science wars reached a climax, I think, in 1996 when physicist Alan Sokal submitted an essay to a postmodernist journal of complete physics jibberish. It’s called Sokal’s Hoax and you can find it all over the Web. His essay affirmed postmodern ideological beliefs in modern physics and asserted the relativity of truth. He wanted to see if they would actually publish it. Here is a sample of his essay:
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``objectivity''.

It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.

* * * * * *

The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.
It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of some thing -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...

In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the ‘Pi’ of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/soka ... ss_v2.html
It’s an absolute riot. He threw in claims that had hard scientists rolling on the ground with laughter, using the language of postmodernists from the ‘soft sciences’. The whole point was to show the social sciences’ idiocy and disrespect for reality, and their disrespect for truth apart from power structures.

Two years later the famous biologist E.O.Wilson published the book, Concilience: The Unity of Knowledge in an attempt to bridge this schism.

Again I quote William G. Doty’s Mythography:
P101 (I was astonished to work through Edward Wilson’s Consilience within a faculty discussion group, only to discover that this Alabama-born genius apparently has no inkling of what the humanities and social sciences have been doing for decades!)

- William F. Doty, Mythography, 2000
So on we go.

Okay, I fear I’m boring you again with things you already know. I want to be clear that Joseph Campbell has nothing to do with postmodernism. But how he is being interpreted and debated over has a great deal to do with it.

As much as I hate postmodernism, the stupidity of it, I side with Doty on the basic belief that science has no ground to stand on apart from myth. What would science be without values to guide? And where, in science alone, do you find those values? It doesn’t mean that all scientists are a bunch of amoral truth seekers without any concern for values aside from truth, as is sometimes depicted in Hollywood. Scientists are typically much more ethical than the average person. But their morality, and any other values they have, were not arrived at via science or the scientific method, but were forged in their soul, through the mythos of their culture, through what Campbell described as “the magic ring of myth”.

In this way I interpret Campbell as seeing science as mythic, it is mythic on a basic level but not in its full manifestation. Though I hasta admit, this is something implied. But then, my interpretation could be, as you say, marred by the delusions of post-Kuhnian, and postmodernists thought. Nice call.

Whew! Burnt myself out on this one issue. I’ll get back to the other issues you raise. Remember, there is no time limit in these forums. People come back sometimes months later and say, ‘but you said…’ picking up the conversation where they left off.

Mo – later

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Hi again;

thank you for the great quotes. I'm always amazed by how well-read you are. And, please don't ever worry about boring me. Even if you touch upon something I know, you usually do that from your perspective which always differs slightly from my own, since your life experiences and temperament might partly overlap with mine but also have their own, absolutely distinct and unique flavor. Therefore, I always end up seeing a slightly different angle of a familiar topic, one I've never seen before, and learning something new.

I guess part of the contradiction may come from a persistent human tendency to get our levels of experience and thinking mixed up. There is pure experience (sensations and perceptions of both "outside" and "inside" factors, emotions). Then there is pure thinking about that experience. Then there is meta-thinking, thinking about thinking, which is trying to evaluate or guide the thinking and provide it with context, the bigger picture. Then there might be applied thinking, which looks at the pure thinking and tries to find ways to practically use what it found. All of those levels exist in both science and spirituality, with different emphases.

Spirituality (ideally) celebrates and produces Oneness (if it doesn't, it's simply superstition, I feel). Science examines Oneness by analyzing it, dissecting it, and looking at its parts. Due to their respective natures, science and spirituality (of which myth is an important part) both only see parts of the picture. They're like a zoom lens at different settings. One sees the forest but might miss the trees. One sees the trees and might miss the forest. If they communicate with each other without trying to declare the other one obsolete, cool insights emerge. That communication often suffers from the fact that there is such a stringent division of labor in most contemporary human societies and that many scientists don't have much spiritual knowledge, while many spiritual practitioners are woefully ignorant about what science is truly about. In the middle of all that, making the mess worse, are postmodernist philosophers and some fine artists, who simply like hearing themselves talk, it seems, and who alternately proclaim "the end of science" or the "necessity of merging science and spirituality," neither of which would be helpful, I feel.

Humans are absolutely notorious for getting the above mentioned different levels confused, even more so when they aren't very self-aware or specifically trained in divvying them up. I love that about Campbell, that he tends to be very good at spotting these differences. So are well-trained scientists and some scientifically literate philosophers. Unfortunately, not every scientist is well-trained, and not every philosopher is science-literate. As a result, there'll always be plenty of straw(wo)men to fight. Oh, who else is usually pretty good at telling the difference between those different levels of thinking: some practicing Buddhists, which is why I like Zen so much and feel so very at home there. But, again, a practice of Buddhism is no surefire protection from delusion, confusion, or misinterpretation, either. The water is there, but sometimes the horse just isn't ready to drink.

Science, in the way I see it, is a methodological framework that, in its most noble form, links experience and pure thinking. It specifically looks at the parts of experience that are measurable and reproducible, and tries to find causal connection that tell us more about the nature of the universe. To me, if what is being examined is not measurable and reproducible in some way (some psychologists are incredibly creative these days in designing experiments to make the previously unmeasurable, such as emotion, cognition, prejudice, attitude, and such, accessible to some form and statistical evaluation). To me the postmodernist "oh, it's all relative anyhow" is a huge cop-out and sign of somebody who either doesn't understand the basics of science or gets science and meta-science (the philosophy of how to fit science into society and beyond, the aforementioned bigger picture, which of course rightfully should be including myth) confused.

As you can see from the above description, in my eyes only "hard" science is true science. The separation into "hard" science and "soft" science to me would make as much sense as to separate different types of enlightenment into "aware" enlightenment and "ignorant" enlightenment. The former is redundant, the latter an oxymoron. "Soft" science has two choices, it can get methodologically savvy and therefore "harden," or it turns into pure storytelling. Nothing wrong with storytelling. Gotta love a got story. But don't call it science, people.

And of course I can see that my above described distinction is an expression of my own, personal mythology, of how I choose to structure and evaluate the phenomena, experience, and thoughts, feelings, and perceptions linking those phenomena to that experience, just one I consider smarter, more complex, and more helpful than most postmodernist attitudes.

This is just my first gut reaction.
More later.
:-) Julia

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

On Soft and Hard Science
As you can see from the above description, in my eyes only "hard" science is true science. The separation into "hard" science and "soft" science to me would make as much sense as to separate different types of enlightenment into "aware" enlightenment and "ignorant" enlightenment.

- Somehopes
I noticed this in your posts. The way you used the word science. Complaining that John Gray’s Mars/Venus book is not based on science. Made me smirk. (sorry) I had an image of John Gray being awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry or medicine. The man’s trying to save marriages for crying out loud. What’s science got to do with it? (Actually, he could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the ‘gender wars’.)


Sometimes you’ll see a TV mini-series that says ‘based on a true story’. And you know what that means. Probably just a sliver of truth. That’s sort of the way I look at John Gray and the whole pop-psychology, self-help movement.

I can see my paradigm for science is different from yours. And I don’t think either of our views will be proven correct. But here is the way I seez it.


We have the hard sciences at one end of a spectrum: physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, and mathematics as a preferential language. These subjects appeal to our faculty for reason and the discovery of objective truth.


At the other end of the spectrum we have fine arts, spirituality/religion, and philosophy. These are subjects that appeal to our faculty for emotion, as for example, watching the tragic hero suffering and dying on the cross, or the celebration of his or her eternal happiness and bliss. Beethoven’s Ninth has nothing to do with objective truth.


Between these two extremes, there are the subjects of psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, history, geography, political science, etc. Some will say that it cheapens the science of psychology or the science of sociology to say they are less scientific. But that’s only because of our modern arrogance that values reason over emotion.

There was a famous book from the 90s titled Emotional Intelligence. What bothered me about the title of this book is that ‘emotion’ must be the adjective and ‘intelligence’ the noun. And then there was talk of emotional IQ. (emotional intelligence quotient) That makes a lot of sense. Why aren’t we talking about ‘intelligent emotions’ or an ‘emotion quotient’.


We value intelligence, and rational thought, so much in our society (intelligence as measured with an IQ test) because it pays the rent, and separates the self-made billionaires from the factory workers. But I think we can both agree that the value of human life is not to be measured in dollars, or in how well one can play a game of chess. We are creatures of emotion and reason. And to say that ‘soft sciences’ are not as scientific is not, in my view, to devalue them.


One example from psychology. I read about ‘happiness studies’ that show a correlation between church attendance and happiness. On average, the more church attendance, the happier one was. Without worrying about the reason for the correlation in these studies, I consider them science. But it’s not the same as hard science, as measuring the cosmic background radiation for example. Happiness, at least in these studies, was not a physical measurement. Happiness is not believed to be an objective reality. But I don’t find such studies any less useful than studies in the ‘hard sciences’.

So I draw this line between the sciences – and I admit, it can sometimes be a hazy line, but useful nonetheless.

- NoMan

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

On Self-Help

There was no ‘self help’ section in a 50s bookstore (to my knowledge).
- NoMan

* * * * * * *

Sure? Where would they display Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?
- SomeHopes
After talking to you I’m not sure if the sky is blue! (that’s a compliment) Found this on the Web:
Samuel Smiles (1812-1904) published the first self-consciously personal-development "self-help" book — entitled Self-Help — in 1859. Its opening sentence: "Heaven helps those who help themselves", provides a variation of "God helps them that help themselves", the oft-quoted maxim that also appeared previously in Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac (1733 - 1758).
http://www.answers.com/self-help&r=67
I don’t know whether or not there was a self-help section in a 50s book store. I thought that only Boomers would be silly enough to put the two words ‘self’ and ‘help’ together. It doesn’t make sense. The word ‘help’ implies outside assistance. I couldn’t find it on the web, but something tells me the industry of ‘self-help’ took off like wild fire in the late 60s and 70s. My assumption follows from the common belief that the 60s were all about social engagement and the 70s was about turning inward.


As humorist Joe Queenan put it, “They retreated into the deepest recesses of their surprisingly tiny inner lives.” Don Lattin says as much in a more serious tone, “What began with a call for what we could do for our country ended for many with a search for ourselves.”

Now, they say, Self-Help is an 8.5 billion dollar a year industry. But as we understand the word ‘self-help’ it is probably just about as old as writing. Gilgamesh received advise on living from a female bartender named Siduri on a problem Gilgamesh was having accepting his own mortality:
Siduri, maker of wine, speaks to Gilgamesh, “Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the Gods created man they allotted him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bath yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this is the lot of man.”
Five thousand years old - at least - and still pretty good advice.

Some of the greatest self-help books of all time:

1.) Sun Tzu’s The Art of War
2.) Confucius’ Analects
3.) The Kama Sutra
4.) The Stoic philosophers
5.) Machiavelli’s The Prince

And of course there are the holy scriptures from all traditions. These are the ultimate self-help books. They focus on personal development, not how to win a war or make love.

But what I think flowered in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of bringing the fruits of science into the mix, in the form of psychology. Titles like PsychoCybernetics and Gestalt Therapy became popular. But there is something about psychology as science that leaves one feeling emotionally/spiritually starved. So in the 60s and 70s you had all these psychologists ‘crossing over’ into the religious side – giving people what they want and need. And that’s what is referred to as the ‘new age’ movement.

Personally, I think I lean toward the spiritual side because I was raised a Catholic. A person raised as a Protestant, with the same interests as me, might tend to lean more toward psychology and the scientific methods. But I don’t know.

It’s a pleasure to talk to someone who is actually serious about being part of the ‘self-help’ game.

It’s also worth mentioning the many parody books such as: ‘I’m Ok – You’re Not So Hot’, or ‘I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional’. Or a parody on Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet titled The Profit. I’ve had my own ideas for parody titles: How Not To Be Such a Complete F**k-Up, The Six Habits of Highly Unsuccessful People, When Bad Things Happen to People Who Deserve It.

Lots of fun.

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Love the Gilgamesh advice. See, and there are people who think you can't learn anything useful in a bar...
:wink:

Self-help books have a long tradition in the U.S. We are a nation of pioneers (not talking about various Native American tribes here, of course, but about the white people who came to steal the land), fed up with authority in Europe and elsewhere, looking for wide, open spaces (both physically and psychologically). Without much formalized education at the time of the pioneers and little infra-structure, do-it-yourself was a valued quality. But of course there couldn't be a profitable self-help book mass market until literacy was en vogue and widespread. So, the self-help industry of the 60s and 70s did hit fertile ground but mined that ground in a way nobody before did, making a killing with it. Even today, new age is still big business. It's sad. Whenever a new skill gets widespread, there is an opportunity. Food is more widely available and nobody here has to hunger. What happens? People eat junk and don't exercise, and morbid obesity is at an all time high. Most people here in this country can read now. What do they read? Many of them gobble down the literary analogue to the junk food they eat. Same thing with the internet. The higher order conversations we have here are an exception, not the rule.
I can see my paradigm for science is different from yours. And I don’t think either of our views will be proven correct.
In my humble opinion, paradigms are not about factual correctness or incorrectness but about functionality given a certain circumstance. A paradigm (just as a myth, a paradigm is just a more wordy myth, in the way I use the word) is a story we make up to facilitate our interactions with the world. In a luxurious civilization without true survival pressure, in which even people completely off the grid find enough food in dumpsters to get by, a "the world is a fun and happy place; why drive ourselves nuts working too hard and getting a heart attack?" (hippyesque) paradigm might work well. In a post-apocalyptic world with a complete breakdown of all civilization and return to a survival of the most brutal attitude, such a paradigm will be weeded out quickly, because in such a situation, it would simply get you killed. So, in the latter, an "eat or get eaten" paradigm might be more appropriate. No paradigm is absolutely right or absolutely wrong but some are of wider or narrower applicability. For example "everything in the Bible is literally true" might work well in a small village in the Bible belt but not very well in the rest of the world, while "love your enemies" is a bit wider (but still not universally) applicable.

It's very well possible that my paradigm works for me and your paradigm works for you. However, a too wide definition of "science" is currently causing a lot of damage, I feel. My heart hurts, when I read Campbell write the following in his "Myths to Live by": "It seems impossible today, but people actually believed all that until as recently as half a century or so ago: clergymen, philosophers, government officers, and all. Today we know--and know quite well--that there was never anything of the kind: No Garden of Eden anywhere on this earth, no time when the serpent could talk, no prehistoric "Fall," no exclusion from the garden, no universal Flood, no Noah's Ark. The entire history on which our leading Occidental religions have been founded is an anthology of fictions. (The Emergence of Mankind, pg. 25)." or "However, today such claims can no longer be taken seriously by anyone with even a kindergarten education (The Impact of Science on Myth, pg. 10).

Campbell said those words in 1966 and 1961. Would he write the same thing today, forty-some years later? In a today that has a U.S. president who was and is seriously courting fundamentalist Christians in order to get elected and stay in power? In a U.S., in which some influential people are putting effort into eroding the separation between church and state, with the (to me hollow-sounding) argument of protecting Christian religious freedom??? People who don't get that to put Christ out of the prayer room and into the market place, forcing their beliefs on other people is likely to devalue their practice rather than elevate it? But, hey, if you don't care about true practice but simple numbers, then more and more people accepting the Lord as their personal savior is a good thing, even if they don't actually practice what they preach. What about inner city schools that seem to spend more time searching kids for weapons and witnessing a seeming surge of learning disabilities (or simply seeing the result of parents' desperate attempt to work multiple jobs and make ends meet, thus farming out teaching their kids to other people, hoping it'll turn out ok?)? Here are some numbers in regards to the foothold of anti-scientific fundamentalism, using the example of the creationism vs. evolution "discussion" (or shall we say "mission"):

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... elongs.php

In my eyes, your idea (or "paradigm") that considering "soft" science merely a kinder, gentler form of science with just as much relevance as "hard" science is a dangerous one, because it feeds into such views. Creationism is viewed as "science" by some people (enough that some Southern U.S. school boards occasionally consider in earnest to include it into high school biology education). But it seems to me that they are merely so successful at confusing such a large number of people, because well-meaning intellectuals like you and I have (in the interest of overcoming ethnocentric, cultural, and gender biases) seriously weakened the boundaries of what "science" is and isn't. I'm including myself here, because I used to talk just like you about this, saying, hey, let's be more inclusive here, because more voices are a good thing. Over the past few years, I've watched with concern how this diversity of perspectives as to what "science" is has been used by demagogues trying to confuse people who didn't get the benefit of an education that would enable them to call "bull" when they see it. I'm not sure of all of the exact causes, but from the looks of it "science"-education is failing our high school kids and, by college, science literacy has turned into an elite skill, hidden in some ivory tower. Has it always been that way? Maybe. I always loved science, and when I was younger I was taking for granted that it would always be there. That's partly what got me back into school (from a decade working as a trained graphic designer to going for a B.A. in psychology now and, when that's done, see if I have enough money and energy left for a masters or PhD), to suddenly realize that science isn't meant to stay unless we nurture and nourish it. Science is currently under attack, and it seems to me that any attempt at weakening and softening what "science" means to include the more fuzzy branches of the behavioral sciences is, though perfectly legitimate from a philosophical standpoint, rather dangerous in practice.

I agree that both your and my "paradigms" are correct, because both are inventions that help us structure the world and guide ourselves. But it seems to me that the "softness" with which the Humanities tend to define "science" has led to not more enlightenment as hoped but simply to softer noggins, and has contributed, even more so than the hippy-counterhippy divide that you describe in the "worst generation" thread, to the emergence and strengthening of fundamentalism. I'm not saying you are wrong there, just that it's only one of multiple factors. The accidental creation of a "oh, well, let's not be too reductionist, people--peace out..." pseudo-science with the intention of creating greater diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and more voices to be heard is another factor, and one I find more insidious, because in order to even see it, one needs to look closer and further than many people are willing to look.

What is the solution, and is there one?

Of course censoring each other wouldn't be a solution at all. To say, hey, ditch your paradigm and join mine isn't what I am trying to do... even though some of my passionate rants might make it seem that way. If that's the case, why do I even bother? Actually, because I have this weird, optimistic superstition that putting ideas out there is like sowing seeds. They will occasionally take root and start growing. Maybe in the person to whom I write. Maybe in somebody else who is lurking. Maybe in myself. I'm not sure into what they will grow and there is no control over what their growth will trigger. Sometimes I might not like the fruits I reap, sometimes they might trigger something miraculous and beautiful that I didn't even dare to expect or hope. Who knows. But life is short and I like doing things, so here is one of my seeds:

If going back to the old paradigm would be censorship (and impossible anyhow, 'cause Pandora's cat is out of the bag now and is scratching anybody trying to put her back in) and the new paradigm is making people confused and stupid, maybe just another paradigm isn't exactly what we need. What if what we truly need is trans-paradigmatic thinking???

Huh?

What would that look like? Is that even possible, given how our brains work? According to Merriam-Webster's online-dictionary, a paradigm is described as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Can we exist without paradigms? Probably not, except from moments of complete flow, as in (for some people under certain circumstances) athletics, dance, sex, or Zazen. Whenever we leave that flow of immediate, direct experience, we start thinking. Whenever we start thinking, we need some kind of symbolic framework that structures our thinking. To try and think without paradigms would be like trying to do pottery without clay... an elaborate dance, a kind of performance art, but not an enterprise that would yield a pot into which we can put things.

So, if we daringly out-rule "no paradigm at all" but each paradigm that we adopt tends to dangerously narrow our perspective, what remains? Three things, it seems to me: (1.) Acute and sensitive awareness of our paradigms whenever they do their thing. (2.) Training our ability to switch them at will rather than cling to one for dear life. (3.) Look at them in terms of functionality rather than truth.

The fundamentalist paradigm of "One God over all, and I'm the only one who knows what that God looks like and what He taught" is horrible when used to conduct relations in and respond to challenges of a pluralistic world. But if we utilize that exact same paradigm in a church when trying to pray, it might provide us with a nice and helpful focus. So, what's poison in one condition can be medicine in another.

But isn't that spiritual and moral relativism? I don't think so. At least I hope it isn't, because, if you read my above musings, then you can see that I am rather convinced that moral and spiritual relativism are exactly what got us into this mess that we are finding ourselves in. So, what are the differences between moral relativism and the paradigms juggling act that I propose?

(a) Awareness of paradigmatic thinking structures rather than attempting to abandon them entirely: If I'm a moral relativist, I am most likely rejecting the idea of paradigms altogether and operate from a naive hope that, when we simply abandon the old corsages of our thinking, something new, fresh, and creative will emerge. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case in my experience. Sometimes you remove a corsage, and what emerges is flab.

(b) Moral relativism states that any paradigm is equally good. I strongly disagree with that assessment. I'm not saying one paradigm is necessarily more "true" than another, but one might be more FUNCTIONAL than another in a specific situation. When I try to gauge the validity and wide applicability of a philosophical or spiritual insight, I need "hard" science methods. I need to come up with an ingenious methodology, I need to rigorously control for other factors that might play a role, too, I must know my statistics, I must account for my own bias by blinding myself to the details of my experiment as much as I can, I must come up with some form of placebo control, wherever humanly possible, I must know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, etc. If I don't do that, if I widen the term of "science" so much to include "soft" sciences that are inaccessible to the aforementioned rigid methodology, I won't be able to tell if my "insight" was in fact an insight or a crap shot. Our intuition isn't surefire. We are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. "Hard" science tells us, sometimes, when we seem to be on the right track or when we are clearly wrong. "Soft" science doesn't, and that's why it shouldn't be called science, I feel, but philosophy. Nothing wrong with philosophy, I feel, in fact the world needs more of it in my opinion. Psychoanalysis is not a science, not even a "soft" one, but a philosophy (or spiritual method, if you have any hang-ups about the term philosophy and would like another term). It's not using any measurable data and is simply working with anecdotal evidence and Freud's, Jung's, etc. ideas. That doesn't mean it's worthless. I don't think it's worthless. In fact, I feel Jungian psychology is deeply insightful and helpful. But it isn't science, and to pretend it is could potentially weaken the concept of science to the point of worthlessness.

Mythology isn't science either. If we examine the measurable effects of mythology, for example put electrodes on your head and measure the electrical potential of your skull's nerves while you are having a visionary dream, we might get a bit closer to science, but that is still simply one person, so anecdotal rather than statistical measurement. But at least there is measurement. And, of course, it's hard to have visionary dreams, when you're stuck in a copper chamber with electrodes on your head, so the measurement does indeed affect what it measures.

Campbell is not a scientist but a scholar. In my eyes there is no competition between scientists and scholars as to who is better or smarter. There are smart and stupid scientists. There are smart and stupid scholars. There are smart and stupid lay-people. There are smart and stupid crooks. John Gray pretends to be a scientist by adding a PhD to his name that doesn't come from a reputable educational institution. To me that makes him a crook and a fraud, no matter how helpful his teachings might be to some individuals. He starts out with a lie, in order to make more money. I find that problematic and potentially unforgivable. Yes, I'm that narrow-minded. If John Gray would come out and say, hey, I'm simply a lay-person, but I came across something that might be useful to you, I might feel differently about him. But he isn't, and in the process, he's confusing more people about what is and what isn't science, in my eyes a sin that isn't balanced out with however many marriages he might save in the process. The end doesn't justify the means.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... school.htm

But, of course, I'm wearing simply one of my paradigms here, which I can switch to another if it turns out it is not a good fit for what I'm trying to do: further enlightenment and liberation for all sentient beings, including but not limited to myself.
We have the hard sciences at one end of a spectrum: physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, and mathematics as a preferential language. These subjects appeal to our faculty for reason and the discovery of objective truth.
Yes.
At the other end of the spectrum we have fine arts, spirituality/religion, and philosophy. These are subjects that appeal to our faculty for emotion, as for example, watching the tragic hero suffering and dying on the cross, or the celebration of his or her eternal happiness and bliss. Beethoven’s Ninth has nothing to do with objective truth.
I believe "true" art goes further than that. It appeals to more than simply emotion. It has an integrative function. It can literally make us complete and whole. The same goes for "true" spirituality and "true" philosophy (not the word-pushing, divisive kind, but the kind that is raw, honest, vulnerable, and grounded in as well as resulting in practical wisdom and compassionate action). "True" art/spirituality/philosophy isn't some sappy past-time that tugs on our emotional heart-strings. It touches our core. It can rock our world. It can change our life. Beethoven's Ninth might not have anything to do with objective truth, because it doesn't need it. It carries it's own truth, and that truth can be powerful if it hits the fertile ground of a life ready to be touched.
Between these two extremes, there are the subjects of psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, history, geography, political science, etc.
But they are not "between" in that they are an indiscriminate mush between reason and emotion. They are "between" in that the practice of such disciplines has aspects of art and of science, requiring great caution of us in how to conduct them. A cultural anthropologist might have a sudden idea and insight about humanity. That is the art part. Then (s)he starts digging and collecting data, in order to see if the insight holds up to the scrutiny of scholarship. That is the science part. And, if conducted rigorously, it's just as "hard" science as anything biology, physics, and chemistry are able to produce.
Some will say that it cheapens the science of psychology or the science of sociology to say they are less scientific. But that’s only because of our modern arrogance that values reason over emotion.
I wonder if some difficulty many people have with looking at the "hard" science part of social sciences has to do with the anthropocentrism inherent in our culture (yet another of those pesky paradigms, helpful in some situations but hurtful in others). Many people seem to think, when you study humans, you don't have the right to be reductionist. But I feel you do. Not only that, you have the duty to be reductionist in conducting the "hard" science part of your investigation. And then you have the duty to go beyond that and see the bigger picture. Both the science paradigm and the philosophical (my above definition as life-altering self-transformation) paradigm by itself are crippled. They are one foot each. One needs at least two feet to walk properly. You can get places by hopping, but you won't get far and you'll look weird.
But I think we can both agree that the value of human life is not to be measured in dollars, or in how well one can play a game of chess. We are creatures of emotion and reason. And to say that ‘soft sciences’ are not as scientific is not, in my view, to devalue them.
I agree with you that human life is invaluable. So is any other life, and the times, when we have to decide which of several lives to save are truly tragic, I feel. No, I don't feel that I'm at all devaluing "soft" sciences by not considering them science. That would only be the case if I would equate "scientific" with "valuable" (which is what our rationalistically blinded society does, as you correctly mention here). I don't do that. To me, philosophical and mystical realizations are just as valuable as scientific realizations but they are not the same thing!!! The big problem we face is that some of us see only the rationalism and others see only the mysticism. Rationalism, mysticism, and pragmatism are like different colors. To say red is more important that blue or both surely beat yellow doesn't make sense. To say red, yellow, and blue are the same thing doesn't make sense either. Only if we truly understand and value red, yellow, AND blue are we able to paint an entire rainbow of colors.
One example from psychology. I read about ‘happiness studies’ that show a correlation between church attendance and happiness. On average, the more church attendance, the happier one was. Without worrying about the reason for the correlation in these studies, I consider them science. But it’s not the same as hard science, as measuring the cosmic background radiation for example. Happiness, at least in these studies, was not a physical measurement. Happiness is not believed to be an objective reality. But I don’t find such studies any less useful than studies in the ‘hard sciences’.
But this is "hard" science, as long as the study is conducted with proper methodology and aware of its own weaknesses and limitations. For example, you need a sample size that is large enough to yield statistically meaningful results (if your sample size is small, random fluctuations play too much of a role). You need to collect as much objective data as possible, so to me measuring the church goers' blood pressure and endorphin levels as well as how much cortisol is in their saliva might be more meaningful than their answer on a questionnaire or to a phone survey as to how happy they are. Self-reported data is notorious for being skewed by what people think you want to hear rather than what their actual experience is. Also, it would make sense to look at more than one church, for example churches in affluent and poor neighborhoods, to try and see if socio-economic factors might provide a confounding variable in this case. This also has to be controlled for age, gender, and other factors. If the number of old people who go to church is disproportionally high, then we might think that church going correlates with happiness but have in fact found out instead that age correlates with happiness, that all the unhappy, super-stressed people already died from strokes and heart-attacks, leaving the happy, churchgoing ones for us to survey... Last but not least, the study will be scrutinized by other researchers for reproducibility and potential methodological problems (similar to the above more or less random rundown, which is only a small selection of what can be problems in research in the social sciences).

So, yes, if all of the above and then some factors are accounted for, this research is indeed "hard" science. If they aren't, and somebody is merely making statements that are gobbled up by that person's audience (a self-selected sample rather than a true cross-section of the population) as it is the case with John Gray and other self-declared self-help gurus, it's not "soft" science but no science at all.

Sorry for being such a hard head about this.

Even if you don't agree with me, I still think you're cool!!
:-) Julia

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Pandora’s cat!

Pandora has a cat? All these years I’ve known Pandora and I never even knew about her cat.

I think we do have to live with Pandora’s cat and do our best to tame her rather than be at her mercy or try to stuff her back into the bag - as you say. It has to do with the way science developed and with the problems of human consciousness. You said psychology is still young. Science is really very young. The word ‘scientist’ didn’t enter the language until the early part of the 19th century. At that time, they were still calling physics ‘natural philosophy’. But now, you and I have no problem separating philosophy from science.

And the middle path, which I believe includes psychology, sociology, and history, is a perilous path indeed.
Sorry for being such a hard head about this.

- SomeHopes
No, no, no. There are three things I should say. First, that I absolutely love this kind of philosophical debating. Second, when people agree on everything it’s no fun. So I always focus on the 5% I disagree with. And third, I believe we are on the same team so-to-speak. We are both disgusted with scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudo-science.

From what you’ve written I don’t think we have to juggle paradigms. Just a few semantic quirks to hammer out – I believe.
…too wide a definition of "science" is currently causing a lot of damage…

-SomeHopes
Poor science, pseudo-science, and science illiteracy is causing the problems. The ultimate in pseudo-science I can think of in my time was Erich Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods. But, with the proper quantity of drugs it’s not poor science at all. And pretty good religion to boot.
The big problem we face is that some of us see only the rationalism and others see only the mysticism.

- SomeHopes
That’s a legitimate complaint. We live in an age of specialization and collusion. That is why in my ‘worst generation’ thread I have the social scheme of a ‘no man’s land’ between atheists and ‘new and old’ spiritual types.

To me, philosophical and mystical realizations are just as valuable as scientific realizations but they are not the same thing!!!

- SomeHopes

That is why I put them in different categories.

1.) Hard Science (reason)
2.) Soft Science (mixture or blend of reason and emotion)
3.) Art, philosophy, Spirituality/Religion (emotion)

Of course reason is used in philosophy and emotion in hard science. Our brains don't function one half at a time. (As neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor suggested Link ) But I still like my paradigm.

So where would astrology fit into my scheme? There was a time in the West when it was taken as seriously as we take Hard Science. But now, I’d put it solidly in the third category. I heard an astrologer on a talk show once saying that she only works with verifiable facts. People want to believe it is based on science. That isn’t going to bother me as far as my paradigm goes. I don’t have control over other people’s beliefs.


Creation Science, too, is in category three as far as I’m concerned. Many of the cable channel pseudo-science programs belong in category three. But it’s like the tabloid magazines. They mix in enough truth sometimes for me to wonder how much to believe. But I don’t consider it science. It’s entertainment masquerading as science.

And I never lost a bit of sleep worrying about how scientific Doctoorr John Gray was. Truth is, I never even read his book. I thought the social impact he has had is interesting and really very funny. We needed a book to tell us that men and women are different. I can hear our grandparents saying, ‘you mean - you never noticed?’. But they may not realize how stoned out of our minds we were in the late 60s and early 70s, (as Marianne Williamson recalls), or how delusional we were (as Joseph Campbell observed). There were many, many hippie-myths. But I should talk about those in the ‘worst generation’ thread.

(And BTW, Clemsy and Bodhi aren’t merely a couple of smart dudes. They actually set the standard for smartness - and coolness as well. That’s what I love about this forum. Joseph Campbell tends to attract people with large hearts and minds.)

Trying to get to the bone of contention here. Psychology, Cultural anthropology, and History belong in category two.
But they are not "between" in that they are an indiscriminate mush between reason and emotion. They are "between" in that the practice of such disciplines has aspects of art and of science, requiring great caution of us in how to conduct them. A cultural anthropologist might have a sudden idea and insight about humanity. That is the art part. Then (s)he starts digging and collecting data, in order to see if the insight holds up to the scrutiny of scholarship. That is the science part. And, if conducted rigorously, it's just as "hard" science as anything biology, physics, and chemistry are able to produce.

Not only that, you have the duty to be reductionist in conducting the "hard" science part of your investigation. And then you have the duty to go beyond that and see the bigger picture. Both the science paradigm and the philosophical (my above definition as life-altering self-transformation) paradigm by itself are crippled. They are one foot each. One needs at least two feet to walk properly.

- SomeHopes
Okay, in my scheme the two feet of category (1) and (3) are mixed together to create category (2). In your scheme there are only two categories and they should be mixed discretely – not blended to create a third category between the two.

Your scheme:

1.) All sciences
2.) Art, philosophy, spirituality/religion

I think there is a middle way. But it has nothing to do with sloppy or pseudo-science.

Happiness, at least in these studies, was not a physical measurement. Happiness is not believed to be an objective reality. But I don’t find such studies any less useful than studies in the ‘hard sciences’.

- NoMan


* * * * * * *

But this is "hard" science, as long as the study is conducted with proper methodology and aware of its own weaknesses and limitations.

You need to collect as much objective data as possible, so to me measuring the church goers' blood pressure and endorphin levels as well as how much cortisol is in their saliva might be more meaningful than their answer on a questionnaire…

- SomeHopes


If you collected endorphin levels and blood pressure that would indeed be hard science. If you used surveys as I understood was used in this study that would be soft science. There is no law that says you can’t use both. But there is a difference. And it has to do with a theory of knowledge and of consciousness. And it isn’t all that easy to explain so bear with me.

Australian Philosophy Professor Frank Jackson proposed a famous thought experiment which has come to be known as ‘The Mary Problem’.

Mary is a scientist who was raised in a black and white room. She was educated with black and white books. She has access to a black and white television monitor. She knows everything about the visible light spectrum, measuring different wavelengths of light. She also knows everything about the effect these wavelengths have on the human eye, the optical nerves, and on the human brain. She’s a neuroscientist and knows the effect of colors on the human brain down to the very last synapse. But she has never seen color herself – until she is released from her black and white room. Then she sees a red rose, and green grass, and a blue sky.

Most people would agree, that Mary, after leaving her black and white room, acquired knowledge about color that she previously did not have. But what does that knowledge consist of? If you have never heard of this thought experiment spend a little time attempting to answer this question. There's something mysterious and a little bit terrifying about it. In 2004 there was a book published on 'The Mary Problem'.

There's Something About Mary


The point here is that experiential knowledge is not the same as objective knowledge. A person who is deaf from birth, no matter how hard he or she studied, or experienced, could never hear Beethoven’s Ninth. There would always be something lacking in his or her knowledge compared to you or I.

In theory – just in theory now – the hard sciences deal with objective knowledge – with things that can be measured physically – and with a belief in an objective truth. And if you hooked electrodes up to people’s brains, or measured people’s blood pressure that would indeed be hard science. Psychophysiology is hard science. But most psychology and sociology studies I’ve heard of have little to do with hard science. For example, I could see a study trying to measure the effect of divorce on children of different ages. You just can’t take the subjective knowledge out of it. Emotional pain or well-being isn’t usually measured with MRIs or PET scans. So we use these soft science studies. But they just aren’t the same as hard science explanations. I can’t see them as being the same.


When I hear that there’s a correlation between ‘many choices’ and ‘unhappiness’ I sort of believe it. It’s useful information. But I don’t believe it as much as I believe the sun is approximately 93 million miles away. Not that I’ve measured either one myself. But I trust hard science more than soft.


But it doesn’t have anything to do with sloppy science or con-artist science. There’s plenty of that in both the hard and soft sciences. It has to do with the problem of human consciousness that affords us two ways of knowing.


This is at the heart of the science wars, and why Alan Sokal made us laugh by suggesting we look at the Pi of Euclid and the G of Newton from a feminist point of view. It’s hippie delusionism run amuck. But we can’t just kill Pandora's cat or pretend she doesn’t exist – any more than we can pretend that the subjective knowledge of color doesn’t exist. For better or for worse...

- Pandora’s cat is here to stay.


Image
http://www.artpaw.com/cats.html



- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

somehopesnoregrets
Associate
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Northern California

Post by somehopesnoregrets »

Pandora has a cat? All these years I’ve known Pandora and I never even knew about her cat.
I don't think she did in the past. I just made her up. I believe the cat enjoys sleeping in Schroedinger's Box... Not the safest place for a cat, of course, but she likes living dangerously... That's the fun thing about myths and other made up things, if we are daring and creative enough, we get to happily add to them.
:wink:

Pandora definitely does sound like a cat person rather than a dog person.
Science is really very young. The word ‘scientist’ didn’t enter the language until the early part of the 19th century. At that time, they were still calling physics ‘natural philosophy’. But now, you and I have no problem separating philosophy from science.
The term may be rather young. However, the basic ideas of the scientific method are much older than the term "science" and were described beautifully by Francis Bacon in his "Novum Organum," almost 400 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Organum
We are both disgusted with scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudo-science.
Amen, Brother!!!!
That is why in my ‘worst generation’ thread I have the social scheme of a ‘no man’s land’ between atheists and ‘new and old’ spiritual types.
But then, I do know mystical atheists. Maybe they call themselves "secular humanists" rather than "mystics," but they live self-transcendent lives, which to me is what matters. So, I would rather draw the line between

(a) self-transcendent atheists and self-transcendent spiritual types, whatever terminology they may use, and

(b) selfishly dualistically moralizing atheists and spiritual types, and

(c) pragmatic types who are realistic about the limits of human nature without losing their optimism over it (come in both atheist and spiritual types, too)

The true difference, I feel is not the spiritual orientation (towards God versus towards life) but the direction of practice (towards something transcendent and/or practical rather than towards ego). Does that make any sense whatsoever, or am I getting really cryptic here? In my experience, a self-transcendent atheist has a whole lot more in common with a self-transcendent spiritual person than a self-transcendent spiritual person would have in common with either a superstitious spiritual person or a non-self-transcendent, moralizing atheist. Where, by the way, do you place Buddhists, who don't believe in a personalized deity that has to be appeased through prayer or action but in practice for practice's sake? Are they atheists or spiritual folks in your system? Just curious...
Okay, in my scheme the two feet of category (1) and (3) are mixed together to create category (2). In your scheme there are only two categories and they should be mixed discretely – not blended to create a third category between the two.

Your scheme:

1.) All sciences
2.) Art, philosophy, spirituality/religion

I think there is a middle way. But it has nothing to do with sloppy or pseudo-science.
Actually, I think I might have more than 2 categories. Right now I'm looking at 8, but don't quote me on that ten years down the road 'cause my schemata are always works in progress...

1.A) All sciences ("hard" or "soft") conducted with self-transcendent motivation (love for wisdom, wanting to further enlightenment, easing suffering)

1.B) All sciences ("hard" or "soft") conducted with selfish motivation (profit, ego-gratification, fame)

2.A) Art/politics/philosophy/spirituality/religion conducted with self-transcendent motivation (see above)

2.B) Art/politics/philosophy/spirituality/religion conducted with selfish motivation (see above)

3.A) Tricksters, shamans, true bridge people, natural mystics, mythological master-minds and -hearts

3.B) Snake-oil sales people, merchants in the temple and other frauds

4.A) Confused yet well-meaning cannon fodder

4.B) Confused yet ill-meaning perpetrators

The transition between all of these categories is fluid. For example somebody can start out as a true, self-transcendent artist (2.A) and then be corrupted by success into (2.B). So, instead of a permanent label for people, these categories are more like lands to which we travel. Travel to 1 and 2. A and B is harder, because there are obstacles, both formal and informal, to acquiring mastery in the scientific method or in the artistic methods. Membership in 3.A) cannot be forged but has to be granted by Fate (whatever that may be, a God for the theist, a more or less random dance of genes and environment for the rationalist). Each of these categories has an emotional and a rational side, but the emphases between these sides may differ.

I'm not sure if there really is a clean line between 4.A and B, because people can be well-meaning and still be perpetrators, or they can be mean-spirited cannon fodder. So, if I wanted to push it, I could make those a 5th category with another A and B, but don't want to give that much room to confusion... An aesthetic rather than practical choice, I guess...

We cannot in clear conscience look down on any of those, because there is a seed for each of them in each of us. Hating them means hating part of who we are. That doesn't mean accepting them. We can dedicate our life to combating mean-spirited perpetrators (or by trying to seduce them into cooperation rather than confrontation), but that doesn't mean we have to hate them. You can combat something without hating it. Most people I meet don't get that.

I guess, there is something to your differentiation into "hard"/objective science and "soft"/subjective science. I still consider psychological science "hard" science as long as it's aware of its methodological challenges, but that might just be a result of my own pride and vanity, since I'm studying to be a research psychologist. I've just met too many fellow students who use the idea of subjective science as a cop out to be too comfortable with that. But I can better see where you are coming from with that distinction. And, yes, ideally there are elements of both, objectivity and subjectivity, in whatever we examine (according to Einstein's theory of relativity even such "hard" measurements as mass and time depend on the perspective and speed of both observer and observed and are therefore ultimately subjective).
But I trust hard science more than soft.
Interesting that you introduce the topic of "trust" here. I do believe that is an important one in this context but am not completely sure yet as to where it fits in. I'll roll that around more in my head and will report back.

With loving respect,
:-) Julia

Locked