Mike Smith wrote: >I nevetheless read (somewhere) that Jung regularly consulted >the I Ching (Chinese book of wisdom and divination).
Yes - rather more than he consulted Freud. :- ) >As an example, the western mindset would explain that throwing >3 pennies on the floor will result in a certain pattern of heads >and tails as a calculable probability and that is that. The eastern >mindset would agree, but would want to know why that particular >pattern apears at that particular time. So, probability theory can tell >you how often to expect a particular pattern (sort of) but not why >the particular pattern shows. Probability theory is unsatisfying to this >worldview since it more or less says that the particular pattern you >see happened because it happened. Certainly for most people much of the time, and almost all people some of the time, feeling comfortable/satisfied with an explanation guides them more than an evaluation of logical justifications for their beliefs. Mike Britt wrote: >My question about wanting students to "appreciate" his point of >view was born out of my desire to see if any TIPS members who >are more familiar with the philosophical foundations of psychology >had any thoughts to add... I wanted to see if there wasn't a perspective >(or a way of thinking about the world) that Jung grew out of that >I should have discussed in the episode (maybe this would make >students more culturally sensitive?). I guess my question was sparked >by a) my desire to make sure that I was fair to the interviewee who > is an intelligent person who obviously strongly believes in synchronicity >and b) my desire to let students know that not everyone embraces the >scientific method as their preferred way of knowing. Annette Taylor wrote [snip]: >While it may be true that not everyone embraces the scientific method >as their preferred way of knowing, with students (who for the most part >are not yet scientific thinkers) I swing the pendulum the other way, just >hoping to move my students just a teensy weensy teeny tiny bit (that's >scientific jargon for not much) in the direction of scientific thinking. I'm with Annette here. Obviously one must be sensitive in handling such situations, but education sometimes entails putting the arguments for viewpoints that conflict with beliefs students bring with them. A psychology classroom is not a Religion classroom or an Eastern Mysticism classroom. So I think it is entirely legitimate (I would prefer to put it more strongly) that in relation to views held on the foundation that scientific method is not "the preferred way of knowing" to discuss where such a foundation leads - e.g., that one is unable to make distinctions, or judgements, on a whole variety of explanatory beliefs. Leaving aside more obviously extreme examples like the belief that the anger of the god of the mountain explains why Krakatoa exploded, or the "cargo cult", how would one make a judgement on followers of Madame Blavatsky who claim that their weird (and I do mean weird) view of what goes on at the heart of matter is a knowledge-based system. I quote again from the Blavatsky website: "However, it was not just a view - it was based on knowledge. This intelligence in nature can be sensed and known through the mind by advanced seers. A body of seers have checked, tested, and mutually verified their observations on this matter over very long periods of time before accepting them as valid." It is surely entirely appropriate in a psychology class (as in a science class) to point out that if non-scientific "ways of knowing" (such as some of Jung's) are given as much credence as the scientific approach, then Theosophy as a path to knowledge would have a legitimate claim to be on the psychology/science curriculum. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
