|
U-Know! Forum » The weak forum project.. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2009, 01:59
Jan 21, 2009, 01:54
|
||
|
Are you aware that during our last knock-down/drag-out argument, I was essentially expressing many of the same ideas as you've just done, except I was using the language of group psychodynamics to do it? I suspect we are probably violently agreeing, as much as we violently disagree. And while I know you have no time for all that Group Psych nonsense, I make no apologies for the fact that I'm currently steeped in it and believe it provides a vital perspective on the world. But if you cut through the jargon, you'll probably find that we're at least in the same book -- even if not on quite the same page.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 02:02
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: (incidentally, and at the risk of reiterating a previous point, I think you're rather inaccurate when you try to place me within the Evo Psych fold. "Group Psychodynamics" is my field, and without wanting to get all technical and pedantic, that's rather different to Evolutionary Psychology. I'm not saying that some of your criticisms of Evo Psych might not also apply to Group Psychodynamics, merely that they are two distinct fields) Ha, oh god man, I know that. I was just pushing pisstaking academic buttons, as evo psych is the (rightly) most maligned of the social sciences. I've been doing it to get a rise. As I'm trying to indicate in other posts in this thread, I'm pretty much open to any interpretations and analysis methodologies, especially now it seems. As much as I love and respect Feynmann I'm not the kind to say as he did "The social sciences are not actually science". I read way too much philosophy and cultural theory to knee jerk like that. Honestly, although some of your posts and their tone do make me explode into angsty WAH!!! DATA!!! POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS!! they do make me think, and I have been missing them. Although I too go through post/no post phases here I do miss reading them, even if I fundamentally disagree I devour every viewpoint and method. Even if I don't post, I am reading them. Most of the time though its true that I don't post because they make me too apoplectic ;). Everything else in your post, yep, I completely concur. As said these things about the actual forum itself are more considerations than genuine problems. I was really provoking a debate here, possible for selfish ends in order to sort out my own thought processes, I can't honestly be sure now. I figured it would be good to discuss this place though and how it's changed and is changing. Thats your field though innit.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2009, 02:06
Jan 21, 2009, 02:05
|
||
|
Yes, definitely, I'm coming around to realising that now *blush*. Hey, my philosophical and mathematical jargon would equally make your eyes bulge in horror I'm sure. I have certain character flaws picked up from mathematics, hell I even hate physicists who seem incapable of properly declaring their variables. I have acknowledged this problem, and I am trying to deal with it. So.. er... bear with me.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 02:11
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: on the subject of the "privileged" nature of the forum... well, as you yourself acknowledge, there's a certain inevitability in that. If you speak English and have regular internet access plus the time to spend on a web forum, then -- chances are -- you're one of the privileged few (globally speaking). An extremely important point. I'll be the first to admit that my views are largely formed and informed by the rare luck to have been born in a certain time and place and to a certain ethnically privileged demographic. I fully confess that I throw myself into many a debate where I really don't belong thru any merit of experience or stake in the outcome. I enjoy the chance to talk about this stuff, tho. Considering how many people on this planet risk imprisonment or death for daring to discuss anything of real value, I cherish it as both a privilege and a responsibility.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 02:39
|
||
|
stray wrote: As I'm trying to indicate in other posts in this thread, I'm pretty much open to any interpretations and analysis methodologies, especially now it seems. As much as I love and respect Feynmann I'm not the kind to say as he did "The social sciences are not actually science". I read way too much philosophy and cultural theory to knee jerk like that. Arguably this is highly self-indulgent of me (so apologies in advance), but this point of yours calls to mind the introductory chapter of my thesis. If I may be so bold, I'll reproduce it here without further comment. ==================== Everywhere I go, I find that a poet has been there before me. -- Sigmund Freud When Sigmund Freud began developing the theory and methodology of psychoanalysis, he was attempting to create a science of the mind. And for much of his life he appeared to maintain that the nature of his work was essentially "scientific", that he was involved in a process which would ultimately do for the human mind what physiology and medicine had done for the body. It was a noble goal, but it was a process he didn't complete successfully. Not due to any fault in his attempts, but because the goal was never truly within his reach. As has been argued by many critics of Freud -- most notably perhaps, the philosopher Karl Popper -- the claims and theories of psychoanalysis, particularly with regard to the unconscious, can be neither falsified nor verified in anything like a traditional "scientific" sense. Our mental world belongs to what Descartes termed the realm of privileged access; it cannot be summoned forth into a laboratory for measurement and classification, and we must content ourselves with studying the effects of this mental world on the physical one -- via the reports and behaviour of individuals -- in order to know anything at all about it. So even those of us who are most strident in our support of Freud's legacy must accept that psychoanalysis is not a science in the same sense that physics, chemistry or even biology is a science. It does not deal in verifiable or falsifiable facts, and there are critics of the field who see this as a fatal flaw. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that while psychoanalysis may not deal in scientific fact, it unquestionably deals in truth. And while the methodology of psychoanalysis may not have culminated in a scientific discipline, it brought the power and rigour of the scientific method to bear on the mind, which in turn lifted the psyche out of the realm of the quasi-mystical and into the mainstream of human knowledge. Indeed it's clear that Freud himself understood this to a large extent. As early as 1917, in the preface to his Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, Freud writes that "It was not possible in my presentation to preserve the unruffled calm of a scientific treatise". And while we should be wary of reading too much into that single, throwaway line, Freud was very specific in a 1934 interview conducted by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Papini… Everybody thinks that I stand by the scientific character of my work and that my principal scope lies in curing mental maladies. This is a terrible error that has prevailed for years and that I have been unable to set right. I am a scientist by necessity, and not by vocation. I am really by nature an artist... And of this there lies an irrefutable proof: which is that in all countries into which psychoanalysis has penetrated it has been better understood and applied by writers and artists than by doctors. My books, in fact, more resemble works of imagination than treatises on pathology... I have been able to win my destiny in an indirect way, and have attained my dream: to remain a man of letters, though still in appearance a doctor. So while the theories presented by Freud, and those who followed him, cannot be conveniently moulded into the shape of scientific fact; the truths contained within them are no less valid -- no less vital -- both to us as individuals and to society as a whole. So much so, that we should view with suspicion, and no little concern, any attempt to reject or discredit psychoanalysis merely because it fails to conform to a structure originally built to contain the physical sciences. As Bateson observes… We may joke about the way misplaced concreteness abounds in every word of psychoanalytic writing -- but in spite of (this), psychoanalysis remains as the outstanding contribution, almost the only contribution to our understanding of the family -- a monument to the importance and value of loose thinking. And that observation doesn't even tell a fraction of the story. The "concreteness" of neurobiology is hardly in dispute. So when we are told, for instance, that memories are acquired through the formation and alteration of protein clusters in the parahippocampal gyrus, we have no reason to doubt it. Furthermore, this explanation of memory has many practical applications and is surely of immense use in a range of situations. What it fails to do, however, is explain anything at all about "the problem of having a mind" to lift a phrase from Wilfred Bion; about the experience of "being human". For this we must turn to psychoanalysis, and it is for this that we owe such a debt of gratitude to Freud and his "misplaced concreteness". This point needs to be made at the outset -- even at the risk of labouring it -- because, as we shall see, when we apply the tools of psychoanalysis to the collective psyche of contemporary culture we are led to a troubling conclusion; a conclusion it would be foolhardy, even dangerous, to dismiss or ignore based upon an ideological objection. Before we commence that analysis, however, it is worth taking a brief look at the basic elements of Freud's topography and highlighting the ways in which it can be applied to groups as well as individuals. For psychoanalysis to have any relevance at all, we must obviously first locate an identifiable psyche, and the reality of a 'collective mind' with its own internal structure and drives is by no means a given.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2009, 03:19
Jan 21, 2009, 03:13
|
||
|
Nice, I get it and yes its pretty much the perfect answer to the part of my post you quoted. I still do twitch a bit when you make a distinction between fact and truth. But thats a point of definition though I imagine, as in, the observations made of an individual or a group are, even subjectively interpreted, a 'truth'. Is that correct. I'd have figured Spinozas concept of being leads more comfortably into psychoanalysis (specifically what he said about active and passive emotions) than Descartes less malleable form of dualism. *shrug* anyroad... yeah... I get the rationale behind your quote. Kind of. Ha, you can understand my struggle there I'm sure. Do you reference any modern philosophy or modern metaphysics at all. Erm.. Now, I'm not suggesting D&G who have quite a scathing commentary on psychoanalysis (much like Lyotard who hates Freud quite specifically) favouring Guattaris own schizoanalysis. But I dunno, I think theres a lot you could like in some of Baudrillard, Foucalt or even Derrida (if you can make it through a paragraph of Derrida without dropping dead). Derrida, to an extent sortof(ish), they all deal with social & cultural forms and pressures quite a bit, whereas Derrida focuses more on the erm.. grammar of thought. Actually while he's uppermost in my conciousness at the moment I think a lot of Paul Virilios stuff (not a philosopher, erm, a cultural theorist really) especially 'War and Cinema' and 'The Information Bomb'. I'd have thought that he specifically would be your -go to guy- outside of your field. Edit : go to guy as in he'd be a damn good source for meat to argue against as much as support. But yeah, I know how thesis work, and I know jumping outside of your field for any kind of validation is more than a little tricksy and can essentially weaken your work considerably. Bottom line. I've always seen modern philosophy and modern social sciences borrowing heavily from each other. As my own personal opinion goes, admittedly not worth much, I do not like psychoanalysis when employed on an individual. However, I have a lot less issues, in fact I'm quite excited, by the possibility of it being employed on groups actually as groups. If that makes sense. Hope so.
|
|||
Shelby Mustang 605 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 07:24
|
||
|
HEY STRAY...sorry i've been shouting. man, you've made me think far more about this forum and my contribution to it. you've brought to the surface the issue of us all policing this thing as well as doing the quality control. thing is, i love this place. and with the exception of the tory fuck i decided to fucking ignore i love everyone on here. i've noseyed around some other sites and the abuse and racism is just horrendous, it's difficult finding someone to communicate with amidst the torrent of shit that people post. and that's just a forum about my beloved Formula One. Julian Cope was the reason five years back that i came here (well him and his missus actually...cor, she's fucking gorgeous) and it's the only place i come to when i come on here (here being the typewriter). i'm not really saying a great deal cos it's time for me to get to work and i'm thinking building materials. thig is i'm not saying 'that's alright stray not a problem' cos then i'd sound like a stepford wife who was about to kill you for upsetting the status quo but then backed off cos you relented. which would really suck. but i am saying nice one mate for booting me up the arse and making me think cos i'd be a fucking ship at sea without this place. that was all nonsensical bollocks but i hope you catch my drift... in the meantime...BOING'''' TIME FOR WORK XX
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 14:48
|
||
|
I don't think there's any apologies from you needed about raising the points you did Stray - you asked valid questions and it's always good to have a bit of a mental Spring Clean and see what's what on here from time to time. Interesting that such a discussion should arise at this point in time, on the cusp of such potential and change in the world. I guess U-Know has just, like the rest of the site, evolved. Maybe in a years time it'll all be about cake recipes and cat maintenance and Holy will have to make another forum. And I think it should be noted that just because people aren't replying or debating a subject doesn't mean they're not reading it and taking it on board. I've often read stuff on here and felt no real need to respond or add to it simply because someone has already said it with greater clarity and with a greater knowledge of the subject they're writing about. I suppose it's a bit like asking questions on HH as a whole. I've often asked questions about a band or a subject that I know I could probably google it and get the info I'm after, but I like the sharing of info with like-minded souls with whom you've developed something of a relationship with because A) it's a cool thing to do, and B) More often than not you're more likely to get a more informed, impassioned and maybe even downright funnier answer to your question than simply a google-sourced set of dry facts. Actually, that's another strength of U-Know that shouldn't be over-looked; it allows for humour to be used even when BIG issues are being discussed. I'm sure on other sites there's a risk of being booted off for lack of appropriate gravitas when debating, whereas on here you can be as glib or as deep as you like, and given the often frankly absurd state of play in modern politics today, I think the room to take the piss is welcome if not an absolute necessity!
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 21, 2009, 15:26
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: first locate an identifiable psyche, and the reality of a 'collective mind' with its own internal structure and drives is by no means a given. This is, after all, a very important issue which has been addressed many times in both Philosophy and Cultural & Art Theory, and I would be interested (very) to read how you frame it.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jan 22, 2009, 13:36
|
||
|
stray wrote: On the whole it tends to be people posting science articles or the occasional news story for the rest of us to get righteously indignant about, or support, and circle jerk about it. Forgive my ignorance, but what else do you expect to happen on a political forum? U-Know, and indeed most political forums I have knowledge of, consist in the large part of people bringing stuff to one another's attention. The phrase 'circle jerk' is somewhat disparaging. stray wrote: Look at whats happening in Gaza, the few threads... There are plenty of organisations and charities we could have advertised you mean like the Solidarity Movement volunteer's blog I linked to that people can donate to? stray wrote: Basically we don't discuss anything of note Again, I'm not seeing the change. There have always been things that pass us by, because none of us has time to comment fully on all the news items we are concerned about and all the things that don't make the news too. stray wrote: I know we're mostly left and green but there hasn't been any politcal discourse/new ideas here for ages. rather than bemoan the lack of it, why not start it? If it's what you want to talk about, nobody's stopping you. stray wrote: if someone posts something contrary to the hivemind does this place actually resort to personal attacks, or do the forum regulars make a serious attempt at discussion? I see the latter over and over again. I've seen personal attacks, but they get ignored or disarmed pretty sharpish. That particular point is one that separates U-Know from most other boards I've visited. That said, of course if someone holds a political view that stems from a position that you view as repugnant, it's a fine line. But I think that, headstrong revolutionary or fluffy liberal, we're good at staying the right side of the line. This place isn't capable of discussing everything that matters. Nor are any of us capable of doing so from a position of being fully informed on all subjects under discussion. That doesn't mean that what we *do* say doesn't have worth. Want to see other things said here? Great. I'm all ears. Not physically, obviously.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
