stray
|
Re: The weak forum project..
Jan 22, 2009, 13:49
|
|
Merrick wrote:
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.
Yeah, as you'll see from the rest of these posts in this here thread, I'm pretty much of the same opinion, and admittedly a lot of my OP was devils advocate reaction to some complaints from recent newish posters.
Sure, I too have been as guilty as anyone of ignoring debate here. In fact, to my shame, I've been ignoring politics generally, so if anything I've been waking myself up with this thread in a horribly self indulgent manner. I'll try and contribute more though, definitely.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: The weak forum project..
Jan 22, 2009, 15:53
|
|
Moon Cat Sees Into The Future
|
Moon Cat
|
Re: The weak forum project..
Jan 22, 2009, 15:54
|
|
Vybik Jon wrote:
I knew it. Time for U-Bake!
|
Rockabilly
|
Re: The weak forum project..
Jan 22, 2009, 17:22
|
I have read this thread and think just by reading it, it sort of cancels out the original post, if you get what I mean.
In that, in general U-Know is perfect as it is and suits the people of the HH forums.
I have not been on here that long, about a year I think and have gleaned quite a bit of knowledge that I otherwise would know nothing of.
Including some things mentioned in this thread.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry.
Jan 22, 2009, 20:08
|
|
stray wrote: 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.
Well, that's pretty much the bulk of my thesis. And I struggled to condense my position into 15,000 words! So it's not something I can really get across in a few lines.
But here's a précis...
My thesis is titled, "Psychodynamics of An Ecology of Mind". In it I fused the work of two of the great minds of the 20th century -- Sigmund Freud and Gregory Bateson. I added a dash of Wilfred Bion, a hint of Carl Jung and wrapped the whole thing up in a couple of ideas of my own.
The essence of the work was to take Bateson's definition of "mind" -- which he expresses in the language of cybernetics (systems theory) -- and re-express it in psychoanalytic terms. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done before.
Now, given that Bateson's definition of mind can be mapped just as easily (indeed perhaps more easily) onto a collective as onto an individual; once I established that this "mind" was compatible with the Freudian model, it allows the tools of psychoanalysis to be applied to a collective psyche. Which, I would argue, is tremendously useful.
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Jan 22, 2009, 20:13
Re: Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry.
Jan 22, 2009, 20:11
|
|
stray wrote: 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.
Snap!
I wrote something almost identical two and a half years ago in my review of Gregory Bateson's seminal Steps to an Ecology of Mind (in my view and without an ounce of exaggeration; potentially the most important book of the 20th century):
"And it’s fair to say that it’s my views on psychology that have been most influenced by Bateson. Probably the most mind-blowing essay - for me - is Morale and National Character. In it Bateson very clearly presents the reasons why it’s not only legitimate to view and analyse nations using the tools of psychoanalysis, but why those tools are actually far better suited to that task than they are to the task of analysing the individual."
Weird, huh?
|
stray
|
Re: Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry.
Jan 23, 2009, 13:58
|
|
grufty jim wrote: Weird, huh?
Ha, Yep. right I'll track down that Bateson work, and the book you mentioned, and give it a go. Will get back to you in a few weeks or so on it.
|
Merrick
|
moderation
Jan 23, 2009, 14:27
|
|
Harry Worth wrote: [As an aside does anyone moderate this place? It seems to me that there are similar threads on some subjects but they never get linked together]
There's no moderation to link or amalgamate related threads. There is a little watch-over by the webmaster, so anyone who seriously and/or relentlessly breaks the terms of use thingy gets warned and then banned.
That's a very rare occurance, mind. In my eight or nine years here I can only remember three. People do tend to play nice. Obviously, as we're disembodied it's easier to be rude, and on U-Know we're discussing things that we're passionate about on a deep moral level, so it does get heated now and again.
But if someone starts getting personal, pointing out to them that they're not going to win the argument that way, that if they're smart and right then fact and reason should do the job, and appealing to their better nature almost always works.
Not only does that not lead to the sour taste of bannings and suchlike, but it means we don't lose people who have a lot of valuable contribution to make.
|
