'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

[coberst]

‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

 

Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

 

I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

 

Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

 

The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

 

Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

 

The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

 

The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

 

The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

 

I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

 

Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

 

Questions for discussion.

 

Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?

[InfiniteNow]

It's hard to read any further in your post when you start out with such a blatently inaccurate statement.

 

Psychology, which began as protest against religion

No it didn't. It started out as an attempt to better understand ourselves and those around us, well before humans even entered the picture.

 

 

The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

They are actually grandfathers. We have learned so much more and used actual empirical techniques, both self-report and imagining, to increase our level of knowledge. I'd consider the group you referenced above the "philosphers of ancient psychology," whereas we now have modern "scientists of the human mind." Big difference in my book.

 

 

Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution.

You'd do better to couch statements such as the above in terms of your own perception. Psychology has many definitions, and the above seems pretty independent of those currently accepted.

 

Like I said, coberst, it's pretty hard for me personally to take your post seriously when I find so many inherent problems in the premises and maxims from which you work (or, shall I say, repeat?).

[coberst]

It's hard to read any further in your post when you start out with such a blatently inaccurate statement.

 

 

No it didn't. It started out as an attempt to better understand ourselves and those around us, well before humans even entered the picture.

 

 

 

They are actually grandfathers. We have learned so much more and used actual empirical techniques, both self-report and imagining, to increase our level of knowledge. I'd consider the group you referenced above the "philosphers of ancient psychology," whereas we now have modern "scientists of the human mind." Big difference in my book.

 

 

 

You'd do better to couch statements such as the above in terms of your own perception. Psychology has many definitions, and the above seems pretty independent of those currently accepted.

 

Like I said, coberst, it's pretty hard for me personally to take your post seriously when I find so many inherent problems in the premises and maxims from which you work (or, shall I say, repeat?).

 

I give the source for my statements but I never see the source for your statements.

[InfiniteNow]

I give the source for my statements but I never see the source for your statements.

 

That is because I am not regurgitating what others wrote, but creating the words myself.

 

What do you feel requires support in my post above? I'll go find sources for you.

[coberst]

That is because I am not regurgitating what others wrote, but creating the words myself.

 

What do you feel requires support in my post above? I'll go find sources for you.

 

 

You might start by defending this statement. "No it didn't. It started out as an attempt to better understand ourselves and those around us, well before humans even entered the picture."

[InfiniteNow]

Those were my words. My overall point is that the attempt to understand the mind came long before some “protest against religion.” The first interaction of an organism to understand or predict another was psychology. It has since blossomed into the science which deals with mental processes and behavior, and is much more than simple philosophical speculation.

 

 

Anyway, here are a few sources on the history and origins of psychology per your request.

 

History of Psychology | Resource Guides | Pius XII Memorial Library | Saint Louis University

[coberst]

I am convinced that few adults continue to seek knowledge about important ideas after their school days are over. As a result our (USA) citizens have an unsophisticated view of reality. This level of knowledge is dangerous for our society and for our species. I seek to bring to the consciousness of all citizens who engage Internet discussion forums important ideas with the hope that they will become curious and turn to the books in an effort to enlighten them self.

 

It is my claim that the very best way to learn is to read and comprehend what the best thinkers in history can offer us.

 

Judging who the best thinkers in history are is a matter of detective work and good judgment. My detective work and judgment leads me to believe that Ira Progoff is one of these thinkers.

 

“Although it began as part of the protest against religion, the net result of modern psychology has been to affirm man’s experience of himself as a spiritual being.” “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff.

 

Quickie from wiki:

 

Ira Progoff (1921–1998) was an American psychotherapist, best known for his development of the Intensive Journal Method while at Drew University. His main interest was in depth psychology and particularly the humanistic adaptation of Jungian ideas to the lives of ordinary people. He founded Dialogue House in New York City to help promote this method.

 

 

[edit] Works

This is a partial, chronological list of Progoff's books

 

1956. The Death and Rebirth of Psychology: An integrative evaluation of Freud, Adler, Jung and Rank and the impact of their culminating insights on modern man.

1959. Depth psychology and modern man: A new view of the magnitude of human personality, its dimensions & resources

1971. The Star/Cross: A Cycle of Process Meditation

1972. The White Robed Monk;: A cycle of process meditation

1973. Jung, synchronicity, & human destiny;: Noncausal dimensions of human experience1974 Death and Rebirth of Psychology

1975. At a Journal Workshop: The Basic Text and Guide for Using the Intensive Journal Process

1977. The Well and the Cathedral: With an Introduction on Its Use in the Practice of Meditation

1979. The White Robed Monk: As an Entrance to Process Meditation

1980. The Practice of Process Meditation: The Intensive Journal Way to Spiritual Experience

1985. The Dynamics of Hope: Perspectives of Process in Anxiety and Creativity, Imagery and Dreams

1985. Jung's Psychology and Its Social Meaning: An Integrative Statement of C. G. Jung's Psychological Theories and an Interpretation of Their Significance.

The Symbolic and the Real

Jung, Synchronicity, and Human Destiny : C.G. Jung's Theory of Meaningful Coincidence

[InfiniteNow]

Are you a spam bot, coberst?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I am convinced that few adults continue to seek knowledge about important ideas after their school days are over.

 

I challenge you to define "important."

 

TFS

[coberst]

Are you a spam bot, coberst?

 

No, I am a person who is trying to awaken adults to the importance of developing an intellectual life. I do not comprehend why you have such a negative attitude toward learning. Our schools and colleges have left us all with learning handicaps but we adults must learn to overcome this negative attitude about self-learning.

[coberst]

I challenge you to define "important."

 

TFS

 

 

Is this some kind of test to see if I own a dictionary?

[InfiniteNow]

No, I am a person who is trying to awaken adults to the importance of developing an intellectual life. I do not comprehend why you have such a negative attitude toward learning. Our schools and colleges have left us all with learning handicaps but we adults must learn to overcome this negative attitude about self-learning.

 

I find it humorous that you sense I have a negative attitude toward learning, myself being a perpetual student and teacher in many contexts.

 

What I take issue with is how frequently you state your desire to "awaken" people and to improve our condition.

 

First, not everybody is asleep. Second, if you truly want to engage people, you should speak with them, not at them.

 

The good teachers are not the ones who speak from on high showering wisdom like a voice from the heavens. A good teacher is one who explores the path as a student, and simply describes what they see as authentically as they can.

 

You lose your audience because you do not understand them, and your tone implies often that you have the answer, not that you seek it.

 

 

I like that you're trying to improve things. I like that you're interested in so many topics. However, you really would do well to find yourself a public relations or marketing specialist to better craft your message and your delivery of it.

 

 

:thumbs_up:turtle:

[ughaibu]

Coberst: I wish you would redirect your energy (and with the same ambition) into posting stuff that is short and interesting enough to be worth reading.

Freud has had, probably, the most destructive influence in Europe since the instigation of christianity. The most serious challenge presented by Freud is the question as to why anybody ever took him seriously.

[coberst]

Coberst: I wish you would redirect your energy (and with the same ambition) into posting stuff that is short and interesting enough to be worth reading.

Freud has had, probably, the most destructive influence in Europe since the instigation of christianity. The most serious challenge presented by Freud is the question as to why anybody ever took him seriously.

 

I often get such comments and have always associated them with standard sophomoric bluff and bluster. Does any credible authority agree with your opinion?

[ughaibu]

If a person is dependent on authority, to what degree beyond sophomority should we assign them?

[coberst]

If a person is dependent on authority, to what degree beyond sophomority should we assign them?

 

If an opinion is unsupported by credible authority the range of possibility as to quality of opinion would range from 0 to 10 on a 0-10 scale. If an opinion is supported by credible authority I would say that on the same scale the quality would range from 8-10.

[Turtle]

If an opinion is unsupported by credible authority the range of possibility as to quality of opinion would range from 0 to 10 on a 0-10 scale. If an opinion is supported by credible authority I would say that on the same scale the quality would range from 8-10.[bold added by turtle]

 

hi coberst. :) i for one enjoy & applaud your postings, and i think many miss the larger context that 'is' coberst. first & foremost in this contextual arena is your generation, which many members are too young to appreciate either experientially or conceptually. fortunately i suffer from neither of these limits.

 

secondly, i recognize each of your new posts as but a part of your collection; taking individual essays you write on their merit alone negates the larger context to the detriment of the reader.

 

now to the ideas you have put forward in this essay, the critical factor wheels on the bolded phrase of your quote above, i.e. 'credible authority'. if i haven't yet harped on you about Milgram's seminal work Obedience to Authority, then forgive my oversight and let me start now. i entreat you to not go satisfied with the wiki article, but rather make haste to your beloved library and secure a copy of the original work.

 

as it happens, people acredit 'credibility' of authority on the slightest whiff of impression, such as a person's clothing (lab coat), accoutrements (clipboard), etcetera. in short, having written books, pontificated to universities, joined exclusive groups, and other such trappings have no bearing on the validity -truthfullness- of assertions by persons in such circumstance. :cup: :cool: