[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 5 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

"In fact, it now seems that emotion, contrary to expections, is intimately tied to human rationality (at least everyday practical rationality).
In general, emotion and intuition are non-rational in that they are 'spontaneous creations of the mind', as Kant would say. ... Albert Einstein offered himself as an example. He found rational thought processes quite difficult and most of his insights came from intuition. One of my favorite quotes comes from the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy". Under 'intuition' it simply states that 'One can have an intuitive awareness of God'. "
-
I do like baseball!
-
You demonstrated a need for rationality in emotion. Your later charge of emotions and intuition being non-rational may indicate some confusion. There is no indication from the language in your references to indicate that arguement's validity. Kants quote of "spontaneous creations of the mind" does not deny the rational. The "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy", which I agree with, did not say, nor did it intend to mean or imply intuition is the only way to God, as you seem to imply, nor did it say intuition is non-rational. It is quite the contrary.
While it may not require conscious rational thought to acquire, it does not mean the content was non-rational. Einstein's math would not work if his intuitions were non-rational.
-
"Religious knowing likewise is fundamentally based upon the “awe” experience." I agree! In fact, Proverbs 1:7 preceeded the modern philosophers, by a few years, with; "The fear (awe, reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." This is actually the 'fundamentalist' view, and it became doctrine. And Biblical Christianity has no problem with its epistemology.
-
If the philosphers do rely on the irrational (non-rational) and I actually believe they do, there are significant problems within their reasoning.
-
"Although people are selfish, the are also morally motivated." I agree. This is man's moral dilemma the 'modern' philosophers cannot help with situational ethics.

Neither can they help with reasons for our metaphysical necessity.

This thread is, in large part about Jungian theory and confined to intuition. Jung defined Sensing and Intuition as irrational functions (see Collected Works 6). I demonstrated a need for emotion in support of rationality, which is consistent with Jungian theory. Jung's feeling function is defined by him as rational and derives it's foundation from emotions. The role of emotion in rationality has a considerable foundation in evidence based theories (see "Descartes Error", Damasio, A., 1994). The quote from the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" only said "One can have an intuitive awareness of God". It is, as the title indicates, a dictionary. See other entries for other perspectives. Einstein's math was derived from his intuitions of how things work. And, many consider math to have an intuitive foundation. First he had the intuition and then he developed the math. Science has long acknowledged the value of intuition. You can search the internet to find articles on this. Philosophy is the same (see Kant, Bergson, Husserl, etc.).

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 April 2008 - 05:10 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 5 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

"Religious knowing likewise is fundamentally based upon the “awe” experience." I agree! In fact, Proverbs 1:7 preceeded the modern philosophers, by a few years, with; "The fear (awe, reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." This is actually the 'fundamentalist' view, and it became doctrine. And Biblical Christianity has no problem with its epistemology.

If it is "fundamentalist" then I am wondering why the very liberal/progressive church I attend incorporates the same emphasis? They frequently make the observation that "fear" really should be read as "awe" or "reverence". And, throw in a bit of gratitude for good measure. Not sure what assumptions you are making here about "fundamentalist". One of the points developing in this thread is that certain categories are too general. We really need to move down one level in the analysis and look at the components and understand that sometimes we commit the "True Scotsman" error when we paint people into categories.

Note here that "fear" is a negative emotion and that "awe" and "gratitude" are positive emotions. This is a point Haidt makes concerning moral emotions in general. In my church the emphasis is on the positive interpretation.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 April 2008 - 06:29 PM

[David]

Gary,

Your posts are not understandable to me and I see no reason why you thought posting in this topic would be appropriate. So you are the only person who has ever posted here that I am going to put on “ignore”. This means that I will not be able to read your posts so obviously you should not expect a response from me. It will make it easier for this old brain to follow the topics. I hope you can understand.

David

[davidk]

I do not deny intuition. I do deny irrationality as being a viable function for anything other than chaos, despite the articulate arguements from Jung. I agree with a need for emotion in support of rationality, but not to be confused with it being foundational.
I agreed with the Cambridge definition. I wasn't certain, after others posts, whether you held to the belief it was only by intuition one could know God.
I am certain intuition can be what encourages mans curiosity to explore, experiment, and create. Nothing can be derived from the irrational, except the need for the rational.
I agree with your Einstein. The great mathmeticians know we live in an orderly world that is rational, reasonable and can be explained so everyone may understand. Armed with that knowledge, they dream.
-
"Not sure what assumptions you are making here about 'fundamentalist'." David has been particularly critical of anyone he deems to be fundamentalist. I am hoping he may listen and learn before any prejudging.
-
The Hebrew word for 'stomach' translated into English, is our 'heart'. Describing the Hebrew word for our English 'fear' as a negative emotion could very well have had a positive conotation in ancient Hebrew. Even then 'fear' can produce some very positive results. The words 'awe', 'fear', and 'reverence' meaning the same when translated are evidence one cannot divorce any of the defining words from each other.

[October's Autumn]

davidk, on Apr 5 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

-
The Hebrew word for 'stomach' translated into English, is our 'heart'.

Kind of, but not exactly. The Hebrew and Greeks words for stomach mean stomach. And the Greek and Hebrew words for Heart mean heart. What doesn't "translate" is how we use them metaphorically. Today, we talk about using our "head and not our heart." Because we metaphorically refer to heart as the root of emotions. Our head is where we think logically. (In reality both our thinking and emotions take place in our brain). Anyhow, the seat of emotion in ancient times was your stomach/bowels. Those of us who have irritable bowel syndrome still experience that Continuing... The heart was the seat of reason to ancients -- the head the source of life. So when you read in the bible that a man speaks to a woman's heart, he is not speaking her to her emotions, he is speaking to her logic.

[davidk]

October, on Apr 5 2008, 08:57 PM, said:

Kind of, but not exactly. The Hebrew and Greeks words for stomach mean stomach. And the Greek and Hebrew words for Heart mean heart. What doesn't "translate" is how we use them metaphorically. Today, we talk about using our "head and not our heart." Because we metaphorically refer to heart as the root of emotions. Our head is where we think logically. (In reality both our thinking and emotions take place in our brain). Anyhow, the seat of emotion in ancient times was your stomach/bowels. Those of us who have irritable bowel syndrome still experience that Continuing... The heart was the seat of reason to ancients -- the head the source of life. So when you read in the bible that a man speaks to a woman's heart, he is not speaking her to her emotions, he is speaking to her logic.

I stand corrected, that's what I get for not actually looking it up. It wasn't even 'kinda'!

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 5 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

I do not deny intuition. I do deny irrationality as being a viable function for anything other than chaos, despite the articulate arguements from Jung. I agree with a need for emotion in support of rationality, but not to be confused with it being foundational.
I agreed with the Cambridge definition. I wasn't certain, after others posts, whether you held to the belief it was only by intuition one could know God.
I am certain intuition can be what encourages mans curiosity to explore, experiment, and create. Nothing can be derived from the irrational, except the need for the rational.
I agree with your Einstein. The great mathmeticians know we live in an orderly world that is rational, reasonable and can be explained so everyone may understand. Armed with that knowledge, they dream.
-
"Not sure what assumptions you are making here about 'fundamentalist'." David has been particularly critical of anyone he deems to be fundamentalist. I am hoping he may listen and learn before any prejudging.
-
The Hebrew word for 'stomach' translated into English, is our 'heart'. Describing the Hebrew word for our English 'fear' as a negative emotion could very well have had a positive conotation in ancient Hebrew. Even then 'fear' can produce some very positive results. The words 'awe', 'fear', and 'reverence' meaning the same when translated are evidence one cannot divorce any of the defining words from each other.

Thank you. The only point of disagreement here seems to be the negative conotation of "irrational"? As Jung used the term, he meant "not by rational processes". If you were to "see" (sense) God in nature, that would not be a rational process. You are correct, fear can produce positive results, if applied appropriately. However, fear (English definition) has the characteristic of inhibiting behavior, but not changing behavior. Positive emotions tend to lead to a change in behavior more effectively than negative emotions. It makes sense to understand the differences in languages. I wonder how many church goers do not understand the difference.

Interestingly, in several cultures the seat of the mind is considered to be located in the 'stomach'. The Hebrew culture is not the only example. This was noted by Jung, and this fits into our discussion. Also, emotions have a physiological component. This is why we call them a "gut reactions". Negative emotions tend to cause negative physiological responses in "the gut". Positive emotions tend to create a feeling of "expansiveness" in the general location of the heart.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 April 2008 - 08:38 PM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 5 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Based on current research, what we commonly call "intuition" is not a generic function. A better way to view primary intuition as a set of domain specific principles inherent in the structure of what is called the "limbic system" of the brain. These are, in part, Kant's "categories". This part of the brain is also called "the old mamallian brain" because it evolved before the higher level structures that are responsible for most rational processes. The limbic system is also the area of the brain that generates emotions. Different emotions are generated by different structures of the limbic system. It is suggested that the same is true of intuitions. Different brain circuits serve different domains of knowledge. This is sometimes called our evolved intuitive ontology. These domains are similar to what Jung called archetypal ground themes. One can conclude from this that emotion and intuition evolved before the capacity for rational thought processes.

Stephen Pinker, a psychologist at MIT, has identified ten domains of intuition. For example, we all share an intuitive physics, an intuitive version of biology, engineering (tool making), psychology, a spatial sense for navigating, a number sense, a sense of probability, an intuitive economics, basic logic, and language. Haidt is suggesting that we have a collection of moral intuitions in different domains of human actions in the social sphere. Emotions are similar. Many emotions are innate reactions to specific situations. states of affairs, or formal objects.

The concept of formal objects of emotions is best illustrated as follows. When I was very young, I developed a fear of dogs. Later I realized that my fear was not being triggered by dogs, but by large snarling animals with sharp teeth. Thus "large", "sharp teeth" and "snarling" are the formal object of the fear. Note also that "snarling" is an action. Moral intuitions work in a similar fashion. Thus in the domain of reciprocity, an affect laden response occurs when the action of another is perceived as reciprocal (accompnied by the appropriate positive emotion) or when an action is perceived as not reciprocal (accompanied by the appropriate negative emotion).

According to Jung, a primary characteristic of archetypes is that they apply to "typical situations in life", and at the core of an archetype there is a specific emotion. This forms the connection to Haidt and moral intuitions. As I noted previously, this is part of Jung's theory that he left for others to complete, i.e., the exact relationship between intuitions and archetypes. Haidt defines moral intuitions as "affect laden" and Jung believed, but could not prove, that intuitions trigger archetypes. The normal state would be where intuition "extracts" principles from archetypes. This, as I understand it, is also Kant's view.

This is really a simple model. Much more is going here. First, the brain is not fully developed at birth. Much of it is "wired" later with hugh bursts of neuron growth at key stages of development. Thus language development is accompanied by a burst of neuron growth, etc. In addition, the "dynamic wiring" is most extensive in the cerbral cortex (the seat of moral reasoning) and quite limited in the "old mamallian brain", the seat of emotions and moral intuitions.

In addition, other general concepts such as "learning" and "memory" are also sets of heterogeneous processes, some of which involve consciousness and some which do not. For example, memory is really a set of processes involving specific types of content. There are perhaps as many as seven types of learning, and so on.

The difference between moral intuitions and moral reasoning is most important. Moral intuitions are more constrained than moral reasoning. Reasoning develops moral intuitions into abstract principles or concepts with the basic form inherent in the intuition. In other words, moral intuitions "preselect" what gets to higher level reasoning, and moral intuitions provide the basic form from which reasoning begins. This is in agreement with Jung and Kant. So far, I have only attempted to address moral intuitions and how they work. I have not found a well thought out moral theory that integrates current research into moral intuitions with moral reasoning. I think Jung was close to doing just that, but I still have to work out some of the details. Remember, this is developing as we discuss this subject.
Whew! More later ... minsocal.

Yep, it’s the word “action” that hangs me up: “an affect laden response occurs when the action of another is perceived”. I see the dynamic, I just don’t see that the dynamic is limited to responses to actions. It seems to me that the “affect laden response” could occur in response to another “affect laden response”. Your fear of “snarling” could trigger my fear of being hurt and all I witnessed was your fear. I think you made this more clear when you said “Many emotions are innate reactions to specific situations. states of affairs, or formal objects”. “Actions” may or may not be present in a situation or state of affairs.

Also I see my “action” as being “post rational” even though the “affect laden response” that motivates the “action” is “pre rational”. It seems to me that my ego kicks in there at least for a second and goes through some calculations before “action” is taken. In other words I do not see “action” as “pre rational”.

I appreciate that “moral intuitions "preselect" what gets to higher level reasoning, and moral intuitions provide the basic form from which reasoning begins”. This means that the ego will have inclinations towards choices when choosing a reasonable action.

If I am understanding you correctly, onward!!!

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 5 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

Yep, it’s the word “action” that hangs me up: “an affect laden response occurs when the action of another is perceived”. I see the dynamic, I just don’t see that the dynamic is limited to responses to actions. It seems to me that the “affect laden response” could occur in response to another “affect laden response”. Your fear of “snarling” could trigger my fear of being hurt and all I witnessed was your fear. I think you made this more clear when you said “Many emotions are innate reactions to specific situations. states of affairs, or formal objects”. “Actions” may or may not be present in a situation or state of affairs.

Also I see my “action” as being “post rational” even though the “affect laden response” that motivates the “action” is “pre rational”. It seems to me that my ego kicks in there at least for a second and goes through some calculations before “action” is taken. In other words I do not see “action” as “pre rational”.

I appreciate that “moral intuitions "preselect" what gets to higher level reasoning, and moral intuitions provide the basic form from which reasoning begins”. This means that the ego will have inclinations towards choices when choosing a reasonable action.

If I am understanding you correctly, onward!!!

We are very close here. The problem is that not all action is necessarily "post rational". We can, and often do, jump directly from the "pre rational" to action without rational processing. It is not that the ego has "kicked in at least for a second", but rather a signal to the ego that the "pre rational" is about to kick in. The best example is road rage. People who have road rage are trained to be aware of the signal and wait 4-5 seconds so that "cooler" rational processing can take over.

The phenomenon also has an upside, if I had to submit everthing to conscious rational processing I would not accomplish much. From cognitive science, we know that the portion of the brain that processes rational thought is fairly slow and thus has limited capacity. Part of the problem has to do with the limits of short term memory available for processing. (A rat has more short term memory than humans!) The portion of the brain that processes intuition and emotion is much faster. It is here that multiple scenarios are generated and only a few of the "best" make it to consciousness.

In addition, Jungian theory holds that we are all born with many of our cognitive functions more or less "fused" together. One of the great tasks of life is to diffentiate them from each other and use them under conscious control. This is part of the theory of individuation. In addition, intuition may be "fused" with the collective unconscious, and these people appear very irrational to others with better levels of differentiation. Thus it is another developmental task to differentiate intuition from the collective unconcious.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

The one thing that trips up a lot of people is being able to differentiante at an early age and train to suppress impulse responses at will.

The corollary and opposite would be that which we intentionally do not suppress as a reaction to an exteranl influence.

Either way we all make choices to allow an event or to react by impulse.

When faced or confronted by anger and rage do you defend your personal rights? You then have an emotional reaction... Take away the anger or confrontation recognize that the language is inappropriate and take just a second to change your own mindset, you now have a chance to control your own thoughts. You now have a choice.

If you are a civilized person and you are asked to contain yourself and you do and then you are accused of not being contained and or contributing would you stand up for your rights to expose the cause of the inappropriate construction and false accusations that are levelled to convict you the innocent? The point is that being accused of another persons profanity is bad enough but being convicted for atempting to address the fact that another person was profane and then patiently waiting to be deposed of the information and accused of not providing appropriate information when asked not to contribute is a contradiction and should never lead to a conviction when there is such blatent dereliction.

Not only is intuitive reasoning lacking but other actions are missing adding to the egregious conduct of people in positions of authority, high and low... the grotesque conduct expands between both the government and the religious leadership ripping the fabric of a civilized society and leading to the destruction from within...

Why is it necessary for us to have our laws right for our justice to be a guiding light for the rest of the world? If we are the best then we should be the leading example for all to follow, the question that emerges is our evolving system getting better or worse?

It stands to reason that the best will be blessed.

[minsocal]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Apr 6 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Not only is intuitive reasoning lacking but other actions are missing adding to the egregious conduct of people in positions of authority, high and low... the grotesque conduct expands between both the government and the religious leadership ripping the fabric of a civilized society and leading to the destruction from within...

Why is it necessary for us to have our laws right for our justice to be a guiding light for the rest of the world? If we are the best then we should be the leading example for all to follow, the question that emerges is our evolving system getting better or worse?

It stands to reason that the best will be blessed.

Since this thread has a Jungian theme to it, I will respond from that perspective. Neither intuition nor rationality are completely reliable. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, he relied on intuition. When he completed the math, he was not comfortable with what he saw. At the time, the assumption was that the universe was static. His equations indicated that the universe should be expanding. To accommodate a static universe, he added a constant to his equations to make a stable universe. He later called this the worst blunder of his career.

As to whether the "evolving system" is getting better or worse, Jung noted that "systems" move through periods of progression and regression in alternating cycles. The psychologist Murray Bowen believed that this country is in a period of regression that began some time ago and perhaps would begin to show signs of changing direction in this decade. In folk psychology this is the old "two steps ahead, one step backwards" saying.

Let me know if this makes sense for you.

[Wayseer]

I'm nor sure who I'm quoting here but these words caught my attention ...

Quote

... an affect laden response occurs when the action of another is perceived ...

This sounds more like something I do training my dog - when he perceives something I do he responds as his has been taught.

The statement denies freedom of choice.

Now, I'm not sure if that meaning is what is intended, but that's what the phrase says.

Let's take that truly noble human emotion - anger. It is generally accept that someone else's action triggers anger. This is not so. Anger is an internal motion that has to to do with not getting you own way. It is a form of intimidation, if not assualt, with the object of forcing that someone else to change whatever it is they are doing. Anger has actually nothing to do with the other person. If you don't wish to accept this please go and sit in a Buddhist mediation class for at least 12 months and learn that emotions are internal - they are learned responses - just as domestic violence is a learned response.

There are 'emotions' triggered by hormones - lust, hunger - then there is the parasympathetic nervous system and the 'fight or flight' respose to the release of adrenalin. These are conceived as emotions but they are more mechanical by nature. The rest - learned responses.

Quote

The one thing that trips up a lot of people is being able to differentiate at an early age and train to suppress impulse responses at will.

There is no need to 'suppress' anything. In fact trying to 'supress' something that is not there in the first place defies logic.

The problem is that we have been taught from an early age that our 'responses' are triggered from 'outside'. Once one realises that it is the 'meaning' that one subscribes to certian perceptions that arrive through the senses then one has the ability recognise these 'perceptions' are not real - but imposed. They can only be given reality or cedance if one allows such to happen.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 06 April 2008 - 05:44 PM

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

I'm nor sure who I'm quoting here but these words caught my attention ...

This sounds more like something I do training my dog - when he perceives something I do he responds as his has been taught.

The statement denies freedom of choice.

Now, I'm not sure if that meaning is what is intended, but that's what the phrase says.

Let's take that truly noble human emotion - anger. It is generally accept that someone else's action triggers anger. This is not so. Anger is an internal motion that has to to do with not getting you own way. It is a form of intimidation, if not assualt, with the object of forcing that someone else to change whatever it is they are doing. Anger has actually nothing to do with the other person. If you don't wish to accept this please go and sit in a Buddhist mediation class for at least 12 months and learn that emotions are internal - they are learned responses - just as domestic violence is a learned response.

There are 'emotions' triggered by hormones - lust, hunger - then there is the parasympathetic nervous system and the 'fight or flight' respose to the release of adrenalin. These are conceived as emotions but they are more mechanical by nature. The rest - learned responses.
There is no need to 'suppress' anything. In fact trying to 'supress' something that is not there in the first place defies logic.

The problem is that we have been taught from an early age that our 'responses' are triggered from 'outside'. Once one realises that it is the 'meaning' that one subscribes to certian perceptions that arrive through the senses then one has the ability recognise these 'perceptions' are not real - but imposed. They can only be given reality or cedance if one allows such to happen.

If you could please provide me the evidence to support your assumptions, I would be grateful. This is an evidence based discussion. The parasympathetic nervous system does not control the flight or flight response. It's role is to calm one down after the fact. It is the "rest and digest system." Hormones, such as adrenaline, are insufficient to cause the behaviors we are discussing here. This is one of the points from the Jungian model that forms this thread.

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 6 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

We are very close here. The problem is that not all action is necessarily "post rational". We can, and often do, jump directly from the "pre rational" to action without rational processing. It is not that the ego has "kicked in at least for a second", but rather a signal to the ego that the "pre rational" is about to kick in. The best example is road rage. People who have road rage are trained to be aware of the signal and wait 4-5 seconds so that "cooler" rational processing can take over.

The phenomenon also has an upside, if I had to submit everthing to conscious rational processing I would not accomplish much. From cognitive science, we know that the portion of the brain that processes rational thought is fairly slow and thus has limited capacity. Part of the problem has to do with the limits of short term memory available for processing. (A rat has more short term memory than humans!) The portion of the brain that processes intuition and emotion is much faster. It is here that multiple scenarios are generated and only a few of the "best" make it to consciousness.

In addition, Jungian theory holds that we are all born with many of our cognitive functions more or less "fused" together. One of the great tasks of life is to diffentiate them from each other and use them under conscious control. This is part of the theory of individuation. In addition, intuition may be "fused" with the collective unconscious, and these people appear very irrational to others with better levels of differentiation. Thus it is another developmental task to differentiate intuition from the collective unconcious.

We are close. I am wondering if we are getting to the most basic level or to the level of hypothesis from which the scientist will try to work from. You evidently think that road rage is “pre rational”. Although I would agree it is not rational and would not be the expected conclusion from rational thought, to me it is still not entirely “pre rational”. To the extent that “road rage” is on the level of an infant’s temper tantrum then the ego is not much involved. An infant does not have “that little person in their head” (ego) and does not understand the subject/object dynamic. However, a driver involved in road rage is minimally aware of who is driving the car. The solution to the problem, as you say, is to enlarge the control of the ego which could only be possible if the ego was involved in the first place. I can see how the ego is much controlled by the “pre rational” but the ego as a concept is meaningful if it is seen as the location where the “pre rational” meets the “post rational” (otherwise we would just be on “auto pilot”).

Much of this discussion will be useful to the psychologist/psychiatrist in knowing whether to treat an archetype or an ego. I am more interested in moving Jung towards theology and Tillich. Jung would evidently state that the archetype can be seen as both a subject and an object and the encounter between the archetype and the ego will be between subjects and objects. In theological terms Jung wants an interaction between God and the ego so that the ego changes God and God changes the ego. God is the most archetypical of the archetypes. In the meeting of the collective unconscious with the conscious both are changed. I agree with this dynamic, I’m just not sure it is theological.

This is not Tillich’s vision of Being. Theologically I think Tillich’s vision of Being is more helpful than Jung’s vision of the collective unconscious/God-image. But I think that will have to be another discussion. I think that discussion may help with your search for an adequate moral theory.

You have been responsible for a great discussion. Thank you very much. However, you started with a subtitle of Liberals/Conservatives. Do you want to explore that more?

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 6 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

We are close. I am wondering if we are getting to the most basic level or to the level of hypothesis from which the scientist will try to work from. You evidently think that road rage is “pre rational”. Although I would agree it is not rational and would not be the expected conclusion from rational thought, to me it is still not entirely “pre rational”. To the extent that “road rage” is on the level of an infant’s temper tantrum then the ego is not much involved. An infant does not have “that little person in their head” (ego) and does not understand the subject/object dynamic. However, a driver involved in road rage is minimally aware of who is driving the car. The solution to the problem, as you say, is to enlarge the control of the ego which could only be possible if the ego was involved in the first place. I can see how the ego is much controlled by the “pre rational” but the ego as a concept is meaningful if it is seen as the location where the “pre rational” meets the “post rational” (otherwise we would just be on “auto pilot”).

Much of this discussion will be useful to the psychologist/psychiatrist in knowing whether to treat an archetype or an ego. I am more interested in moving Jung towards theology and Tillich. Jung would evidently state that the archetype can be seen as both a subject and an object and the encounter between the archetype and the ego will be between subjects and objects. In theological terms Jung wants an interaction between God and the ego so that the ego changes God and God changes the ego. God is the most archetypical of the archetypes. In the meeting of the collective unconscious with the conscious both are changed. I agree with this dynamic, I’m just not sure it is theological.

This is not Tillich’s vision of Being. Theologically I think Tillich’s vision of Being is more helpful than Jung’s vision of the collective unconscious/God-image. But I think that will have to be another discussion. I think that discussion may help with your search for an adequate moral theory.

You have been responsible for a great discussion. Thank you very much. However, you started with a subtitle of Liberals/Conservatives. Do you want to explore that more?

Yes, that is the next step. If you are familiar with Jung's work on psychological types, you will already be aware that the "type antithesis" is ancient in its origins. Jung spent 20 years exploring this problem. The former Pastor of my church traced it back into antiquity, much as Jung did. To describe this antithesis, Jung used the terms "introversion" and "extraversion". Evidence based research indicates that Jung was on the right track.

When Jung realized that this type antithesis is part of our natural makeup, he knew he had to break with Freud and psychoanalysis for ethical reasons. The last time Freud and Jung were in the same room together, Jung made the statement that psychology had to "do justice" to both types (represented by Freud and Adler). They never spoke again.

This also forms the ethical core of Haidt's research on liberal versus progressive perspectives. Haidt, like Jung, is saying that there is no moral foundation which serves to distinguish between the two as "right" or "wrong". In Jungian terminology, we can, and must, "honor" both.

I will expand on this shortly.

[minsocal]

David,

Before I could proceed, I needed to get some idea where Tillich was coming from. I just briefed myself and feel confident I can continue.

[David]

I understand that Jung would say that intuition for the extravert is “wholly directed to external objects” because the extravert is “oriented by objective data”. This actually leads to closing off the self/the inner life. The introverted type likewise develops the ego from the “opposite” and may tend to solitude to avoid any “objective” world. This type may confuse truth with personality. Intuition “gone bad” goes towards psychic distortions of the collective unconscious.

I don’t think “progressive” falls into the introverted trap. I do think that “fundamentalism” falls into the extraverted trap. But obviously I am showing my preference.

I am thinking you should expound on this liberal/conservative theme and hopefully provide some insight on any common ground that you see.

Going towards Tillich? Wow. Not sure I can do that on a message board, but I am certainly surprised by what you have accomplished in this space.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Apr 5 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

As Jung used the term, he meant "not by rational processes". If you were to "see" (sense) God in nature, that would not be a rational process.

As I said in an earlier post: "While it may not require conscious rational thought to acquire, it does not mean the content was non-rational. Einstein's math would not work if his intuitions were non-rational."

Anything called pre-rational; is that a euphamism for immature?

Jung proposed the cosmos exists in chaos. Then "...a disorder, but with a secret order." He could not honestly hold in practice what he claimed.
Other difficulties: Man's subjective existence. His being autonomous.
His attempt to rationalize two contradictory beliefs could both be true.
"You can take away a man's gods, but only to give him others in return."
"Superstition and accident manifest the will of God."
"People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul."

minsocal, on Apr 5 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

However, fear (English definition) has the characteristic of inhibiting behavior, but not changing behavior. Positive emotions tend to lead to a change in behavior more effectively than negative emotions.

Perhaps.

minsocal, on Apr 5 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

...intuition nor rationality are completely reliable. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, he relied on intuition. When he completed the math, he was not comfortable with what he saw. At the time, the assumption was that the universe was static. His equations indicated that the universe should be expanding. To accommodate a static universe, he added a constant to his equations to make a stable universe.

Reliable is rational.
"Not being comfortable" does not render anything irrational nor unreliable. It does prove scientists go into research with agendas.

minsocal, on Apr 5 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

Jung noted that "systems" move through periods of progression and regression in alternating cycles. ... In folk psychology this is the old "two steps ahead, one step backwards" saying.

Jung was not the first to understand the repetitive nature of mans behavior. This folk saying was also a part of Soviet Communism's doctrine.

wayseer, on Apr 5 2008, said:

In fact trying to 'supress' something that is not there in the first place defies logic.

Yes, that is why we cannot trust our emotions to guide us.

[October's Autumn]

davidk, on Apr 5 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

I stand corrected, that's what I get for not actually looking it up. It wasn't even 'kinda'!

You were on the right track.

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 7 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

If you could please provide me the evidence to support your assumptions, I would be grateful. This is an evidence based discussion.

Evidence for which particular piece of discussion? I don't think I have read where anyone has defined 'emotions' as of yet ...

"[E]motions are feelings' (Richard A. Shweder 1991: 241).

... and here a few references you might like to look up. I recommend Rosaldo.

Lutz, Catherine and Lila Abu-Lughod, eds 1990. Language and the Politics of
Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lutz, Catherine and Geoffrey M. White, 1986. "The Anthropology of
Emotions." Annual Review of Anthropology 15, pp. 405-36.

Abu-Lughod, Lila, 1986.Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin
Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lutz, Catherine A., 1988. Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a
Micronesian Atoll & their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.

Rosaldo, Michelle Z., 1980. Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self
and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guattari, F. 1996. "Ritornellos and Existential Affects," in G. Genosko ed.
The Guattari Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Massumi, Brian, 1995. “The Autonomy of Affect.” Cultural Critique, no. 31, pp.
83-109.

Thrift, Nigel, 2004. “Intensities of Feeling: Towards a Spatial Politics of Affect.”
Geografiska Annaler 86 B: pp. 57-78.

Quote

The parasympathetic nervous system does not control the flight or flight response.

If you wish to quote me you are welcome but please be accurate. I did not say the parasympathetic system had anything to do the 'fight or flight' response - perhaps I should have put an 'or in there.

Buddhism teaches that -

1 all life is suffering

2 suffering is caused by attachment to feelings (good and bad)

3 if there is a cause there is a antidote

4 that antidote is the tenfold noble path

... basic Buddhism.

The point I was making that there is nothing 'rational' about emotions. We construct them as rational - a very cultural exercise.

Sorry - did not wish to stop a good debate.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 07 April 2008 - 02:17 AM