Intuitive Moral Intuition And Emotions

[Wayseer]

Did not Buddha also teach that we should treat others with compassion?

 

In Haidt's theory of moral emotions, compassion is a positive moral emotion. Positive moral intuitiions are accompanied by (positive) affect laden responses. I hope it is not suggested that we abandon all positive moral intuitions. If we choose to follow our positive moral intuitions, this not a denial of free will.

 

 

It seems that you have some issue with me - I don't what that is. That's Ok - I'm not a theologian but I have practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a number of years. The Buddha taught many things- he certainly did not teach 'compassion' as 'blind emotion' as you seem to suggest. Compassion, for the Buddha, is a rational respose - not some subterraniean process.

 

The Buddha did not suggest we abandon viture which is what you are suggesting. He did suggest that following feelings leads to suffereing whether those 'feelings' are good or bad. Practictioning Buddhist realise that 'feeling's are triggered by our own perception of things - which is seldom accurate.

[minsocal]

It seems that you have some issue with me - I don't what that is. That's Ok - I'm not a theologian but I have practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a number of years. The Buddha taught many things. But the Buddha certainly did not teach 'compassion' as 'blind emotion' as you seem to suggest. But then I'm not sure I understand your use of 'emotion'. Compassion, for the Buddha, is a rational respose - not some subterraniean process.

 

I have no issue with you at all. You simply ignore what you do not want to hear. I did not say compassion is "blind emotion". If you cannot accept the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, thats fine. If you disagree with Whitehead and process theology, say so before you impose your beliefs on a body of theory.

[Wayseer]

If you cannot accept the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, thats fine.

 

Now where did that come from?

 

I think it's time to leave....

[minsocal]

Now where did that come from?

 

I think it's time to leave....

 

Where did that come from ... A book that chronicles the lectures of the Dalia Lama on Christianity to a Christian audience.

[minsocal]

Where did that come from ... A book that chronicles the lectures of the Dalia Lama on Christianity to a Christian audience.

 

P.S. I have shared the last 15 years of my life with a Tibetan Buddhist.

[David]

So what is happening with my two internet friends?

 

Let me see if I understand.

 

Buddhism is based upon seeing suffering as, at least in part, attachment to feelings (emotions). The antidote to that is to bring those feelings/emotions into consciousness so they can be recognized for what they are. With "the Path" they loose their power. The associated experience is an overwhelming sense of release.

 

Jung suggested that emotions also are related to the unconscious. The antidote to being controlled by the shadow was for the ego to attempt to make the unconscious conscious. This process actually occurs when one feels “an extraordinary sense of release, as though transported, or caught up by an overwhelming power”.

 

What is the difference? It seems to me that the ego is much more important to Jung than it is to the Buddhist. For Jung the ego is an important solution to the problem. For the Buddhist the ego is the problem. For Jung the ego is in a complex relationship with the collective unconscious. Since the Buddhist does not recognize the positive importance of the ego it certainly would not recognize the importance of the collective unconscious.

 

What is the same? Neither Jung nor the Buddhist recognize the power of what we can only call God because we have no other name for it. How does Jung turn towards God? How does the Buddhist turn towards God?

 

Minsoscal, I understand that the “Answer to Job” was not important to you. What other Jungian writing takes Jung towards God? How do you take Jung towards God? Is it possible that “Jung gone bad” actually creates categories out of people? Is it possible that the Buddhist does have something to say about the lack of the ego’s importance? Does the symbol of the cross have to do with the sacrifice of the ego and the destruction of catagories?

 

Wayseer, I understand that you see God in the process. But the goal of the process for the Christian is different than the goal of the process for the Buddhist. You can not be a Buddhist and worship God. What is it about worship that is so powerful for you? Is it possible that when you sing with that fundamentalist choir that some archetype is at work within you? Is it possible that suffering actually is more than our “attachment” to feelings—is it not possible that suffering can be understood with a “bio-psycho-social theory”? Would this not suggest that a proper response to suffering is more than losing our attachment? The "doing" is going to involve a lot of work with egos both individual and collective. I don't know anyone who understands egos more than Jung.

 

I think that Christianity is able to relate to Jung and the Buddhist but Christianity to me suggests something more than either one. For me the Christian answer has to do with being grasped by Grace--Grace not controlled by the archetype nor contained in the process. I would suggest Tillich but I don’t want to interrupt a good fight.

[October's Autumn]

I wish I were better at organizing my thoughts.

 

 

I wish I were better at understanding what the heck this thread is about... I've been trying to read but I got lost with Jung.

[David]

I am sure that DavidK does not realize why he can not be included in this conversation. But I'm not concerned with what DavidK thinks. I am concerned with what Progressives think. So I do think it is important for us to see what the disagreement is about and if the disagreement is important for Progressive Christianity.

[October's Autumn]

Does anyone disagree (besides DavidK)?

 

ROFLMAO! Nothing against davidk it is just the way David worded it made me laugh... I needed a good laugh...

[minsocal]

So what is happening with my two internet friends?

 

Let me see if I understand.

 

Buddhism is based upon seeing suffering as, at least in part, attachment to feelings (emotions). The antidote to that is to bring those feelings/emotions into consciousness so they can be recognized for what they are. With "the Path" they loose their power. The associated experience is an overwhelming sense of release.

 

Jung suggested that emotions also are related to the unconscious. The antidote to being controlled by the shadow was for the ego to attempt to make the unconscious conscious. This process actually occurs when one feels “an extraordinary sense of release, as though transported, or caught up by an overwhelming power”.

 

What is the difference? It seems to me that the ego is much more important to Jung than it is to the Buddhist. For Jung the ego is an important solution to the problem. For the Buddhist the ego is the problem. For Jung the ego is in a complex relationship with the collective unconscious. Since the Buddhist does not recognize the positive importance of the ego it certainly would not recognize the importance of the collective unconscious.

 

What is the same? Neither Jung nor the Buddhist recognize the power of what we can only call God because we have no other name for it. How does Jung turn towards God? How does the Buddhist turn towards God?

 

Minsoscal, I understand that the “Answer to Job” was not important to you. What other Jungian writing takes Jung towards God? How do you take Jung towards God? Is it possible that “Jung gone bad” actually creates categories out of people? Is it possible that the Buddhist does have something to say about the lack of the ego’s importance? Does the symbol of the cross have to do with the sacrifice of the ego and the destruction of catagories?

 

Wayseer, I understand that you see God in the process. But the goal of the process for the Christian is different than the goal of the process for the Buddhist. You can not be a Buddhist and worship God. What is it about worship that is so powerful for you? Is it possible that when you sing with that fundamentalist choir that some archetype is at work within you? Is it possible that suffering actually is more than our “attachment” to feelings—is it not possible that suffering can be understood with a “bio-psycho-social theory”? Would this not suggest that a proper response to suffering is more than losing our attachment? The "doing" is going to involve a lot of work with egos both individual and collective. I don't know anyone who understands egos more than Jung.

 

I think that Christianity is able to relate to Jung and the Buddhist but Christianity to me suggests something more than either one. For me the Christian answer has to do with being grasped by Grace--Grace not controlled by the archetype nor contained in the process. I would suggest Tillich but I don’t want to interrupt a good fight.

 

Well ... the "Answer to Job" makes me uncomfortable but not certain, I have not concluded yet. Important, maybe.

 

Jung said that be did not believe in God. He said that "I know God exists." This was based on his intuitive awareness of God. Intuition is a valid way of knowing, and the word "know" is a success verb (Searle, 1998). Buddhism emphasizes ... attachments to negative emotions. The argument in this thread is simple, what about attachments to positive emotions? Care? Not doing harm? Reciprocity? Attachment can be towards negative emotions or toward positive emotions. You choose. Attachment is not a unipolar negative phenomenon.

 

For Jung, the split between the ego and the unconscious IS the problem, and the ego is (sometimes) less important than the unconscious, other times not. And, Jung said that reality cannot render itself to "either East or West ... Life refuses to be enbalmed alive."

 

Buddha did not reject the notion of God, but simply said that such metaphysical speculation was unwarrented. But, Buddha accepted the notion of reincarnation. Now how do you have reincarnation without an immaterial soul?

 

I understand your reference to grace only because I briefed myself on Tillich.

 

More to follow ... after I get my perspective on grace recalled.

[David]

ROFLMAO! Nothing against davidk it is just the way David worded it made me laugh... I needed a good laugh...

Boy you are fast. I took that out hoping that DavidK and I can eventually talk baseball.

[minsocal]

I wish I were better at understanding what the heck this thread is about... I've been trying to read but I got lost with Jung.

 

It is really not that complex. Just ask yourself what you would do if you encountered a baby in distress? Your archetypal response would be, most likely, to care for it. This is not a sexist statement, it is what we (males and females) do.

[Wayseer]

Buddhism emphasizes ... attachments to negative emotions.

 

No so. Buddhism teaches that attachment to either negative or positive emotions is harmful. The 'emphasis' in Buddhism lies in the 'attachment' - not how you might wish to label those emotions/feelings. The reason - that those 'emotions/feelings' do not ultimately exist.

 

You view of Buddhism is a very Western rationalistic model and generates from an misunderstanding of Buddhist philosophy.

 

The argument in this thread is simple, what about attachments to positive emotions?

 

As I indicated, from a Buddhist perspective, such attachment is deletorious to enlightenment. The rationale behind performing 'compassion' is that it generates merit by reason of it deemed a virtue by reason of demonstrating 'unattachment'.

 

A little story might illustrate the point. I was part of a group of Western monks living in a monestery in Dharmsala and where talking during a break in the teachings. One of the group related a story his experieces in SE Asia as a monk. As was customary, he joined in the procession of monks as they passed through the local village, begging. Again, as was usual, they received generous portions of food which they would then share. My friend, unable to speak the local language simple said, 'Thank you' when he received a donation of food - until one day. After receiving food followed by his usual 'Thank you', the donor, in perfect English, said, 'Don't thank me. I did'nt do it for you'.

 

Giving, by whatever method that giving may entail, is done with a different rationale. Giving is done because it is an expression of unattachment - an unattachment to 'self', an unattachment to money, an unattachment to food. Such stands in stark contrast to Western custom where giving is seen as 'something I do for you'. I find some honesty in the Buddhist tradition of giving. Again, such honesty stands in contrast to the Western notion that is, partly at least, dishonest - our giving generally denies any ulterior or selfish motive.

 

What I have demonstrated does not deny the 'relative' reality in which we live. We do 'care' about others. But as anthroplogists will acknowledge, 'caring' is a learned process. The Ik were a group where practicing 'caring' actually was a deliberating emotion that threaten the survival of the group. We might also ask, what purpose is served by buring our dead. This is a waste of protein. But some 70 K years ago that's exactly what our ancestors did - they started to buried their dead, who were interned along with some objects. Humans had meaning other than animals intent on surviving. Caring, hospitals, education and even democracy are the result of a learned process streatching back some 70 K. We, as humans, have to be taught to love and to hate - these are not innate in our being.

[davidk]

I am glad to see you still remain on task with everthing else going on.

 

A large part of Jung's research depended upon "language related memory".

I concur. I tried to make my comment as concise as possible, for the sake of these posts. The phrase below in italics is crucial to my meaning. I did change one word to be a bit more descriptive. "Jung speaks of the 'collective unconscious' which emerges from mankind as a whole". I think it coincides with your; "(Jung's) theory attempts to merge biology, psychology and social theory into one complex model.". To wit, I remain in the opinion his is a 'language-related memory' and a better explanation than a 'collective unconscious'.

 

The connotation of words remain (the memory) but there is only an illusion of meaning (definition); as I referenced Tillich.

 

Jung was a complex character. A brilliant mind, but was conflicted. In fact, you made an excellant point of his conflict. That "he did not believe in God.". But, he said that, "I know God exists." First, in theory, he doesn't believe in god, but in practice cannot refute His existance. In theory, he can remain irrational; but, cannot live without being rational. Even though his observations declare God really exists, he had made a choice to deny God.

 

Bearing this in mind, his theories are thought provoking and a challenge to discuss, but I believe there's difficulty finding complete validity. He may very well have thought it substantial, he may have very well have thought it justified, and whatever it was, he had an agenda.

 

minsocal Yesterday, 03:44 PM Post #46

 

In general:

The overall moral perspective for conservatives places an "emphasis on laws and conformity of actions to these laws" while liberals place an "emphasis on persons and their interrelationships. We create the human of the future and future of humanity."

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but by defining liberal with "We create the human of the future and the future of Humanity." it appears to either be: pitting one against the other; or, insinuating an over-inflated ego of the liberal.

 

Could you be more explicit in defining 'moral' the way you intend it to be understood in moral intuition? Also could you touch on pre-rational and why it cannot be considered 'non' or 'ir' rational, if it is not rational.

I know this request seems out of step, but since we both realize semantic differences, we may need to be more explicit when it come to defining on occasion what we mean.

[minsocal]

I am glad to see you still remain on task with everthing else going on.

 

I concur. I tried to make my comment as concise as possible, for the sake of these posts. The phrase below in italics is crucial to my meaning. I did change one word to be a bit more descriptive. "Jung speaks of the 'collective unconscious' which emerges from mankind as a whole". I think it coincides with your; "(Jung's) theory attempts to merge biology, psychology and social theory into one complex model.". To wit, I remain in the opinion his is a 'language-related memory' and a better explanation than a 'collective unconscious'.

 

The connotation of words remain (the memory) but there is only an illusion of meaning (definition); as I referenced Tillich.

 

Jung was a complex character. A brilliant mind, but was conflicted. In fact, you made an excellant point of his conflict. That "he did not believe in God.". But, he said that, "I know God exists." First, in theory, he doesn't believe in god, but in practice cannot refute His existance. In theory, he can remain irrational; but, cannot live without being rational. Even though his observations declare God really exists, he had made a choice to deny God.

 

Bearing this in mind, his theories are thought provoking and a challenge to discuss, but I believe there's difficulty finding complete validity. He may very well have thought it substantial, he may have very well have thought it justified, and whatever it was, he had an agenda.

 

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but by defining liberal with "We create the human of the future and the future of Humanity." it appears to either be: pitting one against the other; or, insinuating an over-inflated ego of the liberal.

 

Could you be more explicit in defining 'moral' the way you intend it to be understood in moral intuition? Also could you touch on pre-rational and why it cannot be considered 'non' or 'ir' rational, if it is not rational.

I know this request seems out of step, but since we both realize semantic differences, we may need to be more explicit when it come to defining on occasion what we mean.

 

By definition the collective unconscious is the biological component.

 

There is no conflict at all in the statement about Jung and "knowing" that God exists. If you read the earlier discussion on intuition this would be clear. You have to differentiate the empirical theory and the person. Intuition is but one of several ways of "knowing".

 

There is no insinuation regarding "liberal" and over-inflated ego on my part or in the statement itself. It is not the pitting of one against another, that's a typical conservative assumption. Rather, it is one with society (see "We ...)

 

Please read the first post concerning what moral intuitions we are discussing.

 

Intuition is nonrational by definition (already stated several times).

 

Irrational and nonrational are the same in this discussion as far as I am concerned. Irrational has a common negative conotation not intended by Jung or this discussion. In general, these are intentional mental states that are unconsious and, in principle, accessible to consciousness.

 

Prerational simply means intentional mental states that support conscious synthetic (Kant's term) rational and intentional mental states. That is, they are processed prior to reaching consciousness.

[minsocal]

No so. Buddhism teaches that attachment to either negative or positive emotions is harmful. The 'emphasis' in Buddhism lies in the 'attachment' - not how you might wish to label those emotions/feelings. The reason - that those 'emotions/feelings' do not ultimately exist.

 

You view of Buddhism is a very Western rationalistic model and generates from an misunderstanding of Buddhist philosophy.

As I indicated, from a Buddhist perspective, such attachment is deletorious to enlightenment. The rationale behind performing 'compassion' is that it generates merit by reason of it deemed a virtue by reason of demonstrating 'unattachment'.

 

A little story might illustrate the point. I was part of a group of Western monks living in a monestery in Dharmsala and where talking during a break in the teachings. One of the group related a story his experieces in SE Asia as a monk. As was customary, he joined in the procession of monks as they passed through the local village, begging. Again, as was usual, they received generous portions of food which they would then share. My friend, unable to speak the local language simple said, 'Thank you' when he received a donation of food - until one day. After receiving food followed by his usual 'Thank you', the donor, in perfect English, said, 'Don't thank me. I did'nt do it for you'.

 

Giving, by whatever method that giving may entail, is done with a different rationale. Giving is done because it is an expression of unattachment - an unattachment to 'self', an unattachment to money, an unattachment to food. Such stands in stark contrast to Western custom where giving is seen as 'something I do for you'. I find some honesty in the Buddhist tradition of giving. Again, such honesty stands in contrast to the Western notion that is, partly at least, dishonest - our giving generally denies any ulterior or selfish motive.

 

What I have demonstrated does not deny the 'relative' reality in which we live. We do 'care' about others. But as anthroplogists will acknowledge, 'caring' is a learned process. The Ik were a group where practicing 'caring' actually was a deliberating emotion that threaten the survival of the group. We might also ask, what purpose is served by buring our dead. This is a waste of protein. But some 70 K years ago that's exactly what our ancestors did - they started to buried their dead, who were interned along with some objects. Humans had meaning other than animals intent on surviving. Caring, hospitals, education and even democracy are the result of a learned process streatching back some 70 K. We, as humans, have to be taught to love and to hate - these are not innate in our being.

 

I asked my partner if Tibetan Buddhism conflicts with science. He reminded me that the Dalai Lama has stated clearly that if science were to prove Budhhism wrong then he would change his form of Budhhism (one of many forms). I have also read books by the Dalai Lama. He is clear that Buddhism may not be appropriate for Westerners.

 

I have heard the monk story before.

 

As for anthropology, Richard? Schweder inspired the research of Haidt that we are discussing. Your argument is the old and worn out assumption that the mind is a blank slate. If emotions are not real, then why is it that the brain has so much of it dedicated to generating emotion? The neurophysiolgy is well understood, and improving rapidly. When neuroscientists observe the functioning of the brain using MTI technology, they can observe the activity of the brain when people are in different mental states. And guess what, when we engage in rational processing, certain emotional centers in the brain activate along with the prefrontal cortex where rational processing takes place.

 

The argument here is that emotions motivate and that, as already stated, innate factors both guide and constrain learning. As to love and hate, I have already posted a comment on these. They have a very large learning component, but do not operate in isolation from other desires and beliefs. And besides, the capacity to represent and learn is innate. The theory under discussion here is holistic and is a bio-psycho-social theory that incoporates anthropology, just as Jung did.

[minsocal]

David,

 

So much came into this tread that I am having difficulty keeping up. You have added a lot that I need to digest.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

David,

 

My edits to the previous post were too late ... they did not update.

 

I believe you brought up the subject of grace.

 

With Type A theologies, the emphasis is on created grace i.e. "justifying one's otherwise worthless existence through good acts as specified by the authority of an autocratic Church." Grace is limited.

 

Problems arise when you consider the notion of an indwelling God.

 

With Type B theologies, the arguments are more complex. As I understand it, "the primary meaning of grace is God's presence dwelling with people, giving life an intrinsic rather than extrinsic value ..." Grace is abundant and available to all.

 

It will take me a while to respond to your recent post in depth.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

Wayseer,

 

Perhaps you could start a thread on Buddhism?

 

minsocal

[davidk]

Your post, and I may be at fault for misreading, but I concluded the definitions, were applied in independent clauses. 'Clause one: The overall moral perspective for conservatives places an (your quotation) "emphasis on laws and conformity of actions to these laws". (close quote). Clause two:'...while liberals place an (new quotation) "emphasis on persons and their interrelationships. We create the human of the future and future of humanity."(close quote) Since you had described liberals as having, "... a tendency to presume the importance of individual autonomy" in your first post, I had to have you clarify.

Which takes us to Kant and the sense of autonomy. Kant said of God, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…".

-

In addition, you first post had not defined 'Moral', as best as I can tell.

-

"Intuition is nonrational by definition (already stated several times)." You should be well aware of my response as well, "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." I'm not sure why it's mentioned again.

-

"In general, ( the irrational/ nonrational) are intentional mental states that are unconsious." I simply have to consider this irrational, I cannot follow this.

-

The 'collective unconscious' could very well be Jung's rehash of a movement from around the turn of the 1900's, called "THE DELEGATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE". Identified in their inner circles as language being an 'unconscious collective'. Much like I had in an earlier post, "I suggest this is a 'language-related memory' ".

-

Let's not omit any of the 'contestants'. The conflict which I addressed was not one between his knowing and his knowing, but between his believing and his knowing. I will include my view again for convenience sake only: First, in theory, (Jung) doesn't believe in god, but second; in practice he cannot refute His existance.

Again: First, in theory, he can remain irrational; but, second, cannot live without being rational.

One more time; first, even though his observation (or intuition, if you prefer) declares God really exists; second, despite knowing God exists he makes a choice to deny God.

-

Arguing over these issues is really moot. Jung doesn't believe in God, and neither does Tillich, nor Buddah, nor Kant.

-

I didn't enter this discussion with any expectancy or any guarantee of impartiality. I assume you knew likewise. But I should at least be worthy of serious consideration.

[minsocal]

Your post, and I may be at fault for misreading, but I concluded the definitions, were applied in independent clauses. 'Clause one: The overall moral perspective for conservatives places an (your quotation) "emphasis on laws and conformity of actions to these laws". (close quote). Clause two:'...while liberals place an (new quotation) "emphasis on persons and their interrelationships. We create the human of the future and future of humanity."(close quote) Since you had described liberals as having, "... a tendency to presume the importance of individual autonomy" in your first post, I had to have you clarify.

Which takes us to Kant and the sense of autonomy. Kant said of God, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…".

-

In addition, you first post had not defined 'Moral', as best as I can tell.

-

"Intuition is nonrational by definition (already stated several times)." You should be well aware of my response as well, "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." I'm not sure why it's mentioned again.

-

"In general, ( the irrational/ nonrational) are intentional mental states that are unconsious." I simply have to consider this irrational, I cannot follow this.

-

The 'collective unconscious' could very well be Jung's rehash of a movement from around the turn of the 1900's, called "THE DELEGATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE". Identified in their inner circles as language being an 'unconscious collective'. Much like I had in an earlier post, "I suggest this is a 'language-related memory' ".

-

Let's not omit any of the 'contestants'. The conflict which I addressed was not one between his knowing and his knowing, but between his believing and his knowing. I will include my view again for convenience sake only: First, in theory, (Jung) doesn't believe in god, but second; in practice he cannot refute His existance.

Again: First, in theory, he can remain irrational; but, second, cannot live without being rational.

One more time; first, even though his observation (or intuition, if you prefer) declares God really exists; second, despite knowing God exists he makes a choice to deny God.

-

Arguing over these issues is really moot. Jung doesn't believe in God, and neither does Tillich, nor Buddah, nor Kant.

-

I didn't enter this discussion with any expectancy or any guarantee of impartiality. I assume you knew likewise. But I should at least be worthy of serious consideration.

 

The reference to Kant concerns the relationship of the process of intuition to higher level processes. Jung and Kant have similar views. For Kant and Jung, intuition is not acquired, it is an innate function of the mind-brain. Again, working within the definitions of the psychological types, this is what Jung is talking about. In this discussion, the process of intuition is also unconscious by definition. It is a process that organizes content and presents it to consciousness. The distinction between the process and its content is very important. Since intuition operates prior to presenting the results to consciousness, it cannot be rational in the sense defined by Jung.

 

Jung made the statement I indicated. In his empirical work he tried to avoid metaphysical speculation. In his more personal communications with theologians of his day he made the statement I indicated. This is found in the book "The Gnostic Jung" if I remember correctly. I had made the comment concerning intuition that "One can have an intuitive awareness of God". An intuitive awareness of God is simply "given" to consciousness as Jung states "whole and complete." This would not be a belief, in the technical sense I implied. A belief is subject to truth conditions and an intuition is not.

 

Morality can be law defined, but that was not the pupose of this thread. What Haidt is researching are the innate (natural) responses built into the brain-mind that act to trigger responses in the general domain of what is commonly called "moral". This is what is being discussed in this thread. The assumption is that the brain evolved specialized capacities to respond in the categories, and these capacities evolved over a very long period of time. The innate tendency to respond to "typical situations in life" is the core of the theory of archetypes. Haidt's perspective is just this.

 

As to intentional mental states that are unconscious. Here I am using the term "intentional" in the technical sense. The technical defintion of "intentionalty" is that of a mental state that is "about" or "directed at" some object or state of affairs. When intuitions are formed unconcsciously they are "about" or directed at objects and states of affairs. This is a major piece of Jung's theory. Wikipedia has a good summary of the concept of intentionality.

 

As to the collective unconsious, it is nothing more than the "the sum total of instincts and archetypes". That is it in the framework of this discussion. Hans Eysenk took over Jung's theory and developed a highly regarded biologically based theory that, at least, supports Jung's theory of introversion and extraversion. In Jung's theory instincts constrain consciousness at one end of the spectrum and archetypes constrain consciousness at the high end of the spectrum. In between, we have a limited range of free will.

 

As to archetypes, Jung called them "the spiritual heritage of all mankind".

 

Perhaps, if you think of the collective unconscious as set of biologically based innate predispostions it might help matters. Predispositions do not determine mental states directly. They are tendencies to form mental states. This is what Jung was talking about.

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

For general use on the thread. In my first post I included the website for anyone to access and see how they compare to the research results. Has anyone tried it?

 

http://www.yourmorals.org/

 

Here is the abstract:

 

The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology

Jonathan Haidt

 

People are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and institutions that create diverse moral communities. I propose a fourth principle to guide future research: Morality is about more than harm and fairness. More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity.

 

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

[October's Autumn]

It is really not that complex. Just ask yourself what you would do if you encountered a baby in distress? Your archetypal response would be, most likely, to care for it. This is not a sexist statement, it is what we (males and females) do.

 

You'll have to catch me when I'm not trying to figure out how to teach 4th graders algebra... or long division

[minsocal]

You'll have to catch me when I'm not trying to figure out how to teach 4th graders algebra... or long division

 

Ya ... and that is an important task. Wish you well.

[October's Autumn]

Ya ... and that is an important task. Wish you well.

 

Many think that it is a waste of time to teach long division... I'm agreeing with them but that doesn't mean I don't have to *try*