glintofpewter Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 so that we have now begun to go about finding different vessels to crack up, break apart, so as to get at the particular precious content they may hold. Can I say that that is why my apartment is such a mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Glintofpower, yeah, very probably...that's as good an excuse for the mess around here at my place...I must must must do something to get all the stacks and boxes and closets an attic full of books, notebooks and journals under control.... I do have pretty good head full of stuff I've picked up here the last few days, notes, list of links to recorded lecture series, several other websites, some books, I think I'll explore and process quietly for a while, while I'm enjoying splashing around, think its time to paddle over to the bank and take a little time out. Also, the abundance of free time I've had to engage here this past week, which coincided with having to rest and recuperate from a minor health incident last week, has resulted in my mess around here being even more a mess, so I won't be quite as active in posting for a bit...and of course, there's all these bits and pieces of broken vessels laying around to contend with.. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Holley Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 Wanting Sumptuous Heavens By Robert Bly http://www.poetryfou...org/poem/182474 Love it. Thank you minsocal. In a way, it's a pity we have a cerebral cortex isn't it? Life would be so much simpler without. Thanks everyone for contributions on the nature of evil. Sorry I confused you, but wow -- look what it evoked. I guess what I was trying to say is that the enabling is about life and life is about relationship. Evil arises when we fail to co-operate with that enabling - either through inability or shear contrariness. Whatever we choose to do, we are nonetheless enabled from that same eternal source because the enabling is a gift of pure grace which will never be withdrawn. Hence the most imperfect people are capable of great good and those who seem most perfect are capable of great wrong. The enabling is something like Dutch suggested in his quotation from Father Coyne The Pope's former astronomer, Father Coyne says that in a fertile universe by chance it was inevitable that something like us would emerge. God was hoping that's how it would turn out. I'd love a source for that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I'd love a source for that quote. Brian, check the thread in the Cafe forums. I think it is in the Hampshire College address that he puts those words together. I don't think it is in the foratv presentation. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Thanks for the earlier responses to my questions I had been looking for spiritual / behavioral differences between EC and PC, when its really more about enlarging the picture, providing new language that in itself is huge. Its an inspiring movement and I enjoy reading blogs about it. About there being no separate source for evil I agree, oppression and violence are consequences of humanitys freedom of choice. Also appreciate the reference to the feminine side of Christas homemaker, giver of hospitality and active caregiver for the world. I looked up some more from Ilia Delio I think we need to lighten up a little and enjoy the ride. We need to recapture a sense of this cosmic adventure in love and that were part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 ...some further thoughts arising.... In the matter of good and evil, and what I expressed regarding good and evil as relative to effect, consequences, outcome---"fruit"... Perhaps the designation of good or evil comes of meanings we create for ourselves relative to any event, and how we then respond, in changes of perspective, and/or reactions to it. In considering the effect, consequences, outcome, those things are often entirely or almost so, brought about by our response to any event. And it is in how we percieve and respond that any effective meaning of good or evil might be ascribed to the event as an afterthought. In the example I gave about the human atrocities of mass genocide in the past century having effect of helping bring about a shift in world consciousness and conscience, it is in that response and reaction that the good or evil is determined. As has been noted, the idea of God, or any human agency, doing evil that good may come of it, is discarded as the good or evil that follows as a result is not a neccessary andinevitable consequence, but rather a choice made after the event. I suggested that in the effects of mass genocides and human atrocities of the last century on that shifting of the collective consciousness and conseince toward greater empathy and valuation of the life and well being of others, a good came of it, that blurred the distinctions of good and evil of the events themselves. But I think that is an error in my thinking....as I noted my self, such atrocities had always occurred over the course of history without having that result, so what made those of the past century any different? And more effective at influencing the collective consience? The only real material difference I can think of at the moment is that advances in communications technology brought the events to the sight and hearing of a far greater portion of the world population than had ever been possible before. Simply hearing or reading idealized and even romanticized tales of the great victories and defeats of war and conlfict between peoples doesn't convey what seeing actual images of such an event does. I have to wonder, if those that take lightly, as God-blessed great and noble victories over enemies, some of the ethnic cleansing genocides by the Israelities against the inhabitants of lands they reported in the bible could continue to do so if they really stopped and thought about them, really visualized the slaughter of ordinary people--men, women, children, infants-- living ordinary civil lives, and the blood and gore and screams, the horrors of their suffering and deaths? The difference, then, the mass violence against ordinary people innocent of anything beyond being "them and not us", is found not in the events temsleves, but in how they were percieved, and how the people of the world responded to them after the fact. Consider this on the common personal level, when people respond to some tragic event, the death of a loved one, by determining to do something that will give them a sense that their loved one "did not die in vain." The organization of effective networks for disseminating information on missing and abducted children did not come about as the result of the tragic death of a little boy in Florida, but because one man, the boy's father, determined to create positive meaning out of his grief and loss. Countless other children have suffered similar fates, and were not the singular event that triggerred such a response...does that mean all those other children died in vain, but this one little boy did not? Of course not, such an idea is absurd. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Even more difficult to think about is how an event we have percieved only as good an actually have consequences, results, we'd see as evil, bad. Again, so much rides on our response to those events. Consider the advances in knowledge and medical technology of the past several centuries, from area of the role of nutrition in health and disease, to the development of anti-biotics and vaccinations agaist dread diseases, as well as those advances in agriculture and food preservation, storage, and distribution. All of which have dramatically increased the survival rate and average lifespan of all infants born. But the same factors also increases the rate of those that will not only survive, but mature to reproduce, the natural consequence being an exploding increase in population. Not only has this exponentially exploding rate of population growth (with no end in sight) placing increasingly unbearable pressure on resources and even the capacity of the Earth to sustain life at all, but has resulted as well in the construction of what are literally ticking time bombs from the very same components of technology that have brought these seemingly wholly benign and positive advances. Anti-biotic resistant pathogens in humans and animals that provide food sources, pesticide resistant crop pests, all evolving right alongside populations of humans, animals, and plants that are likewise evolving populations of humans, animals,and plants genetically bred to have weaker immune systems and surivial efficiency, for having evolved over generations of protection from natural processes that would have been culling out the weak, selecting toward fitness for survival. In our own disruption of the natural process of evolution, we are sowing the seeds of our own global-wide catastrophies of pandemics of disease and starvation. So have our efforts to a good, increasing survival by holding back the challenges to survival, been good or evil? Again, perhaps that can be found only in our responses. When we removed threats to survival, and the natural challenges of evolution, we did not carry through in thought and action any defensive means of actng upon the natural out-working of consequences. We've so far done nothing toward balancing the potential for explosive increases in population with planned efforts to control population increase, or to devise and implement other means of challenging the immune systems of the reproducing populations among neither human, domestic animals, or domestic plants. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Still working on this in my own mind, but ... Let me know when you figure it out. I usually have to read secondary sources on Whitehead if I want to feel I understand anything I was surprised to see he used terms like "eternal objects" because, well, they are objects not occasions. I found here a discussion of the "disappearance" of 'eternal objects'. I understood a little of it. The conclusion was either simple or profound or both: "something matters." http://whiteheadresearch.org/occasions/conferences/beyond-metaphysics/papers/HalewoodM-OnValueAndValuesInLaterWhitehead.pdf Halewood's account of Whitehead does bring fact and value together but I would have to read several times before I have a grasp of what is being conveyed. For the moment I "believe" so profoundly in the chance and the fertility of the evolution of the universe and of God, "eternal objects" beyond now seem Platonic and not of this world, as in not having anything to do with this world. How do we select, value, and interpret relevant 'eternal objects' (facts and values) from such a very large inventory? I don't know Jung. I first ran across the twin concepts of facts and values (as being part of the science/religion 'dialog' discussed recently in the youtube of Dr. Loyal Rue's What is Religion?. I don't see where this very large inventory comes from unless it comes from the iteration of evolution. but I do "believe' that a collection of mythic (deeply embedded in the subconscious) stories and values can accumulate. it is through a "matrix" of "formal objects" of our own emotions that we merge fact and value or, as Jung would put it, this is the "numinosity" of the mythic image of creation "in the beginning". We need only to give up our fear of the depths. Well, I'm for keeping busy so I won't notice that I am standing on thin air. Exploring the depths is a crucifixion and resurrection journey that not all will take. I am happy for the few moments I sit still and feel a deep, hand in the soil, butt on the bench centering. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Dutch, In Process and Reality, Whitehead indroduced his version of a theory of mind. By 'eternal objects', Whitehead simply means those facts of the objective world that the mind is capable of grasping. Whitehead then asks whether there is any reality beyond that which can be known and his answer is "no". Thus G_d must be in creation, not outside of it. Whitehead was aware of the implications of Darwin's theory, but it would be a mistake to think he was incorporating Darwinism into his theory of mind. Whitehead's work is based on Spinoza who anticipated Darwin. Read Spinoza and you will find Darwin, at least to a significant degree. Darwin the empiricist simply left the G_d of Spinoza out of his theory. Humans are continuous with evolution, which is clearly evident in the brains of all mammals. Your brain is structured very much like all other mammals. The structure and function of your brain is as objective as anything else in the "real" world. So now we get down to the real issues. For centuries, there has been a bitter debate. One side claiming (in the extreme) that the 'mind' is a 'blank slate' at birth and the other side claiming (in the extreme) that all 'eternal objects' are somehow 'in the mind' at birth. For Whitehead and Jung, the extreme positions are untenable. A hallmark of "progressive thought" is to view extreme viewpoints with great suspicion. It is also true that "progressive thought" is suspicious of dualisms, such as the mind-body dualism of Descartes. So what, exactly, did evolution provide when it comes to the human mind-brain? It gave use emotions and intuitions about the environment(s) in which (we-it) grew out of. Some of those emotions and ituitions are moral in nature. Some have to do with plain survival. But, survival and morality are difficult to disjoin. Now we get to the heart of the theory of mind put forth by Jung and Whitehead (they are very close). Emotions (read primary and innate) target certain 'formal objects', whether that 'object' be ourselves or the external world. Awe and gratitude grab our attention and foucus it on the moral actions of others. Compassion grabs our attention and focuses it on the suffering of others ... and so on. Some emotions and intuitions focus on others and some focus on ourselves. Time to rest ... more later Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 In Process and Reality, Whitehead indroduced his version of a theory of mind. Humans are continuous with evolution, which is clearly evident in the brains of all mammals. Your brain is structured very much like all other mammals. The structure and function of your brain is as objective as anything else in the "real" world. Myron Myron, Scot Atran (In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion), Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) and others argue that Theory of Mind (ToM) is the mechanism that allows humans to conceive of God. The essential features are 'agency' and 'intentionality.' Our default assumption about any occurrence is that there is an agent. If the agent cannot be identified (like for a tsunami, flood, etc.), it is attributed to a supernatural force. In addition, we infer intentionality: We intuitively assume that the agent is acting purposefully. They do not address whether God actually exists or doesn't exist, but only our conception of it. It is possible that God could exist beyond our conception. We could also conceive of a God that does not exist. But, without the right mental machinery, we would had never formed this idea. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Myron, Scot Atran (In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion), Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) and others argue that Theory of Mind (ToM) is the mechanism that allows humans to conceive of God. The essential features are 'agency' and 'intentionality.' Our default assumption about any occurrence is that there is an agent. If the agent cannot be identified (like for a tsunami, flood, etc.), it is attributed to a supernatural force. In addition, we infer intentionality: We intuitively assume that the agent is acting purposefully. They do not address whether God actually exists or doesn't exist, but only our conception of it. It is possible that God could exist beyond our conception. We could also conceive of a God that does not exist. But, without the right mental machinery, we would had never formed this idea. George George, I entirely agree, although I use numerous different sources. The same reasoning is found in the work of John Searle who is an analytic philosopher/cognitive scientist well known for his work on intentionalty. Searle is interesting. While he is a self avowed atheist, he is at least honest when he admits that many (if not most) humans have an "urge towards the spiritual" he cannot explain. He also leaves a door open when he says that perhaps some day we will discover G_d as a yet unkown causal force in nature. Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Myron, Is there a particular Searle book that you would recommend? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Myron, Is there a particular Searle book that you would recommend? George George, I recommend The Rediscovery of the Mind. I quote from it at times in this forum. I use it to find clarity in Whitehead and Jung as all three agree that the creative capacity of the mind is indeed a marvel. Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 For centuries, there has been a bitter debate. One side claiming (in the extreme) that the 'mind' is a 'blank slate' at birth and the other side claiming (in the extreme) that all 'eternal objects' are somehow 'in the mind' at birth. Stephen Pinker, a cognitive scientist, argues for the "not blank slate" view but would not be at the extreme. (Parents and modern artists were most upset by his views. their ire far above reaction to his views on Nazis.) Of, course I Haven't read the book. I waited for the video. I do want to continue a discussion about Whitehead but I have to take a break to attend to the rest of my life. durch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 There are so many ways to add color and meaning to concepts that might otherwise become rather dry. The following is very much in line with Whitehead: Consciousness at level-2 does not know the distinction between world order and mind-order ... I am bathed in the original mystery of order coming out of chaos (Moore, 1985, in Schnarch, 1991).” Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Stephen Pinker, a cognitive scientist, argues for the "not blank slate" view but would not be at the extreme. durch Dutch, Pinker is not outlier. There are a number of cognitive scientists who think that the mind is modular. I think much of this began with the recognition of a language instinct which is now well accepted among linguists although there is much debate as to the specifics of how it works. As an example, there are many rules of our grammar that a ten-year old knows (intuitively) that most mature adults don't even know that we know. There are a number of other areas that are being explored like morality, the arts, social group sizes, social relations, etc. for essential genetic wiring. Many of these (like the incest taboo) have a very plausible evolutionary explanation. I think we all accept that non-human animals come equipped with certain abilities (butterflies aren't taught by their parents to migrate thousands of miles and return to their birthplace). Other animals are social which they almost certainly did not decide to do in a pack meeting. Likewise, we humans have developed through evolution certain basic instincts and intuitions that are believed to be part of the wiring and come with the package. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Brian, I've begun listening to the EC tapes, and thank you for posting informnation about them. I'm really enjoying them, they are opening up new area of thought on the topic I haven't encountered before. I've listened to the first 6, but need to listen to them again to really get a good handle on them before going on. Thanks also to others that discussed these tapes, that helped me decide they were worth taking time to listen to, as well. A thought on what we interpret as the natural, seemingly instinctive "urge to the spiritual" in humans...I've wondered if that is relative to the uniquely human capacity to comprehend "the unknown", the existance of things "knowable" that is always beyond the range of what we know. Even the most intellegent animals are bascially limited to "knowing what they know", with little or no capacity to imagine a realm of things unknown, but with potential for being known. This comprehending of "the unknown" would provide the drive for exploring new ideas seeking new solutions, discovery and invention, even creativity. It may be that "realm of the unknown" is at least some part of the human's basic idea toward there being a"greater intellegence", ie God. This "realm of the unknown" I think corresponds somewhat to the 14th century "The Cloud of Unknowing.", which is the human state of reaching into that realm of the unknown. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Stephen Pinker, a cognitive scientist, argues for the "not blank slate" view but would not be at the extreme. (Parents and modern artists were most upset by his views. their ire far above reaction to his views on Nazis.) Of, course I Haven't read the book. I waited for the video. I do want to continue a discussion about Whitehead but I have to take a break to attend to the rest of my life. durch Dutch, Pinker's book is sitting next to me as I think about this thread. The motivation for my prior post. Synchronicity, perhaps. BTW, Pinker is a reformed 'blank-slater' ... Myron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Holley Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 Even more difficult to think about is how an event we have percieved only as good an actually have consequences, results, we'd see as evil, bad. Again, so much rides on our response to those events. I'm just trying to catch up with all the words this subject has created. My wife, Liz, is about to have a pacemaker fitted and am making sure she doesn't do too much at present, so time's limited. What you said on 12th June, Jenell, brought me back to my thoughts about God as 'enabler', rather than creator. In looking at the way evolution has gone, there had to be lots of room for what we'd regard as mistakes - outcomes that were the best that could be achieved given the circumstances. This kind of creation is a matter of 'what can be will be' - far from the 'intelligent design' model or the creationist model. As I said earlier, it makes a deeper sense of Matthew 5 for me when I think of a totally and utterly non-violent enabler - one who, in Einstein's words, 'loads the dice' or, as Fred Hoyle said, 'monkeyed with the physics'. It follows then, that the enabling won't stop things from happening that we regard as bad or evil because it is enabling what can be to be and what can be sometimes is negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Holley Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 Even more difficult to think about is how an event we have percieved only as good an actually have consequences, results, we'd see as evil, bad. Again, so much rides on our response to those events. Delighted you're enjoying the EC recordings, Jenell. I find I have to listen to them several times to get most of the juice out. Thanks for your contributions to this conversation too. It's always good to wrestle with ideas alongside people of open mind and you're helping me test some ideas I've included in a book I'm writing. Your comments bring me back to my original idea about 'God' as enabler rather than creator. Looking at the way evolution has taken place there has had to be a lot of scope for what we would regard as mistakes. The concept of an enabler allows for that. The process I observe seems to be in terms of 'what can be will be' rather than an imposition of will through 'intelligent design' or 'creation'. As I've said before, this brings new light for me on Matthew 5 which shows the qualities of 'God' to be emphatically non-violent. Thus we move from the simple to the complex, from unconscious to conscious by what Eintein suggested was a 'weighting of the dice' or as Hoyle put it, 'monkeying with the physics'. Something is interfering with entropy, slowing it down long enough for regeneration to take place - but in that regeneration there seems to be a purpose. The process is stochastic: random but purposeful - what can be will be. So that, as you say, good intentions can sometimes result in bad outcomes. Paul's great poem on love in 1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind here. " Love is patient . . . it keeps no record of wrong . . . it rejoices with the truth . . . it always protects, always trusts, always hopes. always perseveres. Love never fails." What a good description of the nurturing of life on earth through evolution! Hence my personal term for whatever we refer to as 'God' is 'Enabling Love' The cloud of unknowing, I think, is like St. John of the Cross's 'Dark night of the soul'. It is the discovery that in terms of reason and words, I cannot know. At first, to a reasoning creature, this is devastating. But then comes the realisation that, as Soctrates said, "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." That realisation is like breaking through a cloud into bright sunshine. It is liberating. It is the implication of Lao Tzu's words, "Those who say they know, know not. Those who say they do not know, know." To linear logic this is unreasonable, but to those who have experienced the One it is perfectly clear. What I have experienced is beyond words. I could not achieve it through words but only by abiding in the silence of my own heart. So what are the purpose of words and reasoning? Maybe they are to enable me to express what I experience in a way which will provoke a response to that meaning in the hearts of others. Maybe that's why Jesus said, 'let those who have ears, hear.' Only those with hearts open to the idea that they can never know with the mind alone can have the wisdom within themselves brought to birth by the midwifery of another's words - one who has already entered into the experience and in expressing words, expresses that experience. Enough of my prattling. Does this make any kind of sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I will be a happy man when sociology finally gets around to a theory of mind. Sadly, due to a a general (and partially justified) hostility toward sociobiology, it's only been in the last 10 years that cognitive science has started to be engaged. At the same time, it would be inaccurate to say sociology endorses a blank slate stance, as various sociologists over the years have had a lot to say about how socialization works (Bourdieu's work on habitus, for example) or how we seem hard hired toward certain behaviors (the entire Durkheimian tradition and the sacred, ethnomethodology's sensemaking, etc.) ....this is just a long winded way of saying I'm learning a lot in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Brian..."Does this make any kind of sense?" Absolutely! And I cannot express how exciting it is to have encountered here others to whom it makes sense. Out in the 'real world' of every day encounters with others, it can be easy to start wondering, does all this stuff in my mind really make sense as it seems to me, or is it possible the rest of the world is really right and it is me that has fallen into the state of madness in which one's delusional thought has erected the self-defense mechanism that posits it really isn't me that's crazy, it's everybody else? Actually, this is on topic for what triggered some of what I said to Dutch, under his thred "Experiencing-Christian filter..etc" under personal experiences. About not discrediting, or allowing others to discredit, our spiritual experiences because of as diagnosed brain or psychological condition....in recent years I've become part of the movement to bring brain disorders/mental illness (in my case, bi-polar)out of the closet, begin to overcome the absurd negative sterotypes and beliefs in our society, that basically serve to dismiss and discredit those that might suffer such conditions, even in ways that in fact do not interfere with normal thought and function at all. I decided I was no longer willing to be silent and complacent with a social construct of people affected by such disorders that made openly talking about one's own diagnosed condition and even one's having a family history of a high incidence of such disorders such a very different matter than openly talking about any other kind of diagnosed health condition and one's strong family history toward such problems,such as heart diease, diabetis, or cancer. For that, I have faced, do often face, and knew when I made that choice I would face, those that know of it finding it a handy way to dismiss any way in which I may percieve, think, or talk about things differently than they, or that they find uncomfortable, as just manifestation of my "mental condition." Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Btw, Brian,I hope and pray all goes well with your wife's proceedure. I also understand very well what you mean about the having taken in so many new thoughts and ideas X limited time equation for processing them....I'm very much there, myself, with all the new things I've encountered since discovering this forum. Under any circumstances, it does take time to process and integrate new data into your mental systems and to then integrate them into your life. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I will be a happy man when sociology finally gets around to a theory of mind. Sadly, due to a a general (and partially justified) hostility toward sociobiology, it's only been in the last 10 years that cognitive science has started to be engaged. At the same time, it would be inaccurate to say sociology endorses a blank slate stance, as various sociologists over the years have had a lot to say about how socialization works (Bourdieu's work on habitus, for example) or how we seem hard hired toward certain behaviors (the entire Durkheimian tradition and the sacred, ethnomethodology's sensemaking, etc.) ....this is just a long winded way of saying I'm learning a lot in this thread Bordieu's habitus is close to John Searle's thesis of the Background spelled out in The Rediscovery of the Mind (as noted by Searle). The thesis of the Background derives (IMO) from Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Whitehead's ToM find's emprical backing in the work of Antonio Damasio, a cognitive neuroscientist. That can be found in Descartes' Error, another book I like to recommend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Bordieu's habitus is close to John Searle's thesis of the Background spelled out in The Rediscovery of the Mind (as noted by Searle). The thesis of the Background derives (IMO) from Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Whitehead's ToM find's emprical backing in the work of Antonio Damasio, a cognitive neuroscientist. That can be found in Descartes' Error, another book I like to recommend. I can believe a link between Searle & Bourdieu as Bourdieu cited him on occasion. I'm doubtful significant Jungian influence survived the journey, however. The Damasio book looks interesting, though. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.