Had an interesting experience in my energy work with my actors
(actually was doing a theatre class with 5-6 year olds) - we explored
the reasons why when we yell at people, they are less likely to
help/more likely to get defensive. We broke it down into the action
we take. When we yell at someone, we "push hard" with our energy (you
know the feeling? when someone yells at you and you feel pushed?) -
and that when we "push softly" we're more likely to get what we want.
While discussing the exercise with a colleague - we realized that this
is just basic physics - for every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction. Ties in with the French adage - "that which you
resist, persists".
Seems like the rules of physics can be applied to psychology here.
Hmmmmmm. More food for thought.
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
Peter Lennox wrote:
> as regards the notion that perception is wholly determined by physiological
> issues, as in "you can't help seeing 'red' or green:
> one in five women have an extra red receptor that men never have.
> most emphatically, perception is not to be confused with sensation - that
> way lies behaviorism, and a mechanistic view of human life, which is
> definitely insufficient (i.e. -overly simplistic) in explaining how we know
> the world about us. The point is that empiricism is, in some ways
remarkably
> related to behaviorism. I believe that empiricism is a way of trying to
> limit the complexity of the argument, by resorting to "Ockhams razor"
> (entities may not be multiplied or proposed unnecessarily), and appealing
to
> the notion of 'fundamental' things we can say about the world' - and
> treating them as absolute, indivisible. ("atoms of obviousness and
> intelligibility" - Descartes). whilst i'm all for the notion of using the
> degree of complexity appropriate to the task in hand (and no more so), I
> still have significant reservations about expecting universal agreement on
> the nature of 'objecthood' for example. we tend to reasonably agree about
> objects - they are 'topologically enclosed';....... unless you smell them,
> hear them, and so on - in fact, many ways of apprehending information
about
> objects don't actually rely on, or even reveal this basic 'property' of
> objects - the concept is essentially visual-sensation-derived. now I don't
> have a problem with the idea that we all (as a species) evolved with visual
> sensation as a fundamental part of our physiological apparatus (and this
> applies to the visually impaired among us in that they of course share an
> evolutionary commonality), indeed, research into mitochondrial DNA has
> strongly suggested that we are all related to just a few thousand common
> ancestors, and not too far back in our history. but my question is: how can
> this most fundamental property of 'objects' actually inhere in the object
> alone, when it is perfetly feasible to postulate a species (such as a mole,
> earthworm, deep-sea creature, and so on) that cannot aprehend this
> information. my point is, that the definition we use is wholly tied to our
> viewpoint, hence empiricism in its standard form is undermined. [In the
same
> way, would we ever have evolved a notion of euclidean geometry, if we had
> not the visual sensation].
> In proposing a 'radical empiricism', is Pirsig actually proposing something
> which is not empiricism at all? - or has he stripped empiricism of all its
> distinguishing features, save the notion of "Quality"?
> incidentally, in developmental psychology studies, the concept of objects
> (or things) does actually develop earlier than the concepts of various
> behaviours of such objects (trajectories, caused movements, self motivated
> movement, etc)
> just musings,
> ppl
> Peter Lennox
> Hardwick House
> tel: (0114) 2661509
> e-mail: peter@lennox01.freeserve.co.uk
> or:- ppl100@york.ac.uk
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST