Taoism and Psychology

[julianlaboy]

Hi! My name is Julian Laboy and I write from the island of Puerto Rico.

 

Recently, I completed my Masters Degree in Academic/Research Psychology. My thesis consists on contributions of Taoism (specifically, Classical Taoism)to non-traditional theories of Psychology. My main ideas are the following: there are hegemonic paradigms in Psychology that establish a separation between mind and body, a separation between reason and emotions, and "knowing" as something that we discover (for example, our "self" as a finished product); I argued in favor of a union of mind-body, I said that there is always some degree of emotion, even when we make use of reason, and that knowledge is relative, a construction or a conventionalism that is specific to our surroundings and what we are.

 

In other words, I respect a lot the teachings of Classical Taoism (by around the time of the Han Dynasty, with texts as the DaoDeJing, the Chuang Tzu and the Wen Tzu). To me, Taoist teachings are common sense, but I do acknowledge the fact that I may be biased because we usually see as common sense that which we are familiar with or what we usually agree upon. I also realize that "he who knows does not talk; he who talks does not know", but it is still good to make some friends to talk about shared ideas or argue in favor of counterdiscourses

 

Nice to know everyone!

[三江源]

hi Julian, welcome.

 

 

It's my understanding that Jung delineated seperate functions in order to be able to describe them and increase awareness of dominant or inert functions ( areas of response). As he said, any 'polarity' is on the same axis, so thinking is therefore part of feeling, whilst being on a polar axis with it for diagrammatic purposes. He did also say that feeling is a rational function.

 

Interesting!

[julianlaboy]

Indeed, Jung said that. He certainly read Eastern texts. However, I believe that one has to be careful with what Jung said because he also stated the arguments in favor of Analytic Psychology, which states that we can know or define ourselves and that there are certain types of sort-of personalities. This type of Psychology creates some lists that tend to do more harm than good by classifying what are "normal" behaviors, and of course, their opposite. However, he certainly deviates from a simplistic type of Psychology by making a more complex understanding of our minds. Plus, I enjoy reading him.

 

The authors that I used were Humberto Maturana (from Biology), Francisco Varela (from Neurosciences), Antonio Damasio (from Neurosciences also), Kenneth Gergen and Thomas Ibañez (from Social Psychology), among others. But there are also traditional psychologists like the philosopher John Dewey and Albert Ellis, who made reference to Eastern thinking. (I said all those names just because there may be someone who would want to read about this topic). Plus, I am currently writing a book about it

 

And of course, nice to know you! And thanks for the reply. Now I know that this forum is alive!

Edited November 23, 2011 by julianlaboy

[三江源]

Hi Julian. Yes, there are people here and they reply, it's weeeird.

 

 

 

It sounds as though you dont think there there are certain types of personalities that are definable psychologically.

What is your favourite thing to do when you are alone and free? Your answer will define your dominant function.

What do you like to least? Your answer will define your least developed function.

You can decide if you feel all your functions are balanced or if one or two need a bit more leg room.

I think you also know if you are extrovert, introvert, or perfectly well balanced in that respect.

 

I dont believe that psychological awareness does more harm than good.

 

I do believe that the USA has gone diagnosis crazy and problematises that which is not necessarily problematic. The evolving DSM is absurd to the point of comedy.

[julianlaboy]

Yes, weeeeird

 

And ok, I do believe in "dominant behaviors" and I do some things consistently. However, I believe in that after I realize that those are very relative co-ordinations of "doings". To me, we are what we are depending on our circumstances. For example, in the 1960's, a kid that we may call "extrovert" is probably seen as a kid with ADHD (DSM absurdities, as you very well said); and, on the other hand, a kid in the 1940's who we may call "introvert" is now a kid that probably needs some kind of autistic test.

 

What I am saying is that what a "personality" is changes depending on various factors. One thing is that I know that I have consistent behaviors (psychological awareness as you called it, with which I have little to no trouble at all)and another thing is to make a map distinguishing the "type of people" that does behavior A vs the "type of people" that does behavior B. This is where I see problems because people tend to think of this as something "natural" and "unchanging". And with that kind of thinking comes conflicts between people who believe that behavior A is better than behavior B.

 

Of course, I am not saying that anyone who believes in that automatically is a racist, or an ethnocentric person of some type. I am saying that concepts as that of personality or "self" do not tend to accept intra-personal differences and that people also tend to use this for arguments in favor of simplistic kinds of thinking that believe in conflicts rather than cooperation.

 

Very interesting conversation!

[julianlaboy]

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21320-jung-personality-test/

 

This forum has an example of what I was referring to. Percentages of what you are?

[Elliot]

Welcome Julian!

[julianlaboy]

thanks! I am enjoying this site a lot...

[三江源]

Yes, weeeeird

 

And ok, I do believe in "dominant behaviors" and I do some things consistently. However, I believe in that after I realize that those are very relative co-ordinations of "doings". To me, we are what we are depending on our circumstances. For example, in the 1960's, a kid that we may call "extrovert" is probably seen as a kid with ADHD (DSM absurdities, as you very well said); and, on the other hand, a kid in the 1940's who we may call "introvert" is now a kid that probably needs some kind of autistic test.

 

What I am saying is that what a "personality" is changes depending on various factors. One thing is that I know that I have consistent behaviors (psychological awareness as you called it, with which I have little to no trouble at all)and another thing is to make a map distinguishing the "type of people" that does behavior A vs the "type of people" that does behavior B. This is where I see problems because people tend to think of this as something "natural" and "unchanging". And with that kind of thinking comes conflicts between people who believe that behavior A is better than behavior B.

 

Of course, I am not saying that anyone who believes in that automatically is a racist, or an ethnocentric person of some type. I am saying that concepts as that of personality or "self" do not tend to accept intra-personal differences and that people also tend to use this for arguments in favor of simplistic kinds of thinking that believe in conflicts rather than cooperation.

 

Very interesting conversation!

 

Yes, simplistic thinking can and does reduce anything and everything to something no longer resembling the original.

 

Jung's work, as you know, is all about individuation, so it is a system geared for growth and change.

 

You will find taoism also contains 'categories' or 'delineations' or 'typology'. It is a way to anatomise our experience and work with it.

 

The temptation to label and fix as static is a lazy one, indeed.

[julianlaboy]

Yes, simplistic thinking can and does reduce anything and everything to something no longer resembling the original.

 

Jung's work, as you know, is all about individuation, so it is a system geared for growth and change.

 

You will find taoism also contains 'categories' or 'delineations' or 'typology'. It is a way to anatomise our experience and work with it.

 

The temptation to label and fix as static is a lazy one, indeed.

 

In my opinion, Jung was not all about individuation. He does accept some growth and change, but it is growth and change that occurs inside a set of specific Archetypes. Those, I believe, are inborn forms of intuition and necessary determinants of all psychic processes. Those, together with Instincts, form a "collective unconscious", a term concerned with universal and inherited contents that go beyond the personal and the individual. I also believe those to be static labels.

 

By the way, I am not saying that he was lazy. We can all learn a lot by reading his texts.

 

On the other hand, I agree that Taoism does contain certain 'typologies'. However, in my opinion also, if referring to Classical Taoism, those 'categories' or 'types' are based on an analogical or correlative kind of thinking (here, I know, I am using another typology so as to anatomize our experience, as you said) vs what I was referring to and criticizing in my last comment, a causal kind of thinking (I believe Jung argues in favor of this last one). With analogical or correlative kind of thinking I support Roger Ames and David Hall's idea that states that here we see an acceptance of change or process over rest and permanence and that it "[...]seeks to account for states of affairs by appeal to correlative procedures rather than by determining agencies or principles" (1995, p.xviii). By contrast, Jung's collective unconscious' (instincts and archetypes) ultimate end are rest and permanence of specific patterns of behavior and thinking. Another example is his use of Mandalas: he accepts change in us, but that comes to an ultimate end of a fixed and static "self".

 

I am not saying that one idea or the other is correct. I accept multiple "truths" and interpretations of our world, or worlds. The problem is like that of a weapon in the wrong hands. It is like the saying that a gun does not kill people because it is people that kill people. Some theories, in the wrong hands, tend to do harm. For example, Hitler made use of the concept of collective unconsciousness and transformed it into a "collective shadow" (an inflated ego that makes one evil) that he later projected onto Jews.

 

It took me a whole hour to write this. Haha.

The thing is, I want to be extra careful because I do not want to be seen as problematic or something like that. I do share a lot of ideas and values with members of this forum, including you (cat). You know, I worry, hehe.

[Marblehead]

In my opinion, ... Jung ... does accept some growth and change, but it is growth and change that occurs inside a set of specific Archetypes. Those, I believe, are inborn forms of intuition and necessary determinants of all psychic processes. Those, together with Instincts, form a "collective unconscious", a term concerned with universal and inherited contents that go beyond the personal and the individual.

 

I accept this as holding some truth. But I add that it is passed from mother to offspring via the mother's DNA. Of course, I might be completely off the wall but that is the only way I can understand the concept of "collective unconsciousness".

[julianlaboy]

I accept this as holding some truth. But I add that it is passed from mother to offspring via the mother's DNA. Of course, I might be completely off the wall but that is the only way I can understand the concept of "collective unconsciousness".

 

Yes, it has been said that a possible mechanism that explains it is mitochondrial DNA, since it is the one that stays more or less untouched from generation to generation.

 

By the way, and here I am going to another topic, I was amazed to find out about the possibility of that type of DNA to be what was ages ago another organism! Then, we are a product of two organisms uniting to form a new whole. That is wonderful. Some biologists argue that that is why we have the traditional DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Props to nature...

[Marblehead]

By the way, and here I am going to another topic, I was amazed to find out about the possibility of that type of DNA to be what was ages ago another organism! Then, we are a product of two organisms uniting to form a new whole. That is wonderful. Some biologists argue that that is why we have the traditional DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Props to nature...

 

Yeah, I enjoy watching documentaries of such topics although I don't actually study them. Very interesting stuff for me.

 

(If you haven't already noticed I am a believer in evolution so the concept you mentioned above is consistent with my understandings.)

[julianlaboy]

Yeah, I enjoy watching documentaries of such topics although I don't actually study them. Very interesting stuff for me.

 

(If you haven't already noticed I am a believer in evolution so the concept you mentioned above is consistent with my understandings.)

 

Well, I think you may enjoy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Microcosmos-Billion-Years-Microbial-Evolution/dp/0520210646/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322237990&sr=1-2

 

Its perspective is evolutionary and it is a sort of history of life. I think they argue in favor of the mitochondrial DNA example that we talked about. Just in case you feel like reading something like that

[Marblehead]

Well, I think you may enjoy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Microcosmos-Billion-Years-Microbial-Evolution/dp/0520210646/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322237990&sr=1-2

 

Its perspective is evolutionary and it is a sort of history of life. I think they argue in favor of the mitochondrial DNA example that we talked about. Just in case you feel like reading something like that

 

Well, the co-author of the book is Dorion Sagan, son of my beloved Carl! Yes, just by looking at the sub-title of the book I am sure I would enjoy it if I chose to buy it and actually read it after I bought it. I don't read that much anymore except for my Taoist stuff.

 

I'll likely wait till it comes to TV. Hehehe.

[julianlaboy]

You know what? After I started reading Taoist texts, I began to read a lot less than I used to. If I questioned myself about it, I always replied "because I am busy enjoying life". I even thought that after reading Taoist texts, I read everything that I had to read! Such common sense, IMO (Ha! See? Now I know how and when to use it).

 

Those kind of texts definitely bring change to those who pay close attention to and practice their content.

 

Still, I do enjoy from time to time some books about different topics. Although, when you see a commercial about an upcoming documentary about the microcosm, please tell me about it!

[Marblehead]

You know what? After I started reading Taoist texts, I began to read a lot less than I used to. If I questioned myself about it, I always replied "because I am busy enjoying life". I even thought that after reading Taoist texts, I read everything that I had to read! Such common sense, IMO (Ha! See? Now I know how and when to use it).

 

Those kind of texts definitely bring change to those who pay close attention to and practice their content.

 

Still, I do enjoy from time to time some books about different topics. Although, when you see a commercial about an upcoming documentary about the microcosm, please tell me about it!

 

I know what you mean and it is likely that the same thing happened to me.

 

I am still interested in new knowledge but I prefer an abridged short story and then if I want to seek further understanding I can do that at my leasure.

 

I will try my best to keep your request in mind regarding documentaries.

 

I watched some stuff concerning 'black holes' last night but apparently I got sucked into one of them and I fell into a deep slumber.

[ChiDragon]

Welcome........Jilianlaboy...

[julianlaboy]

Marblehead, that is some pretty funny stuff there. Haha. Sorry to read about your encounter with the black-hole there.

 

And ChiDragon, thanks! What do you think about Taoism teaching Psychology some manners?

[ChiDragon]

Julianlaboy....

Why don't you start a new thread in the Taoist Discussion section and we go from there.... Thanks...!!!

[ChiDragon]

And ChiDragon, thanks! What do you think about Taoism teaching Psychology some manners?

 

The principle with Psychology are all spelled out in the Tao Te Ching. It is a matter of study it with comprehension. Then, one cultivate it with self discipline, the manners will be within ourselves spontaneously.

Edited November 27, 2011 by ChiDragon

[julianlaboy]

The principle with Psychology are all spelled out in the Tao Te Ching. It is a matter of study it with comprehension. Then, one cultivate it with self discipline, the manners will be within ourselves spontaneously.

 

I agree with you that the Tao Te Ching is a very psychological text, among other things.

 

I also agree with you that this post has served its purpose. I was thinking of changing this post to the Discussion part of the forum soon ... will do.