Total Man V1.0

Much like Don Quixote and his monomania with knights and chivalry novels, my non-fiction "monomania" is with the Yijing (or "I Ching," as popularized by the Wilhelm/Baynes translation and the Wade-Giles transliteration of Chinese). I read extensively on the subject and I know for a fact that I'll never exhaust it in a lifetime. The thing is, for those reading and still stuck in the conceptual visualization of the Yijing as the exotic Oriental version of the Tarot and a hippie Ouija board, the classic is so much more than an usable oracle that the exegesis inspired by it, over thousands of years, is only second to the Bible (although, if I request a recount, it would most likely come up in first place). Unfortunately, most Western media, and users, focus only in the oracular usability of the classic and, because of it, it is often derided and belittled as quackery. Well, their loss, not mine.

In the meantime, my so called "monomania," takes me to the most varied reading paths. Hard to believe for most, I know. See, serious students of the Yijing can find many parallels between the inherent imagery of the classic and subjects that, at first sight, seem unrelated to it. One of the cornerstones of Chinese philosophy is "correlative thinking" and, although it runs against the grain of Western philosophy and its use of logics and analytics, its metaphorical toolbox is a spring of ideas and associations. Carl Jung, to name just one philosopher (yes, philosopher), realized the truth of its potentiality and applicability in Western thought. As the classic, and its exegesis, becomes more available to Western philosophers and writers, its use in metaphorical comparisons and the pursuit of meaning is slowly becoming commonplace. One such writer is the psychologist Stan Gooch. In the early 1970's he published "Total Man, an evolutionary theory of personality" and, in part of it, he touches on the Yijing. The book has fourteen chapters divided within six parts. Part five, "The Rise to Tyranny of Western Consciousness," includes Chapter 11, "The Momentary Universe," which talks about the Yijing from a Jungian perspective.

I had to chuckle at this statement in said chapter:

The foregoing is not in any sense offered as evidence of the value or validity of the Book of Changes. There is nothing to prevent one regarding it still as a very complex folly, as a tragic monument perhaps to the wasted energies of a considerable section of humanity over a considerable period.

Of course, the disclaimer was perhaps needed as part of the natural Western defensiveness against all things outside "rationality and logic" and as a service to the those readers that would automatically take exception to such concepts. Such disclaimers are chicken soup for their sensitive souls, in my opinion. Finding comfortable shelter while confronted with incomprehensibility.

The chapter is actually very good and goes on to explain some points of view on synchronicity.

What I really like to quote though is not directly related to the Yijing. I comes from the preface and I think it is a handy way to put things in the proper perspective, specially for those attached to "rationality and logic" that think they can make a "science" out of everything that can find its way towards an empirical explanation:

The social scientist, erroneously, as I believe, has adopted many of the practices of the physical scientist on the implicit, often explicit, assumption that psychology and sociology are  sciences. I myself on the other hand, together with some other psychologists, consider the wholesale application of the methods of the physical sciences to the study of human behavior to be among the major disasters of our time. This does not mean, however, that I believe those methods have no place at all in behavioral studies--though I have no space here to outline my precise position. The point I do wish to make very briefly--a slightly different one--is this. Because of the fact that we ourselves are the objects of the psychologist's and sociologist's studies, we cannot grant the psychologist the same automatic authority that we grant the professional physicist or chemist. Rather, the position resembles that which pertains in democracies in respect of Parliament. The people elect representatives to govern them--individuals whom they consider particularly suited to do so--granting them by such election a mandate to run the affairs of the country as they think best. It is when a point is reached that government behaves in ways deeply unacceptable to the people that that mandate is withdrawn. So it must be, I think, with the social sciences. We in a sense grant, or have granted, a mandate. But we do not thereby lose our inalienable right as human beings--the objects of the psychologist's study--to reject not merely his findings but, if necessary, even his methods.

The book is out of print and hard to find, cheaply. A good read, nevertheless.

Technorati Tags: I Ching, Yijing

En el caje: Commentary , En el caje: I Ching Escrito por: Sparhawk at 10:38 PM :: Comments (1) :: Enlace permanente: Total Man V1.0::

Parisology and Perissology pits

I admit it, it is my fault. The haiku-like nature of Twitter lends itself to the dangers of open interpretation by others. Furthermore, the two-way nature of the medium, practically assures the immediate feedback of those waiting in the background with specialized nets that fish for specific words of their liking. It is like one of those Sushi restaurant with a carrousel, immense in size, where all kinds of fish pass in front of the patrons and, occasionally, their favorite fish appears and they take it front the carrousel. Then, they eat it, digest it for a couple of seconds, and, if bad, instead of blaming the fish or their own predisposition for properly digesting it, they blame everything else between the happy life of the fish at sea to their own teeth.

Now, the specific issue at hand, and the raison d'être for this post, is that yesterday I posted this in Twitter:

Question of the day: what's the attraction of "individuals" to find their own label? Thinking of MBTI tests, Eneagrams, etc. Note quotes
9:19 AM yesterday from web

A few minutes later I get this in reply:

@yijingman Your assumption seems to be that ppl are looking for labels perhaps they are seeking something else entirely -

Ah, the Blue, always prolific, didn't disappoint. Quick search of the "Blue" told me that yes, in effect, the person had a subjective reason for the defensive posture. Needlessly so, in my opinion, because I placed one caveat in my post (the " ") and I ended it with a big arrow pointing at it for good measure ("note quotes"). She missed both, apparently. Before I explain a few things, let me quote the next two exchanges. First my reply--two twits in length--and then her follow-up. I will also use bold and underline here, which isn't available in the medium.

:-) You're missing context but yes, my opinion is that certain taxonomy isn't useful at street level. Self knowledge

isn't attained by classificatory tests. Mind you, they are useful in other environments (thinking corporate and counseling)

To which she replied this morning:

@yijingman Self knowledge is emergent assessments+conversation+reflection+selfobservation+feedback My rant onthis http://tinyurl.com/9axdwg

The rant, as she put it, isn't bad but, pointing to it (it was written days before these exchanges) perpetuates the defensive posture that prompted it, and, in the process, misses my point, again.

Now, I suppose, is time for some clarifying thoughts. Alas, my initial comment in Twitter wasn't a criticism of MBTI or the Eneagrams as tools. I align myself with Jungian thought so I could hardly fault a "tool" that was inspired by him, albeit grossly trademarked by commercial interests. What's happening with the whole MBTI environment reminds me of scavenging pharmaceutical companies taking patents on the active ingredients of ancient medicinal potions still in use in many Third World countries, which is akin to "ZYX Energy Co." filling for a patent for fire and water..., and getting it granted. You get my drift. Shameful, in my opinion, and far from the intention of Jung when he published his "Psychological Types" in 1923. Proverbially, the man must be turning in his grave.

The missing context I talk about comes from a conversation in another forum--which does not deserves any negative feedback from those outside of it and shall remain anonymous--in which participants were quick to test themselves, comment about it..., and comfortably fall in place in their newfound little niches, like pegs on a board, wearing a badge that, for them, should obviate any conversation of whom or what they are or where they come from in a conversation. Thus, my twit/comment, was for those few that follow me there that are also participants in said forum. None of them took the bait, but, alas, the words MBTI and Eneagram got caught in "Blue Selective Net" and the fisherman manning it, instead of allowing the small fish to swim away, got it from the net and threw it back to the last fisherman.

As I implied in the original twit/post, and my follow up to the lady's comment, the real usefulness of the named tests isn't at the street/individual level but as corporate and counseling tools. To obtain one's own MBTI label, just because it is freely available, does nothing to further one's personal quest for self-knowledge. It provides nothing specific that would serve as a ladder rung to descend into the depths of your self--or to step out of it if you find that your nature isn't of your liking--nor will it help you improve it. It will, though, provide you with branding label. Unfortunately, branding labels, much like those in cattle, are mainly used by third parties to place you in your proper place. Thus, labels, in my modest opinion, diminish the self, rather than helping it to improve, by taking your freedom of movement within a given environment out of the equation. Which is why corporations love MBTI testing their current and prospective employees.

She points

When you need to open a conversation on differences between people an assessment tool like the Myers Briggs is an excellent starting place and provides a common language for people to begin to have a new understanding.

Really? I mean, yes, I suppose it does help in certain ways and in certain environments, but, are we, as a society, arrogant enough to believe that a classification label will explain the complexities of other selves to us or that those other selves would get a glimpse of our selves from an artificial label? I don't think so. I don't even think it is "an excellent starting place."

Having said that, I wonder if those popularizing and commercializing the MBTI tests--I'm talking about those who know enough to get in trouble and misstep in an in-depth discussion by lacking proper exegetical reading--are familiar with the modern works of Richard D. Grant Jr. and Chris Lofting. Furthermore, how many of those have even a clue that the real root of the so called MBTI test, which is a modern trademark, in good old Western fashion of legally appropriating ideas, is a few thousand years old and from a far away land?

As for the statement "self-knowledge is emergent assessments+conversation+reflection+selfobservation+feedback," yes, I agree, those are some of the steps, but, if it were only so simple to find your way within, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

The title is an allusion to the dangers that lurk in throwing words to their own fate into the Blue. Alas, I've fallen into those yonder pits myself.

Technorati Tags: perissology

En el caje: Commentary , En el caje: I Ching , En el caje: Just Rants Escrito por: Sparhawk at 2:11 PM :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0):: :: Enlace permanente: Parisology and Perissology pits ::

Nobody takes my feelings into consideration...

En el caje: Commentary , En el caje: Just Rants Escrito por: Sparhawk at 11:49 AM :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0):: :: Enlace permanente: Nobody takes my feelings into consideration...::

The Palin-McCain equation...

Has anybody noticed how Palin is the one that talks for 20 minutes, get's the crowd into a frenzy, and then passes the mic to McCain, he repeats his mantras like an obsessed for 5 minutes and then is over? The other day I commented that I thought that it was actually McCain the Trojan Horse for Palin (or Palin alikes) into the White House. If that is the "change" they propose, placing a Christian fundamentalist in the W.H. isn't the kind that should be welcomed by anybody. Yes, the whole thing is "mavericking" (*) their way into the W.H.

The sad part is that they openly keep repeating the mantra of "maverick this," "maverick that," and nobody has noticed anything or even care by their choice of words. I'm sure the GOP strategists must be having a private blast of laughter...

En el caje: Commentary Escrito por: Sparhawk at 11:51 AM :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0):: :: Enlace permanente: The Palin-McCain equation...::

Lou Dobbs, the "Independent"

This is hilarious. Lou Dobbs paints himself "independent" only because not even the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives have a place for him. He's so far to the Right that he qualifies as "infra-" or "ultra-" something, yet to be defined but definitely over the far reaches of the Right's ledge.

In my opinion, he shouldn't appropriate the "independent" adjective all for himself. I'm almost certain that most "independents" do not share his views, or come even close.

Lou Dobbs: Issues, TV, Radio, and Books - CNN.com

En el caje: Commentary Escrito por: Sparhawk at 6:13 PM :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0):: :: Enlace permanente: Lou Dobbs, the "Independent"::