The idea that reality is fundamentally process rather than static things seems to be appearing in more and more fields. Philosophy, neuroscience, and physics may be converging on the same intuition.
Agreed. Seems to be some convergence in our world. Systems thinking is another field of study I'd add into that mix. It's very interesting. I wonder where that comes from? I often think about Hegel, Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace all arriving at this evolutionary historical perspective independently in the 18th/19th century. Hard to pin down where these shifts come from but no denying we're seeing one here!
"The self is not a higher order function, consciousness is, but the self is deeper." If that's right, the self isn't something built up out of complexity or narrative, it's more like the ground those things arise within, which is a completely different picture than the usual "self as the brain's most sophisticated trick." Pair that with Whitehead's processes-not-things move and you get something that looks like an old vitalist intuition wearing new instruments, not a fixed thing occupying a body, but one continuous flow finding itself briefly organized as this particular self, this particular now.
Yes! And what fascinates me so much is what this deeper self is. Bonkers to me seeing these depth psychological set pieces in light of neuroscience. It's like a funky crossover episode. Fold in the Whiteheadian piece and then we've got something very peculiar that makes me think of a cross between Buddhism and Jung. The mind melts
Depth psychology's "sandbar" may be its salvation and relevance. Why give science place as hegemon, inevitably leading to literalisms and monotheistic demands? The depth psychologies are not these and best traffic in the realm of fantasy and imagery, using the languages of complexity, multiplicities, tensions, and ambiguity.
The way I see it, being on the sandbar means that it's tied to a moment in time — we speak about Jung rather than Depth Psychology; the field moves on but slowly and never as much as its founders moved it along. The thing about science is that it flows and is a living evolving body. I'm sympathetic to your point when it comes to Scientism and this overestimation of science but I guess what I'm excited about is a concatenation of great minds evolving this body of knowledge so it gains more and more depth rather than being tied to a brilliant founder. Physics might esteem Newton and Einstein but it has continued evolving onwards. I think this applies to what we know about fantasy and imagery as much as anything else (I've learned an awful lot from Erik Goodwyn's work that I hadn't learned from Jung but that built those foundations)
The idea that reality is fundamentally process rather than static things seems to be appearing in more and more fields. Philosophy, neuroscience, and physics may be converging on the same intuition.
Agreed. Seems to be some convergence in our world. Systems thinking is another field of study I'd add into that mix. It's very interesting. I wonder where that comes from? I often think about Hegel, Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace all arriving at this evolutionary historical perspective independently in the 18th/19th century. Hard to pin down where these shifts come from but no denying we're seeing one here!
"The self is not a higher order function, consciousness is, but the self is deeper." If that's right, the self isn't something built up out of complexity or narrative, it's more like the ground those things arise within, which is a completely different picture than the usual "self as the brain's most sophisticated trick." Pair that with Whitehead's processes-not-things move and you get something that looks like an old vitalist intuition wearing new instruments, not a fixed thing occupying a body, but one continuous flow finding itself briefly organized as this particular self, this particular now.
Yes! And what fascinates me so much is what this deeper self is. Bonkers to me seeing these depth psychological set pieces in light of neuroscience. It's like a funky crossover episode. Fold in the Whiteheadian piece and then we've got something very peculiar that makes me think of a cross between Buddhism and Jung. The mind melts
Depth psychology's "sandbar" may be its salvation and relevance. Why give science place as hegemon, inevitably leading to literalisms and monotheistic demands? The depth psychologies are not these and best traffic in the realm of fantasy and imagery, using the languages of complexity, multiplicities, tensions, and ambiguity.
The way I see it, being on the sandbar means that it's tied to a moment in time — we speak about Jung rather than Depth Psychology; the field moves on but slowly and never as much as its founders moved it along. The thing about science is that it flows and is a living evolving body. I'm sympathetic to your point when it comes to Scientism and this overestimation of science but I guess what I'm excited about is a concatenation of great minds evolving this body of knowledge so it gains more and more depth rather than being tied to a brilliant founder. Physics might esteem Newton and Einstein but it has continued evolving onwards. I think this applies to what we know about fantasy and imagery as much as anything else (I've learned an awful lot from Erik Goodwyn's work that I hadn't learned from Jung but that built those foundations)