“雖然心理學是對心智(mind)的研究，但是以實證為宗(特別指行為主義取向)已經把心理學界定為行為的研究，將心智的活動簡化成表面可以觀察到的事物。然而，接受為更廣闊或比較正確的心理學定義，卻仍然把心智的研究限定在塵世或不是超個人的領域內。要使心理學變得完整，就必須保括超個人(trans-personal)或靈性(spiritual)的領域。”
-- 喬治‧賴爾(George S. Lair)著，蔡昌雄譯，《臨終諮商的藝術》(Counseling the Terminally Ill: Sharing The Journey)，台北：心靈工坊文化，2007年9月，pp207
就像上文的意思一樣，如果說心智(mind)的研究少了一快東西。我覺得就是超個人(trans-personal)或靈性(spiritual)的領域，也就是關於“域外”的東西。這個領域其實在歐陸哲學界裡有一些討論。
個人覺得，西方的“mind”(心智)絕對不能等同於東方(或者漢人)的“心”。因為漢人的“心”應該包括心靈的部分，甚至就是單單的指心靈的部分。
所以個人的淺見是，用東方人的“心”，來比較西方人的“mind”，在定義上應該先做一些調和。甚至可以說這兩者的比較是較困難的。就像是比較两棵大樹，我們還要先從根部開始著手談起。
另外一個問題是在研究時，一開始就應該避開實證的問題，因為超個人(trans-personal)或靈性(spiritual)的領域跟實證科學根本就是两碼子的事。在東方談到“心”，我們從來不從證明甚麼是“心”開始，而是從天地開始談起的。
Uncle,
ReplyDeleteYes, I totally agree with what you said; the term “mind” is quite ambiguous. The concept of mind in western culture is quite different from the eastern one. So in the seminar class I introduced Buddhist concept of mind and consciousness first then talked about the western one.
But I think there is still certain commonness between the two approaches; that is, pursuing the answer of the question of “what is the reality of mind.” And these two cultures try to solve this problem by different ways. It is no doubt that the western try to solve it through the scientific or epistemic way; on the contrast, the eastern follow its own traditional teachings of meditation or spiritual introspection.
The former one is usually on the position of physicalism, and the latter one is closer to idealism. One of my main concerns is to integrate these two ones to reveal the reality of mind. And I think more and more people are walking on this track. (ex. http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm) If we choose only one of the approaches, I think we either shallow the question or obscure and subjectize it.
Cheers,
Kent
By the way, one of the famous introspectionists is Wilhelm Wundt.
Uncle,
ReplyDeleteYes, I totally agree with what you said; the term “mind” is quite ambiguous. The concept of mind in western culture is quite different from the eastern one. So in the seminar class I introduced Buddhist concept of mind and consciousness first then talked about the western one.
But I think there is still certain commonness between the two approaches; that is, pursuing the answer of the question of “what is the reality of mind.” And these two cultures try to solve this problem by different ways. It is no doubt that the western try to solve it through the scientific or epistemic way; on the contrast, the eastern follow its own traditional teachings of meditation or spiritual introspection.
The former one is usually on the position of physicalism, and the latter one is closer to idealism. One of my main concerns is to integrate these two ones to reveal the reality of mind. And I think more and more people are walking on this track. (ex. http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm) If we choose only one of the approaches, I think we either shallow the question or obscure and subjectize it.
Cheers,
Kent
By the way, one of the famous introspectionists is Wilhelm Wundt.
my question is since there is ambiguity on the definition even at the beginning, how could we compare both? they are coming from diff roots n havin diff fruits.
ReplyDeleteeven asking wat is the reality of mind from diff culture hav diff answer. if two lines start from the same pt but hav diff angle, even if the diff in angle are minute, we can see the lines separating further n further n further.
i m also not comfortable wif the definition of idealism. seems like "heart" in eastern world r jus an out-of-this-world ideal n does not concern wif our daily life. my personal view is that that is why is world is getting crazy cos people do not know where are they "heart". people r using "mind" instead of "heart" to live there life. in chinese, we say "用 心生活" we don say "用心智生活". this don seems like an idealism issue to me.
why not jus leave the 2 diff approaches alone instead of trying to bend these 2 separating lines together?
thanks for introducing me the web and Wilhelm Wundt. will do some reading on it. appeciate that.
hey that's a book I was thinking of buying. I don't quite get what you say, but I hope when I bought the book, I can try to understand as much as I can if I invest enough time................
ReplyDeleteThe Bible also mentioned the word "heart", in fact condition of the "heart" is ESSENTIAL and important to Christians.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_searchresults.php?resultsapp=25&source=1&search=heart&searchtype=all
ReplyDeletewe don really focus on the topic "heart" but instead we are comparing some thoughts of "mind" in the west world and "心" in the east. thats why i did not confirm the translation of "心". i think it could be "heart" or "spiritual"?
ReplyDeletepersonally, i don think "mind"="心".
the website is interesting, but do u wanna share some of ur thou of "heart" or "mind" or "心" from bible point of view?
we really need multi-religion type of discussion.
Well, the heart, in the Bible, is definitely not the same as MIND.
ReplyDeleteThe HEART is what God looks at, when He looks at human activities.
Try to find Neil T Anderson's books......or someone else? Can't remember where I found a chart where the Christian author actually differentiate body, mind and heart.....
Clang: you are right the "mind" in today western psychology is not equal to "心" inour eastern contact, but this has it historical reason. But basically in western contact their "mind" should be similar meaning to our "心", just in psychology field have not reach the state yet, but they will move toward that direction I think, especially the discovery of quantum phs (量子力学). There are a few book discussing on these, like “Mind into Matter” & “The Spiritual Universe” by Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.. There also has a documentary call "What the bleep do we know” talk about this, you can try to find the dvd and watch it. Discuss with you more when have more time. :)
ReplyDeletei understood u hav said. the reason of me putting this blog is to dig more into the defination of "mind" and "心" rather than jus taking for granted n simply equate the two. the quantum phs is something that i am not familar. thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteseems this discussion getting more n more exciting. :p