The problem is twofold here -- maybe threefold, in that there is a crispy coating of brute force and epistemological unconsciousness to chip through before we could even attempt what you're saying.
Come on then! Let's start. Epistemological unconsciousness - how do we even crack this paradox: firstly, as far as I understand, any concept of 'epistemological unconsciousness' is not even the field of philosophy - more properly, it belongs to psychoanalysis: what can be known, yet is unthought of. This 'unthought known' is what Christopher Bollas transforms out of the Freudian subconscious.
Are we digressing?
To the point: we can deal with the limits of what we know. Thereafter, let's not pretend it's science. This is the field of 'interpretation' of dreams; interpreting what symbols and ciphers there are: like gathering circumstantial evidence to generate a hypothesis. There may indeed be a method, as there is, when a psychotherapist brings the feared unknown into a patient's consciousness. But to call this science is to mince words.
Materialism's hegemony, can't have been kind as far as how it has policed itself. Once the hegemony breaks, I think we are going to find abuses that will rival the animatronic Christs found in some churches during the Reformation.
Eh?? There is nothing 'reflective' about materialistic culture - that would be too mentalistic. How could it police itself
Wow - do people in the West think materialistic hegemony will ever break??? There are cultures indifferent to it (considered primitive from the materialistic perspective). I think of Tibetan spiritual culture, or what I know of it from that Brad Pitt in Tibet film. Plurality can indeed lead to confusion, however discovering truth through error is more likely than in confusion (Kuhn). When we have followed the path of materialism and found it to be a dead-end.....then what you say happens....?
Are you serious (it's difficult to tell, sometimes)? This thread exists because of the current American "debate" over intelligent design, whose proponents argue that many biological structures are simply too complex to have evolved without the influence of a "designer."
I know..I'm a bad boy. Here goes. But honestly, the American abbreviations throw me. Is it possible for complexity to arise simultaneously?
I think of a PC running Windows XP. Several strands of thought arise.
1). This is not complexity - this is complicatedness. Complicatedness arises from various mutations of Windows systems, leading to confusion and apeing complexity. But we Apple users know better.
2). The degenerate logic used to design Windows XP tends towards entropy. It's going to suffer a heat-stroke when the CPU overworks. But it's possible still to imagine that the Windows XP evolved in steps - through Windows 3.1...97,98, blip! 2000, XP. I see all the mutations and the faults, and I think that oh well, it's working somethings, so that's not a bad thing for a system so long-in-the-tooth. Granted that Windows PC have existed for a million of years, I think that's not too terrible a thing. I can also see why my Windows PC hasn't evolved multi-tasking capabilities without crashing: it must be a throw-back to an earlier stage, perhaps at the pre-Cambrian level of computer technology. That'll be my Sinclair ZX81.
3. Then I think of my handsome Apple powerbook with its sexy curves and shiny gilt finish and Apple logo. Arguement through intelligent design: no argument at all
. The proof is in the Apple pudding. Need I say more?
The Windows PC can take another million of years to evolve, but it's pattern of evolution is messed up from the start: there just is no intelligent design.
On the other hand, my Apple shows all the features of a design blue-print: someone sat and planned it's layout; it's aesthetics; its user-friendliness. With more time, the intelligent design reveals its fruits, without the worms that Windows carries.
(Don't take the above seriously, for anyone who's a bit concrete
I'd still like to hear you explain how psychology is materialistic.
There was a guy in my philosophy school who answered the question in our philosophy of psychology seminars. He showed all the features of ADHD - he was so funny!! He was also very intelligent - could hold 10 different ideas at once!!! All the class were in awe of him and were immediately silenced by his convincing arguments.
It took me a term to realise he didn't make sense. He'd have answered the question in my description above and I would've been satisfied along with the class!
Explain how psychology is materialistic:
shall we start of with Skinner and behavioural stimulus-responses, which obviated a theory of mind for decades in the 1920s?. This theory 'explained' or purported to explain all human interaction as a function of behaviours and consequences.
How about Freudian psychoanalysis, which drew on military formations as a form of psychic defences and coping strategies, and then used the hydraulic principles of engines to explain instinctual drives and so on? Or 'character armour' and so on? I'm not sure materialistic is the term I would use: modern psychology (like life) has a Cartesian bias: the mind is split off from the brain; the psychologist studies the brain. Even the psychologist who studies the mind, concretises 'ideas' as 'entities' which exist out there. The origins of psychology in 19th century
is materialistic: I hope it's moved on from then.
Is there a shrink in the house?? Maybe they'll be on the Windows PC forums....
The problem with non-materialistic psychology is that it invariably comes across as hokey-pokey new age mumble to a lot of people acculturated to a materialistic mind-set. Kleinian psychoanalysis is maybe different - Klein purports there are demons in mental life of infants. We know that demons exist hiding in bushes and political thickets. Is modern psychology empirical? It's been influenced by empiricism okay; it's hopefully grown up and away from Skinnerian primitivism. I'm sure there is some wonderful holistic (eclectic) work out there, although the mass movement is probably still materially bent.