from Occupy Oakland General Strike

 

From: Andrew Phelps <phelps@cwnet.com>

To: RadPsyNet-Members@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tue Jan 24 4:17

Subject: Re: [RadPsyNet-Members] Re: Freud

 

Hi

On Mon Jan 23 20:54 , Ilo sent:

Why should brain and behavior be linked in creatures without "brains"? However for creatures with complicated neural networks, and conscious behaviors, the link is sound.

Which is an irrational conclusion, a failure to engage the complexity of the phenomenology, in my opinion. I don't experience that comment as respectful. Rather, it speaks to the conceit of "behavior management" as it is commonly practiced.

My point is that people receiving "behavioral health" services are told that "treatment" is "behavior management" and that that will "cure their brains" and "help them think better." And the reason is "due to the science of behavior management." But that is a mis-statement. Vygotsky's "sociohistorical" approach (not widely practiced) puts the behavior in meaningful social context, unlike the "rat psychology" approach.

Edward Tolman did many experiments to show that "rats have feelings about the lived experience of 'running the maze'."

My point, in following up on Huxley, is that there is a complex natural relationship between neurobiology and behavior. And that it's does not reduce to "one causes the other."

 

ABO "Andrew Behavior Object"

 

 

In RADPSYNET-MEMBERS ABO wrote:

I think a better framing is from Julian Huxley's ideation of "psychosomatic unity."