Talk:Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Added photos 3 Page title 4 Spectacular article 5 Name change

[edit] Welcome

I'm trying to stick to eastern and middle eastern and was tempted to add aristotle outside of the field. Have replaced that earliest refernce with Patanjali.--Ziji 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added photos

Hi Peter - I added some photos and just wanted to throw out that the criteria for including a photo was largely intuitive including the following:

1. Did not want photos to bump against each other, so once one biography was associated with a photo, the next few biographies went without photos. (Of course, by shrinking the photos further -- for instance, to 50px -- this could be avoided as well.)
2. For photos placed on the right side of the page, attempted to find photos of people looking left and vice-versa for left side of page photos. (This is an old newsletter editing trick so that the photos lead readers' eyes inward toward the text.)
3. Tried to have the photos represent people from different Eastern cultures, such as Tibet, Persia, Austria, Britain, etc., as well as different traditions, such as Sufism, Buddhism and European mysticism.
4. Wanted at least one woman represented. (Caroline Rhys Davids won out over Horney because I think Rhys Davids' conscious contribution in this particular area was more significant and because a photo of Horney would have been too close to Jung's photo -- and Jung's contribution to this field is definitely significant. Also, I couldn't find a WP photo of Marsha Linehan or Kaisa Puhakka.)
5. After all the above were inserted -- and given the large photoless space that the above insertions left between Jung and Rhys Davids -- I assessed that it might be appropriate to insert someone of the Jewish faith since you have included so many bios of people with Jewish heritage. (Honestly, I think I initially evaded including such a photo because, given my own heritage, I didn't want to seem POV.) FWIW, I was tempted to add Fromm (whose writing influenced me a lot) but decided that since he is already included in the referenced Buddhism and psychology article, I'd go for a fresh face to include. Freud's links to mysticism are not well known (though the fact that he had Egyptian mythological figurines in his office is documented through many photos as well as, I vaguely recall, H.D.'s memoir). So, after some hemming and hawing, I decided on Frankl.
   

To make a long story long, if you feel the need to change, delete, etc., any or all of these photos, please do. I consider this article to be your baby, sprung from your heart and mind. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again heart felt thanks for your gentle and harmonious additions. I think the baby can now walk free. My Jewish heritage some generations back in a founder of Great Synagogue London and NY so maybe not so close to my POV, BUT the depth/breadth of middle eastern Jewish and Islamic mystical influence in psychology should be acknowledged, if not by the founders then at least by modern day beneficiaries.--Ziji 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points & interesting background! As for this baby, it's grown so fast! Well done, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done you too. The pre-school is as this life comes to a close, I think.--Ziji 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

To conform to Wikipedia style should the title be lower case after initial word? If so how about Eastern & middle eastern influence in clinical psychology? I guess we open a new page with that, copy and paste this article and redirect old to new page.--Ziji 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul - FWIW, I think the standard method for achieving this is to use the "move" tab at the top of the page (between the "history" and "watch" tabs). There you'll find an explanation of the move process and a box in which to enter the rationale for the move. This way all the "history" edits, etc., will be preserved with the move (I think). Hope this helps. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Naming conventions I think the only unconventional one is Influences, which should be influences. So I won't rush to do a Move (which I did not notice at top of page until you pointed it out - thanks).--Ziji 05:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectacular article

Thanks, this is a very wonderful article! I really couldn't find any reasons for this article not to be included into Wikipedia. Eli the Barrow-boy 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you. Will you add some material?--Ziji 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy doing my projects, but I may have something to add after I am done with a part of them. It's an interesting topic. Eli the Barrow-boy 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

The list criteria for this article states: "This page is for material about the influence of Eastern, Middle Eastern and related early European philosophical traditions in the leading writers and practitioners of clinical psychology in the West. It is not about religion or the psychology of religion." Using WP:NAME as my guide, I have changed the name from Clinical Psychology - Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences to Philosophy and clinical psychology. The old name did not take into account the "early European philosophical traditions" (nor philosophers like Martin Buber) and the shorter name is preferred. One could also name the article Philosophical influences on clinical psychology, but I think the current name says the same thing, and I based the name on already existing articles, such as Buddhism and psychology and Buddhism and science. —Viriditas | Talk 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas -

You appear to be a very experienced and accomplished WP editor, perhaps even an admin. For this reason, I respectfully request your patience in elaborating upon your rationale for this article's title change.

As someone who provided time and effort in support of this article's initial development, I'd like to express my dismay by this move and confusion regarding its rationale. For instance, the move's rationale states:

1. "Using WP:NAME as my guide ..." - WP:NAME is a very large article with a diverse number of guidelines. My initial gloss of the article did not readily make clear the intended reference. Could you please specify what part of WP:NAME you used for guidance.
2. "The old name did not take into account the 'early European philosophical traditions'...": I'm assuming unintentionally, but this part of the rationale takes the original words out of context. The word "related" is missing; that is, the early Eurpoean philosophical traditions referred to are those related to "Eastern and Middle Eastern influences." Maybe there is disagreement then as to what "related early European philosophical traditions" means? If I may suggest, if this is a concern, then perhaps instead of providing this article with a new title that appears to misconstrue the article's existing scope, it might make more sense to w<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ordsmith the introductory statement to make the actual content as meaningful as possible to the greatest number of people.
3. "... (nor philosophers like Martin Buber) ...": I believe Buber's inclusion is based on his worldview being predicated by a Middle Eastern (Jewish) tradition.
4. "... and the shorter name is preferred.": I agree that, all things being equal, a shorter name is certainly preferred over a longer name; but, these titles do not appear to me to be equal. In this case, the shorter title seems to mischaracterize the scope and core intent of this article.

More to the point, I intrepret the reduction of "Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences" to "Philosophy" to be problemmatic for two reasons:

1. Not everything mentioned in the original article that falls within "Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences" necessarily falls under the scholarly term "philosophy." A number of entries (e.g., Padmasambhava, Rhazes, Avicenna, Rumi) underline the person's scientific and/or psychological advances, not any explicitly philosophical matter.
2. Not all philosophical predecessors would be appropriate to include in this article given its current structure and content. For instance, a great deal of current clinical psychology is predicated on the behavioral and cognitive sciences; yet, the philosophical underpinnings of such empirical endeavors appear to be precisely the traditions excluded in this article. That is, in my mind, this article's focus is on the non-Western worldviews — often marginalized as "exotic" or "mystical" by Westerners — from which various aspects of contemporary clinical psychology evolved.

Given the existing content, might there be a way that we can create a title that clearly identifies the content as pertaining to "influences" or perhaps even "traditions" (broader than "philosophies") and to influences that are "Eastern and Middle Eastern" (not implicitly worldwide)?

Your insights, guidance and elaborations are very much appreciated. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The original title, Clinical Psychology - Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences, uses an en dash and an ampersand as a substitute for "and". These are generally not used in article titles, (see "avoid non alpha-numeric characters used only for emphasis") but the use of each individual name in the article title, joined by "and" is recommended. (see use of "and") This article concerns a list of influences, articles of which are generally named, "Influences on X", "Influences in X", or "Influences on X" per list guidelines. But, the parent article, Clinical psychology frames these influences in terms of philosophy, and this current article describes these influences as exactly that: Egyptian philosophy, Sufi philosophy, Iranian philosophy, Hasidic philosophy (also Jewish philosophy and mysticism but not classified as Middle Eastern for obvious reasons: see Jewish diaspora and Jewish philosophy to understand why not), Continental philosophy, and even Greek philosophy. What are these influences, if not systems of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and logic, such as those practiced in Eastern philosophy, of which Buddhist philosophy is only one aspect? "Some have asserted that Buddhism as a whole is a practical philosophy rather than a religion", which supports the lead contention that this article is "not about religion or the psychology of religion". And, the contributions of Padmasambhava, Rhazes, Avicenna, and Rumi can be seen in terms of philosophy: claiming they are scientific is synonymous with the older meaning of philosophy (see Science:"Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had"). The scope contains "Eastern, Middle Eastern and related early European philosophical traditions", in which case the current name is more precise and inclusive. (see WP:NC(P)) —Viriditas | Talk 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Terrific response! I appreciate the amount of time and excellent thought you must have put into your very articulate and very intelligent response. Thank you!

Moreover, I very much appreciate your clarifying the reference to WP:NAME -- I can see now the need to replace/eliminate the dash and ampersand. You've got me on the same page.

I also agree that the ancient so-called scientific/psychological endeavors could be listed under "the older meaning of philosophy," although, surely, for me at least, when I see the word "philosophy" in a WP article juxtaposed with the word "psychology" I assume "philosophy" refers to the current conception of "philosophy," devoid of the actual practice of psychology. So, I would still maintain that, reasonably speaking, the word "philosophy" is not more inclusive but ignores a sizeable portion of this article's content. Frankly, though, this is a secondary concern for me, perhaps a quibble.

My main concern still is that the new title is too imprecise. Instead of our engaging in what would likely be an unproductive and exhausting (at least for me :-) ) intellectual exchange (which I think would be a disservice to you, me and WP), I was wondering if you could conceive of this article being pared down (e.g., removing those entries to which you object and wordsmithing the intro) so that it could then be entitled something like "Eastern and Middle Eastern Influences on Clinical Psychology"? If so, which current entries do you assess to be inappropriate for an article with such a name?

Thanks so much again. I truly do value your sharing your expert insight and valuable time. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to Eastern influences on clinical psychology, but consider for a moment if this is what you want. On the one hand, it is general and imprecise. Once you remove "philosophy" from the title the scope widens considerably, including just about anything Eastern. Perhaps this is not a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point! (And the speed with which you reply so intelligently and fairly is extremely impressive!) Definitely something for Ziji (and me?) to ponder. I'd like to suggest that if we do come up with any such alternate titles that we first propose it here and address Viriditas's significant caveat. Thanks so much once again! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Veriditas thank you. Your suggestion of 'Eastern influences on clinical psychology' is a good startiing point for brainstorming the title. 'Influences', depending on your dictionary, tends to imply invivisible or insensible action exerted by one thing on another. That fact underlies the intention of the article - to bring to light the antecedents of a presumed modern practice. However, using the term in its title, invites a very wide article including, for example, astrology. 'Analogous' in biology refers for example to the wings of a bee and a bird - though one does not evolve from the other they have related function. So 'Eastern analogues of clincial psychology' would be more accurate than, say, eastern origins of clinpsych and doesn't allude to the historical practice. That absence may not matter as it is a richer article where it included ancient and modern eastern practices analogous to clinpsych.--Ziji (talk email) 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ziji (& others :-) ) -- I could definitely be happy with "analogues" -- or even perhaps "influences" or "philosophies." I was wondering what you might think about "Eastern correlates of clinical psychology." Here's Merriam Webster's on-line definition of "correlate" (from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/correlate):

1 : either of two things so related that one directly implies or is complementary to the other (as husband and wife)

2 : a phenomenon that accompanies another phenomenon, is usually parallel to it, and is related in some way to it <precise electrical correlates of conscious thinking in the human brain -- Bayard Webster>

Personally I prefer "correlate" because, in my mind, it suggests the possibility of a causal relationship (although I'm sure we're all familiar with the dictum, "correlation does not imply causation"), and for me part of the allure of this article is the suggestion that certain Eastern practices might have favorably influenced progress among Western practices (as in the case of John Kabat-Zinn and Marsha Linehan's introduction of Zen mindfulness into the treatment of anxiety disorders, etc.).

I definitely want to emphasize though, I'm far from convinced that "correlates" is the best solution. Just my two cents for now. FWIW, in the end, Ziji, if you want to go with "analogues," I personally support your decision. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it sweet and simple. What about merging this into Early history of clinical psychology? —Viriditas | Talk 11:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea! When you write "merging," is there existing material with which you envision merging this? Also, again, my concern would be that such would move this article away from its core "Eastern/Middle Eastern" focus. (I think for instance this is what motivated Ziji's caveat in his #Welcome above.) Perhaps Eastern history of clinical psychology? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, my intentions initiating the article would be best described in this title: Eastern and middle eastern practices within clinical psychology. With that as the title I would add two subsections to the article: History and Practices. Into History would go the sometimes indistinguishable antecedents in philosophy and medicine in both the east and middle east. I can't emphasize enough those two geographical regions. Into Practices would go at least mindfulness, meditation, the ecstatic practices of the Sufi's (ancient and modern) and the teaching tales of Nasreddin and Milton Erickson. The pre and post Islamic Persian stories and poetry can be read as analogues of contemporary covert hypnosis forming a seemless tapestry of story telling into the present understanding of therapeutic metaphor and Embodied philosophy. My use of 'within' in the suggested title is synonymous with 'embedded in', indirectly refering to the meaning of influences. Somewhat at a tangent to this discussion, both of Freddie Mercury's parents were Persian and I wonder how much his stage performance in Queen (band) emboddies that culture's ecstatic language. The ballad We are the champions is a call to heroism used by some survivors of abuse for healing - clinical psychologists sometimes ask clients to think of a song, a story or a heroic figure that inspires them to overcome adversity.--Ziji (talk email) 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I truly find Ziji's newest title proposal to be the best. I know it lacks the pithiness that Viriditas likes; but, for me personally, precision is preferable to pith. In addition, Ziji, I think if you were to implement the expansion/re-classification that you mention, I think that would be terrific. You certainly are a champion :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is best to treat topics in clear and general terms (such as History of sociology) and subtopics in specific terms (such as Early Muslim sociology). This article is a hodge-podge of history, a timeline of clinical psychologists, influential writers, and contemporary clinicians. At best, this article is a subtopic of Clinical_psychology#History and "Early Psychological Thought" in the History of psychology and could be merged into a new article entitled History of clinical psychology. Other solutions involve merging precise components into Buddhism and psychology, Jewish philosophy and psychology, Muslim philosophy and psychology, or moving this article to Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology. I just don't see how current naming conventions in this or any other hierarchy supports Ziji's proposal. I will reconsider his suggestion after he modifies the article. At present, Ziji is talking about an article that does not yet exist. Please note that the links I list above are modular. The combination of subtopics in summary style produces a complete article one level above it (and opportunities for new subtopics below). Both Clinical psychology and Eastern philosophy are parent articles of Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology. The subtopic "Eastern and middle eastern practices" isn't a valid parent topic, or rather, it doesn't exist, and for good reasons; it combines many different traditions using ambiguous wording. What is Eastern? What are middle eastern practices? And why does the current article discuss things outside that scope? —Viriditas | Talk 15:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear thinking on this. I get it. I think my problem is that the article I began is not the one I can finish until I add the other material I indicated above. That may be some months away after I complete work on a couple of other articles. In the meantime my vote is for your suggested Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology title. When I get back here I will clean the article up and it may look different again, but is likely to remain focussed on eastern traditions within clinpsych..--Ziji (talk email) 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it means anything, I agree with Ziji's agreement to Viriditas' proposal of Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

From the philosophy article: Eastern philosophy refers to the broad traditions that originated or were popular in India, Persia, China, Korea, Japan, and to an extent, the Middle East (which overlaps with Western philosophy due to the spread of the Abrahamic religions and the continuing intellectual traffic between these societies and Europe.) —Viriditas | Talk 07:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! I'll move the page to Eastern philosophy and clinical psychology. Much thanks to you both for your erudition and intervention.--Ziji (talk email) 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ziji and Viriditas - Bravo! I applaud your brainstorming, cooperative decision-making and ultimate decision! Kudos! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)