Is it better to change a system from the inside or outside?

[JayG84]

I'm thinking of going back to school to pursue my life purpose in Psychology, but I'm not quite sure that it's the right move considering that I've already studied a lot of what I'm going to learn on my own, and the school system is too close minded to bring a non-dual perspective into. I want to try to bring fresh ideas and insights to humanity and help as many people as possible, but I'm not sure if the status quo of the 'academic path' is going to be receptive to paradigm shifts anytime soon. 

Do you think that it's worth trying to change the system from inside the estabished paradigms with credentials, or try to come at it from outside the system with no credentials?

[Carl-Richard]

Why not both?

[Artsu]

Give what you said, I recommend not studying psychology.

[JayG84]

9 hours ago, Artsu said:

Give what you said, I recommend not studying psychology.

Why's that?

[Artsu]

30 minutes ago, JayG84 said:

Why's that?

It doesnt sound like youll get much out of it. You already know a lot of it, and academia has many problems.

You will be highly constrained by professionsl standards if you go that path.

How spiritually proficient are you? Could you consider working as a psychic, or life coach, or anything along those lines? Something where youre more free to do it your own way, something that would be more interesting for you.

Some change will come from inside, but i think you are better off changing it from the outside because this doesnt mean studying for years when you might not get much out of it. Psychology as a whole needs a real shift, and perhaps you are better off locating people who are already developing it in a better direction. If the field is flawed, the degree is kinda corrupted, you know? Take a stand, free yourself from academic/professional standards imo.

Always love, and seek the truth, wherever it shall lead you.

[JosephKnecht]

12 hours ago, JayG84 said:

Do you think that it's worth trying to change the system from inside the estabished paradigms with credentials, or try to come at it from outside the system with no credentials?

To establish your credentials, you must work within the system. But when you work within the system, you are working for the system and it is hard to change it.

If you work outside the system, you can't change the system since the system has already created defense mechanisms by others who are trying to defend the system.

Realize there is no inside nor outside, but only one system. Try to change that system.  

[JayG84]

@Artsu @JosephKnecht

Great advice guys, thanks. ?

I think I do have to kind another way to come at the system as a whole. I realize I feel compassion towards the field of Psychology as a whole because of the potential that it has. There are emerging sub-fields that are close to finding the truth and helping a lot of people such as Psychedelic research and Mindfulness based CBT therapy (which inadvertently lead me into spirituality) that I feel need just a little push over the edge to something very powerful. But I may be underestimating the defense mechanisms at play. 

[Vittorio]

Leave for a moment to the side the entire dual-nondual speech.

This does not matter at all right now. 

Why do you want to study psychology in the university? 

What's your end goal?

What kind of profession do you want to after you got your degree?

It may be useful for you to get a degree to have credentials and to learn more about the human psyche from different perspectives.

But you have to understand why you are doing it in the first place. 

[JayG84]

On 8/6/2020 at 3:22 AM, Vittorio said:

Leave for a moment to the side the entire dual-nondual speech.

This does not matter at all right now. 

Why do you want to study psychology in the university? 

What's your end goal?

What kind of profession do you want to after you got your degree?

It may be useful for you to get a degree to have credentials and to learn more about the human psyche from different perspectives.

But you have to understand why you are doing it in the first place. 

I want to go to university for a few reasons. 

First is to align myself with my passion which is conceptual understanding of the psychological development of people and society. I've always been interested in this since I was like 10 years old, and I just realized that it was always my purpose and passion to talk to people about deep subjects.

Second is to be around more like minded people. I'm in a job right now where I just don't jive with the people I'm around at all. No one that I spend my days with likes to talk about meta-topics and philosophical concepts. All conversations are very surface level. I understand that they are probably in lower stages of development that I am but I really long for people I can relate to.

Third is because I always felt drawn to the university/academic path but never thought I was smart enough or worthy of going so I settled for a blue-collar job that never challenged me to get me safely through life. I always regretted this decision and I now realize that the thought of not being smart enough was a limiting belief that I had to get over. So now I sort of what to prove to myself that I can do it.

And Forth, and what I started this thread, is that Psychology is one of those fields that really require credentials to be taken seriously (unfortunately). I feel like it would be a better strategy to work within the system to try to merge non-dual teachings into psychology than to try to change the status quo with no credentials.

I guess my end goal would be to help move the world towards accepting more spirituality into the very scientific based paradigm of established psychological models. I would also like to have a private practice where I help people do self-inquiry and contemplative exercises as psychotherapy.

[Nobody_Here]

I’ve read about people who do this already. Get a Ph.D. in counseling psychology and certification as a life coach. Then start a private practice doing whatever you want to do. That way, you’ll have the credentials and the practical experience to work in psychology but also the ability to work along the fringes of the field and do whatever you want to do.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Nobody_Here

[Leo Gura]

That will depend on what kind of person you are. Some folks are more insiders, others are more suited to be outsiders.

I'm a strong outsider because I'm very clear in my vision and very independent. Collaboration isn't my cup of tea.

But your personality might be the opposite.

[electroBeam]

On 04/08/2020 at 0:28 PM, JayG84 said:

I'm thinking of going back to school to pursue my life purpose in Psychology, but I'm not quite sure that it's the right move considering that I've already studied a lot of what I'm going to learn on my own, and the school system is too close minded to bring a non-dual perspective into. I want to try to bring fresh ideas and insights to humanity and help as many people as possible, but I'm not sure if the status quo of the 'academic path' is going to be receptive to paradigm shifts anytime soon. 

Do you think that it's worth trying to change the system from inside the estabished paradigms with credentials, or try to come at it from outside the system with no credentials?

It doesn't really matter 'what's better' but rather 'what's best for you'. 

Even if you come up with sound logic that its better to change the system from within, if it doesn't suit your personality type, you wont have what it takes to pull it off. 

 

In history, systems have been changed from the outside and from the inside. Science usually changes from within, numerous examples like Einstein, Edward Lorenz, etc. Social change usually comes from the outside. 

But there's plenty of examples of where changing the system from within (in science) has failed. Like with Hegel, Robert Lanza's theory hasn't really been accepted yet (even though he's spent hours on it), while Rupert Sheldrake (who started within the system but then left) has his own journal  which while its not within "the system" its within "a system", one he created himself. 

And the main reason why is because when revolutions happen, they don't usually happen solely by the actions of 1 particular guy. Unlike what humans have been led to believe, revolutions happen because significant chunks of the system as a whole collectively starts to feel the same 'pain' or 'suffering' and then the collectively as a whole begins to form common questions or peaks of interest in particular areas. And then there's this 1 guy(from that chunk) who takes the lead, and starts to rally people, or concretely solidify solutions or frameworks for those particular 'questions' or emergence of 'suffering'. 

To create a revolution, you need more than just 1 guy. The system needs to collectively start feeling the same suffering and a desire to change their worldview; and this cannot be caused by 1 guy, it spontaneously emerges as part of the evolution of the system. Its like a wave. A wave of common desires, suffering and questions from the collective whole, and then 1 guy catches that wave by quenching the desire, relieving the suffering through leading and defining frameworks which the people in the system were originally looking for. 

Martin Luther King jumped that wave. Blacks already were feeling the desire for change, the suffering collectively and were already questioning the system (from world war 2), Martin just solidified or did the final push to actualize that collective suffering/desires/wave. 

Same with Niels Bhor. Quantum mechanics was a collective wave/revolution, originally caused by 100s (if not 1000s) of scientists collectively feeling the same desires for more than just newtonian physics, questioning the same areas, dozens of scientists were all feeling the same suffering and problems with their worldview and as a whole wanted to change it(they just didn't know how). Niels Bhor (and several others) just did that final push, resolved their suffering, served their desire, and through that, caused a revolution. He did it through giving the scientists what they were subconsciously looking for, in a language that they could understand(his theory was sort of a bridge between the classical world and a non dual perspective of reality). The 100s of scientists were the customers, while Niels Bhor was the seller so to speak. 

If you jump the wave too early, you end up being a crazy psycho wacko (actually a genius though), whose only recognised hundreds of years into the future. If you jump too late, someone else has caused the revolution already, you have to jump at the right time. And that right time might be never in your lifetime(for your chosen field or area of interest)... it all depends on what's happening on a collective level. Ken Wilber is an example of someone who jumped too early. 

^^^^ In other words, approaching this question with the mindset of "I want to change the system, how do I do it?" isn't the right way to go, because the system doesn't change by you, it changes by itself. Your rationale is sort of like a cell asking "how do I make this person smarter?" That's not up to the cell, that's up to you as a whole (all cells collectively). 

So just do what you love first and foremost, and don't worry about changing the system, but by just being the best you can by yourself. If you're lucky enough to catch a wave, then good on you!

Edited August 31, 2020 by electroBeam