Dear Reader, This thread grew out of recent discussion involving the applications of modern psychology to metaphysics. If interested, I would encourage the reader to word search the archives of December 2011.
Hi Andre, On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark to Andre: > > As you probably know, my objection to psychology is its attempt to objectify > and encapsulate the mind. We cannot address the mind from the outside in, > that is done for robots without personal awareness, or individuality. > > Andre: > I do not agree with this Mark, as you probably guessed. There are 1st,2nd > and 3rd person perspectives to loads of static patterns which I think we > would do well to consider and take into account. To be able to see things > from different perspectives is very useful and when appropriately formulated > can enhance a more integrated understanding of different aspects of these > same phenomena. > > I certainly see a role for the MOQ here as well i.e. as unifying and > integrative. > > If psychology is the study of human consciousness and its manifestation in > behavior I find it difficult to follow your reasoning when talking about all > those people not only engaged in the field of psychology but also psychiatry > and a whole host of those working in the helping professions (and I include > nurses, doctors and brain surgeons and related medical professions as well). > > There are a lot of people in pain 'out there' for whatever reason and > through whatever experiences some have had to face. To dismiss people who > study human consciousness and its manifestation in human behavior and/or > apply findings (usually based on massive amounts of experiential data > through appropriate research) as 'robots without personal awareness, or > individuality' is a bit disingenuous and I think an insult to those who > care. It tells me you know very, very little of the aims of therapeutic > interventions Mark. > > To work with people who are hurt,in pain, and vulnerable you gotta care. You > gotta really, really care. And, having worked in these fields I realize that > the vast majority of these people do. [Mark] Andre, I appreciate your rhetoric and it is indeed compelling. I also have considered the medical benefits of psychology and have attempted to determine whether such use can indeed justify and support the growth of psychology which has taken hold since the 1900's. As you can possibly gather, this is not just idle evaluation on my part. Because psychology claims to provide understanding of our very being it is of great interest to people who are wondering about such things, which probably includes most of us. Psychology claims to require a disciplined approach and education supporting such an approach, which has resulted in experts, professors, and medical doctors of psychology. By way of example, in a court of law a suspect can be relegated to the category of "insane". The determination of such insanity must be performed by an "expert" (or pannel of such) who alone can assign such a label to the individual. This can mean the difference between lifetime incarceration in a prison or the placement of such individual in a more expensive medical institution. The psychological profiling of an individual is considered to be a social imperative in these cases. Of course the reaches of psychology in society are far greater than this example, and indeed reach into the very depths of an individual's valuation of self. In order to better present what I believe are the shortfalls of psychological interpretation, I need to explain my understanding of understanding. We create an understanding of the universe and our place within it by abstracting from a variety of personal inputs (this may seem like a psychological approach, but bear with me as I can most usefully present using the vernacular of the age we find ourselves in). This understanding can be analogized to "connecting the dots" in the same way that we create constellations in the sky. Since life is so full at every second, we cannot connect all the dots of experience, so we much choose those dots which we feel are the most important. We objectify experience and then connect these objects into greater objects which we then call concepts. These concepts are then combined in a way we feel is appropriate to form overriding principles which then guide us to the further gathering of "objects of experience". Therefore, of importance is the choice of objects, the manner in which they are combined, and the nature of the overriding principles which we then term "understanding". Once this "understanding" is established, it then colors the experience which we started with. "Understanding", in this sense, becomes a self perpetuating apparition which can be difficult to shed. Psychology seeks to create an understanding of our experience and motivations based on current concepts which we find ourselves surrounded by. These concepts have a historical basis and include such things as the theory of evolution, the structure of the brain, the anecdotes of severely ill patients and approaches which seem to help such people, the philosophy of the time, a data based collection and interpretation of individual and societal movements, and so forth. Psychology is therefore a product of its time, and its constellation is meant to provide meaning to individuals. If meaning is indeed found in some personal cases, then an individual has the choice as to whether to subscribe to the discipline as a whole. Acceptance of psychology as a Valuable interpretation of ourselves does have its consequences, however. The categorization of our behavior and our personal interpretation of the universe into modern psychological concepts will indeed affect our attitude to the experience which comes after such an acceptance of interpretive quality. Having models from which to evaluate our own visions promotes our selective creation of understanding (selection of dots). We then justify of our place here according to distinct guidelines. We place ourselves into a well organize system of belief, and act according to its instructions. We evaluate others according to the understanding provided by psychology, and thus promote and strengthen its influence. This is of course no different to any religion. That is, once the precepts are accepted, any religion makes a lot of personal sense, simply because we have come to agreement with the terms. Any ontology (being), such as MoQ, must have an epistemology (knowing) based around foundational principles. If such principles subscribe to the modern concepts of psychology, we need question whether it is indeed an appropriate discipline to draw from to give us an appropriate world view of Quality. There is indeed great rhetorical strength in psychology and any tie into such a discipline would further promote MoQ. However, I am very weary of doing this because at present I believe it will take MoQ away from its original intention. In my opinion, the tenents of psychology can set us down the wrong path for incorporating Quality into our everyday experience. MoQ is, after all, a fundamental interpretation of being. It is under evaluation as the best constellation. If discussion does proceed from this post, I hope to gain further understanding of the importance of psychology to MoQ, and perhaps change my opinion. Cheers, Mark > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
