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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2108/4679 - Release Date: 12/13/11
