Hi Andre, I agree with you concerning the bridge from MoQ to psychology if such a thing is possible. My prediction is that MoQ will fall under the spell of psychology and be relegated to some behavioral tendency of "people such as ourselves" (which echoes you). After all, we have the "God gene" and the "God machine" which explain the feelings associated with theology as an evolutionary trait, right down to the physical brain. This is, of course, a result of the objective tendency of psychology. This tendency will encompass itself. That is, we must have some evolutionary trait which causes us to self examine. This kind of notion will always result in some kind of logic loop which makes the whole thing meaningless. On the surface, however, it looks tantalizing. We have the new Gurus of the day. Dr,. Phil, where are you?
Logic falls apart when consciousness is involved, mainly because consciousness comes before logic. It is like asking the "act of walking" to describe the "individual walking". The thing is, that psychology has created this artificial reality in which people actually think it can be used to understand the mind. This reality is so artificial, that it will never go anywhere truly meaningful. It is like building a house at the top of the mountain and putting people in it saying that this is their entire world, and that there is no way out. Or perhaps the cave analogy would be appropriate. We are trying to understand the human condition by analyzing the shadow it throws. We are left with a two dimensional view of reality. Psychology is the land of the Flatlanders. In terms of applying an encompassing label to Quality, perhaps it is more appropriate to give it a functional label. That is, when one views the world as described through MoQ, one gets such and such. The Buddhists use the term Nirvana as the reward, and have no formal name for their method of analysis (although we in the west call it Buddhism). The Buddha is simply one who is awake (whatever that means), and not some deity. The Tao is translated as The Way, which is more of a verb, not an object. We obviously need to stay away from Heaven or any afterlife type of thing, since that is conjecture which science cannot prove (at least not yet). My view through Quality makes everything clear and meaningful. It's a kind of Nirvana, I suppose. The modern existentialist form of existence has only been around for a short time. It is based on the pragmatic notion that what we cannot experience does not exist. Of course science itself has already shown that to not be the case since who has seen a quark? The modern pragmatic world seems to limit itself by what it can experience directly, and has no use for the imagination. Without imagining that which does not exist, we would probably still be picking berries off a bush. Perhaps this modern life is really an aberration caused by all the toys we now have to distract ourselves from meaningful thought. Once the novelty of that wears off, we can return to a universe of personal meaning. One cannot live in an estranged mechanistic universe for very long, it is self destructive. I would say that man does live by "bread" alone. It's a question of how much bread does one man need? How much money can one actually eat, and expect to stay nourished? Just throwing around opinions like candy (or is it caca?). Cheers, Mark On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark to Andre: > > There is indeed great rhetorical strength in psychology and any tie into > such a discipline would > further promote MoQ. > > Andre: > Thank you for your response Mark (and Carl). I lifted this one out because I > intended my post to argue for the opposite: i.e. that the MOQ would promote > a more rigorous appreciation and application of values in such disciplines > as psychology/psychiatry and any of the myriad of therapeutic/ > interventionist/research approaches. Hence my initial reference to the AHP > tapes. > > As for Carl's response...yes, it is indeed a sad situation, the experience > of which Phaedrus provides a description on pp222-3 in LILA as, in his term > 'the Giant'...converting 'accumulated biological energy into forms that > serve itself'. > "Phaedrus had always believed science is a search for truth (to generalize a > bit, when pointing this out recently to some friends I was labelled as > hopelessly naive and 'out of touch with the realities of life!!'). A real > scientist (or therapist, or researcher or anyone really) is not supposed to > sell out that goal to corporations who are searching for mere profit. Or, if > he had to sell out in order to live that was nothing to be happy about'. > > (And I may add that 'fortunately' there are many people 'not happy' about > the present state of affairs and it is a nice gesture of Time magazine to > proclaim 'the demonstrator as 'person of the year.) > > Be that as it may however, it is time to move to a notion that all static > patterns of quality are understood as a manifestation of Quality, Big Self, > the Tao or in your words 'Being'. But, as long as those suggestions ( > boiling down to 'one does not live on bread alone') are dismissed even by > sympathetic commentators/analysts (as I read in a national paper the other > day) as 'pseudo-religious' rhetoric, even a dislodging of prevailing > attitudes and convictions seems miles away. > > I cannot see this happening in any serious way for at least another fifteen > generations. ;-) > > > 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
