Hi, Mark,
To begin, I think you may have inadvertantly hit on a very important aspect
of MoQ in this post. Specifically, what the heck are we talking about.
Consider the first two paragraphs of the definition of psychology in
Wikipedia:
"Psychology is the study of the mind, partly via the study of behavior,
grounded in science.[1][2] Its immediate goal is to understand individuals
and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific
cases.[3][4] For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit
society.[5][6] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is
called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist,
behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to
understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior,
while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that
underlie certain functions and behaviors.
Psychologists explore such concepts as perception, cognition, attention,
emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality,
behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth
psychologists, also consider the unconscious mind.a Psychologists employ
empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between
psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing
empirical and deductive methods, some-especially clinical and counseling
psychologists-at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive
techniques. Psychology incorporates research from the social sciences,
natural sciences, and humanities, such as philosophy."
The word that jumps out to me here is "mind." We have no clue what it
really is. We know what it DOES, but we can't even say with absolute
certainty where it is. I have read several different opinions about where
it's located that made sense from my perspective. This is similar to the
question of whether or not Newton invented gravity. In a way, he did.
Before he began talking about it, the only thing people really knew was that
apples fell down when they seperated themselves from the tree. It was the
concept of gravity that he invented. We knew what it did, not what it was.
The same can be applied to Quality. The same arguments that apply to mind
can be applied to quality, and this, at the heart of it, is my take on the
objections that Pirsig has/had with psychology. We're trying to measure
humidity with a yardstick. The problem to me is that he identified the
concept, but he didn't do much to define the subject any more than Newton
did. Next question: Is it important to really know what it is? Is knowing
what it does enough?
----- Original Message -----
From: "118" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy
Hi Ian,
I agree with you that the use of psychology in addressing MoQ is
interesting. Believe me I have dabbled in psychology which I find
intriguing since it creates great debates between me an my friends. I
have a fair grasp of its theories and its gurus. I do find that it
is a self-perpetuating system, since psychology creates psychology,
and how can one argue with that except to say: Doesn't that sound a
bit funny?". Can we say that philosophy is created because of
philosophy?
Of importance, is the idea that MoQ should not fall under the "spell"
of modern psychology. That is, if MoQ is interpreted in terms of the
current models of psychology, much can be lost. I am not sure if I am
being clear here, since I seem to get responses that are avoiding
taking about this. The question is: Does MoQ govern psychology or
does psychology govern MoQ. If MoQ and psychology are distinct but
overlapping disciplines, then that may be OK in my book, depending on
what the person means.
However, what I read is that MoQ or any philosophy has a psychological
cause. What this implies is that psychology is the governing body.
I would much prefer it if MoQ creates psychology as one of its
products. In this way psychology does not preempt MoQ. We could say
that due to Quality, a form of understanding called psychology
results. In this way Quality and its metaphysics cannot be ascribed
to psychology any more than a tree can be ascribed to an apple. It is
a question of hierarchy.
There is no doubt that modern psychology and its theories hold great
sway over the Western world. It is hard to get away from them. What
we must understand, is that such models are simplistic, and somewhat
reductionist. They also seem to rob people of a sense of personal
responsibility since much can be attributed to stimulus response,
which is "outside of our control". It is claimed that advertisers can
use the principles of psychology to make people buy things, and that
politicians can use psychology to convince people of their stature.
These kind of examples are self-fulfilling since we are taught to look
at the world through a psychology prism. We say: "yes of course
psychology is used in this way, since psychology is the way the world
works". Who is to say that this is the best interpretation of the
human condition?
It is the reduction of human awareness to a mechanical model that
leaves current psychology lacking. If we use the Jungian model, this
mechanistic approach is much tamer. I have posted on synchronicity
and its applications to MoQ. Archtype theories are outside of
personal psychology since the refer to a spiritual presence. It is
our responsibility for us to tame psychology and not have it tame us.
I am not suggesting this out of personal experience, or for
"psychological" reasons, for if I did, I would be under the spell of
psychology. I am subscribing to the idea that a "world view" which
falls under the modeling of psychology can be somewhat lacking simply
on logical grounds. Mystical experiences simply become a psychotic
episode, and are not something we can learn from, as something that
exists outside of ourselves and our immediate environment. Of course
psychologist will deny such a thing since they will say that the way
we think stems from the structure of our brains and our experiences.
Isn't this a little simplistic for anyone? Doesn't it somehow
denigrate our experience in this life? Aren't there better models
than modern psychology?
I have heard the argument that scientist pursue things for
psychological reasons, and the models of reality they build are such
due to their psychology. Doctors want to help people purely for
psychological reasons. A good song writer has the psychology to be
able to do that. In short, psychology is our new religion. Replace
"psychology" (or its grammatical forms) with "God" and you get exactly
the same sense. We behave the way we do because of God. Isn't this a
bit silly?
By describing MoQ as a psychological apparition, which stems from the
behavioural models of modern psychology, puts MoQ into a relative
environment. The expression of a being becomes firmly established as
a result of his environment. I ask then: how does free will fit into
all of this? Modern determinism is firmly grounded in psychology,
i.e. "you would have done that anyway, there is nothing free about
it". It seems to victimize of the human race. This is why insanity
is used in the courts of law. For, the "true" person could not
control what he did. What exactly does that mean? Are we really
something other than what we are? Are we giving allowances to someone
who we say is possessed by a demon? Are psychologists the new
exorcists? Please, Doctor, tell me if I am insane!
My posts are intended to warn about gaging Pirsig or MoQ from a modern
psychological angle, as a Very important perspective. If we do choose
to do that, then we need to have a firm grasp on what that means.
Sometimes it seems like the term psychological is thrown around
without much meaning.
So, my question to you Ian, is: What do you mean by a "psychological
angle"? What models are you referring to that you are adopting? Feel
free to bring in important psychological experts in. I am happy to
read a quote from a psychologist that you find reflects your views, be
it behavioral, physical, or whatever. Some relevant quotes from
Maslow would be just fine. If his philosophy is similar to Pirsig's
and he claims to be a psychologist, then that is a good place to
start.
There, that is my question. The theories of psychology can be dealt
with in exactly the same manner as theories in philosophy. That is,
what sort of ground do they stand on. So, let us get down to details
shall we? We can see if indeed psychology is important to MoQ, and
more psychological terminology should be brought in to provide the
true meaning of MoQ. I am open to any conclusions by the group. I am
for what best suits MoQ.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ian Glendinning
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi folks, I've hung back out of this thread - even though my original
catch-phrase was "it's (the MoQ) evolutionary psychology, stupid" - so
now it's hard to know how to interject.
I too cannot see how the "psychology" of Pirsig and the MoQ can be
anything but interesting and relevant.
Even the psychological breakdown (hard enlightenment maybe, Pirsig
suggested) is relevant, the whole Orpheus episode. I lose count how
many times I've invoked the phrase "there but for grace ... (go we
all)". Of course between that direct personal enlightenment and
writing up the MoQ, Pirsig thoroughly objectified what he was dealing
with - think of all those index cards of facts and meta-facts, started
even before the ZMM trip - but of course so much fit with wider
philosophy was unknown to Pirsig until much later.
I've had the psychological angle on Pirsig since I first encountered
his work, but more recently I've been commenting on the
"rehabilitation" of Maslow in the "positive psychology" school - the
parallel's between Pirsig's levels and Maslow's hierarchy are patently
obvious (even here on MD many years ago).
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3907
Sorry, this is all about me, is there a specific question I could address
?
Ian
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
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: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4693 - Release Date: 12/20/11
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
