Hi Dave, Given your view of the Self through the Western principles of psychology your responses are not surprising. Indeed, if one views the approach which psychology takes as appropriate, then all which we interpret can fall under the psychological "model" of the world. It is this model which I question. Certainly Buddhism can fall within a psychological phenomenon if approached in that way. My "rants" address the appropriateness of a psychological paradigm, and where it leaves one in terms of a personal sense of Self.
I will admit that I do rant, but this is for rhetorical reasons. Beneath that rant are fundamental questions concerning the modern view of the world; those views we now seem to take for granted. It was the nature of such views that both ZAMM and Lila question. Psychology interprets the data it gathers within certain models. These models are part of our social models and include such theories as evolution, current mechanistic approaches to the brain (which is presented as binary transistors, or, on-off nerve impulses), a behavioral philosophy based on rodent models, and a very simplistic approach using cause and effect, amongst many other intertwined views of reality. It is through this prism that we interpret the black box which we call our mind. As I have said previously, data is neutral. It is the models which we create that gives the data meaning. Data can be analyzed in two (for example) conflicting ways as proposed by two distinct models, and the meaning of such data can therefore be very different. The adoption of one model over another depends on how the data seems to fit the best. If only one model is proposed from the outset, then the data only has meaning within the specified context. My question would be whether our current condition is appropriately placed within the context of modern psychology? What other models are available that we have chosen not to use. The scientific method itself is formulated so as to shrink the possible interpretations of data. In doing so, it creates methods of interrogation which further promote the "accepted" model. That is, studies are designed to either support or refute the model in question. Studies are not conducted to evaluate the credence of various models. For example, the Theory of evolution is currently evaluated in terms of how can the data be evaluated to support evolution. Put another way, we ask how the data can be Best evaluated so as to fit within the theory of evolution. This is a case where the model directs the interpretation of data. With modern psychology, human action is interpreted within its models, and not used to create models. This is a form of "consensus interpretation" and can be seen as interpreting the world as if "under a spell" (no rant intended). The power of psychology is its claim to be representing our very being. Therefore, in order to understand ourselves, we Must use modern psychology to achieve that (again no rant intended). This is not an emotional response to psychology, it is a logical evaluation of the nature of psychology. It is a model from which we "choose" to view reality. Since it deals with the very mind that is creating it, isn't there a conflict of interest here? Is it possible the modern psychology is self perpetuating by designing the evaluator itself? Instead of asking whether Buddhism is an ancient take on psychology, we could ask whether psychology is a modern take on Buddhism. Wouldn't that be more appropriate if the past creates the present? Cheers, Mark On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:22 AM, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark > > Given your previous posts on the subject your responses are not surprising. > Just a few comments. >> >> [Mark] >> It is interesting that I find above the inclusion of Buddhism as a >> form of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is used for patients that are >> ill, and its intent is to make them healthy. If we take "suffering" >> as an illness, then I suppose we could claim that Buddhism is a >> medical practice. > > [Dave] > "I think equating "suffering" to "illness" is a bit of Western spin. > > "Suffering, or pain in a broad sense, is an individual's basic affective > experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of > harm. Suffering may be qualified as physical or mental."-Wiki > > From a MoQ perspective suffering is the experience by sentient beings of > low quality patterns of any level or combination that results in pain, > suffering in this broad sense. > > At the most basic Buddha claimed that this suffering was based on craving > (The Four Noble Truths). And that this craving could be mitigating or > eliminated by changing ones behavior, habits, and lifestyle via the Noble > Eightfold Path. I'm certainly not going to vouch for the veracity of his > claims, nor am I going to debauch them. But.........as you read the basic of > this path: > > The Noble Eightfold Path—the fourth of the Buddha's Noble Truths—is the way > to the cessation of suffering (dukkha). It has eight sections, each starting > with the word "samyak" (Sanskrit, meaning "correctly", "properly", or > "well", frequently translated into English as "right"), and presented in > three groups known as the three higher trainings. (NB: Pāli transliterations > appear in brackets after Sanskrit ones): > > Prajñā is the wisdom that purifies the mind, allowing it to attain spiritual > insight into the true nature of all things. It includes: > > dṛṣṭi (ditthi): viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be. > saṃkalpa (sankappa): intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness. > > Śīla is the ethics or morality, or abstention from unwholesome deeds. It > includes: > > vāc (vāca): speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way > karman (kammanta): acting in a non-harmful way > ājīvana (ājīva): a non-harmful livelihood > > Samādhi is the mental discipline required to develop mastery over one's own > mind. This is done through the practice of various contemplative and > meditative practices, and includes: > > vyāyāma (vāyāma): making an effort to improve > smṛti (sati): awareness to see things for what they are with clear > consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without > any craving or aversion > samādhi (samādhi): correct meditation or concentration, explained as the > first four jhānas > > The practice of the Eightfold Path is understood in two ways, as requiring > either simultaneous development (all eight items practiced in parallel), or > as a progressive series of stages through which the practitioner moves, the > culmination of one leading to the beginning of another.-Wiki > > ....the similarity to many forms of Western psychotherapy seems obvious to > me. > > [Ian commented:] >> 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). > > [Dave] > And isn't Buddhism a similar ancient take on "positive psychology"? > >> Any "science" that cannot be objective will run into problems. In >> order to try to be objective, psychologist objectify our awareness of >> reality. "You see things this way, because..." We are right back to >> the priests telling us why we sin, and how to correct that sinning. >> Yes, this is man's nature, it is based on leaders and followers. I >> just see no reason to take MoQ down that dark and narrow path. It is >> SOM on steroids! > [Dave] > What is the difference between a sensei and a priest, other than their > dogma? >> >> It has nothing to do with Pirsig's experience, it has to do with MoQ. >> There are plenty of philosophies that are based in psychology, why >> take MoQ down? > [Dave] > What silliness. If all of reality is based on experience and thinking about > it them, How is it you can divorce Pirsig's writing from his experiences? > Particularly when both books, in some part, are autobiographical? >> >> Bravo, RMP. Don't let them frame the discussion and trap MoQ into a >> psychological paradigm. They are tricky, and before you know it, all >> of MoQ will fall under some model or another of psychology. MoQ will >> be used for behaviour modification, and drilled into our children, >> because we must control what the human race will become. Of course, >> those not yet born have no choice in the matter of who they are to be, >> since we know better. Evolution does not work that way. > > [Dave] > Hey if you set out to do a Moral Metaphysics, moral psychology has to be in > their somewhere. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych-emp/) > > Don't get me wrong many of your rants are of real concern vis-a-viz the MoQ > but the problems are as much or more internal ones, as opposed to the > external forces you are concerned with. > > > > 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
