----- Original Message -----
From: "118" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy
Hi Carl,
Thank you for your post. You may have inadvertantly realized one of
the premises for my recent posts. This is perhaps a better way of
understanding what I am presenting since it arises out of your own
system of beliefs rather than through acceptance of dogma.
My posts are discussions, and should not be viewed as dogma, in my
opinion. What I am presenting should be understood within one's own
awareness of reality (ontology) and not be simply accepted as the
correct system of belief (epistemology). Ontology as I use it here,
is "that from which there is no view out". An epistemology has many
possible views to that outside. So your ontology provides the view
from which you interpret reality, and many epistemologies are
available from that. MoQ challenges the very ontology in which we
find ourselves within our current Western interpretation. As such, it
can not be fit within a Western framework, which is what many in this
forum attempt to do. The use of modern psychology being one such
attempt to Westernize MoQ.
Having said that I will continue the discussion you present below.
Carl:
To begin, I appologize for taking so long to respond. I'm trying to add
something to the conversation, and I can't do that with a flippant response.
To say that I'm not very quick-witted would be an understatement, but then
again, I don't try to be. I have no personal dogma, per se. It's why I'm
back in school at the tender age of 56. (I tell people who ask that I'm
still trying to learn something.) I view this discussion as just that, a
discussion. I don't insist that anyone agree with me, and I hope I'm
projecting the idea that I don't necessarily agree with anyone else. It's
all up for discussion. I have had several changes in perspective since I
started reading this list, and hope to have more. Frankly, I'm not sure I
want to talk with people who are firm in their opinions. That doesn't mean
that I'm not interested in their orientation, because I can learn from that,
as I can from their opinions, but after a bit it becomes redundant, as I'm
sure you're aware.
Having said that, I question your statement about ontology. We can perceive
ONLY from our own perceptions, and we have no way of knowing if they're
correct. As you said in another post, there is an inherent conflict of
interest involved there. I am fully aware that my perspective on most
things is different than the majority, and have heard that from several
different people in my life. I can't explain why, but it is. I do agree
with your assertion that we're trying to fit our understanding of ourselves
into an imperfect model. Calling that model 'psychology' or 'buddhism' or
'taoism' or any other ism or ology is equally problematical.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]>
wrote:
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] [snip]
Mark:
OK, I am fine discussing within this presentation of psychology.
Basically it is the conscious mind providing a model for the
unconscious mind even though the conscious has its basis in the
unconscious (imo). It is like the presence of a car describing how it
came to be. We can use the various features of a car to provide a
model in which all these features came to be. You must admit,
however, that such conscious interpretation of the mind is incomplete,
and can change at any time.
Carl:
I don't seperate the conscious from the unconsious. I think they co-exist.
The problem here is one of dailectical monism. See:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dialectical_monism
It is interesting that the article discusses emptiness, and Nagarjuna, as
Marsha referenced. My opinion on that is that the word emptiness is a
descriptor and as such must be relative. If you tell someone that "x" is
empty, you are describing a state of being, not an inherent quality. A good
description of dialectical monism was presented by Alan Watts:
"Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery - the only thing you need to
know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets - is this: that for
every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an
outside, and although they are different, they go together."
This is consistent with my personal opinion reguarding reality. We may
percieve a duality, but it's an artificial one. Could DQ exist without sq?
I don't think so. The term would be meaningless.
Carl:
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.
Mark:
Sorry to interupt here, but I agree. However, as you state
subsequently, psychology seeks to establish a "system" for the mind.
That is, the rules which govern our awareness. When you use the word
"clue", I take it to mean that we cannot provide an objective
presentation of the subjective. This is in fact what psychology
attempts to do through the "scientific method". This would be
"explaining" why we think the way we do. We cannot say where it is,
because we are creating the where, we are not finding it.
Carl:
This is a very astute observation. Thank you. I agree that we are
constantly co-creating our reality. (I use the term co-creating to indicate
that we're working with that which is available. Chew on that one for a
second. <G>)
Carl:
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?
Mark:
Yes, the laws of gravity are a concept. It is a structure in which we
interpret what we consider to be real. The concept itself is
invented, but this does not mean that the data used to create
"gravity" did not exist prior to its conceptualization. We must not
confuse the systematized models with where they came from. Newton's
presentation of gravity is a method for interpretation. It is quite
useful despite its enclosing of the data in a rigorous way. Einsten
broke free from this enclosure to present perhaps a better model from
which to work from which includes Newtonian concepts for every day use
(we cannot travel at the speed of light for example), but diverges in
certain cosmological circumstances (time keeping by satelites for
example). The determinism implied by Newton was also reinterpreted by
modern quantum mechanics to allow for the presence of "free will".
This, perhaps, has a greater impact on our daily lives, and personal
philosophizing.
Agree. To extend the concept, what do you think of the idea of evolution as
a continuation along the same axis? i.e. We are not adapting to the world
so much as we are adapting the world to us. We develop a new "ability"
because we create situations that call for a new ability. This could be a
central idea of your concept of reality as percieved by Pirsig. DQ and sq
are labels, IMHO, and not states of being per se. I need to explain that.
Okay. Something is DQ, then you percieved it and it becomes sq. I have not
percieved it yet, so to me, it's still DQ. Does that make sense? If I
never perceive it, does it remain DQ forever, or simply become irrelevant?
Mark:
Science requires a system of measurement since that is the scientific
method. This system brings the abstract into the measurable. The
measureable thus becomes an interpretation of the abstract. It is the
governence of what we call the "objective" over the "subjective", that
may not work for the mind. Of course, the objective is much more
useful in the social level, since we must exchange intuitive notions
in the form of objective concepts. One must realize, however, that
the objective does not exist without the subjective, which is its
creator (again imo).
Carl:
I agree with this. The intuitive notions are conceivably DQ, which are then
reduced to actuality and become sq. This probably explains why the reality
is never as "good" as the expectation. Another problem is one you describe
in another post in that there are some things that resist measurement. The
mind is one of those. By insisting on measuring it anyway, we force it into
an invalid model, which you also talk about.
Mark:
Modern psychology presents itself as such system of measurement
(psychology as a science), and provides a way in which to interpret
our very being which we can say is our "mind". It then becomes an
ontology with which to create a reality through epistemology.
Psychology at present firmly regards our mind as originating from the
brain. It is of course not "guilty" of this since it simply codifies
our current 21st century awareness, that is, when the brain is asleep,
the mind is asleep. By establishing this, psychology (inadvertetly
perhaps) prevents the interpretation of the mind in other ways, since
it is said to encompass that very ability for "other ways of
interpretation".
Carl:
Problem. "When the brain is asleep, the mind is asleep." We don't know
that, and there are indications that the mind is not at all 'asleep.' What
are dreams? How do we know to wake up, (i.e. return to normal
consciousness) when we heard an untoward sound? Even more interesting, what
about so-called "precognitive" dreams? Are they simply coincidence? Is
there such a thing as coincidence? I think you're addressing this with
your comment about preventing the interpretation of the mind in other ways.
We know there is something else going on, but the current model doesn't
allow those things to be addressed.
Mark:
As with any ontology, MoQ seeks to dispel the current notion of
Western psychology as "the best view to that inside". MoQ can be used
to demonstrate that psychology is lacking in true meaning, in the same
way that psychology can be used to demonstrate that any metaphysics is
lacking in true meaning (by saying that it is a product of the various
determining arisings which create it, to use Buddhistic terms). In
this way, modern psychology and MoQ can be viewed as being in a
battle. This is no different in concept from rhetoric being at battle
with dialectic, as presented in ZAMM. For rhetoric is a personal
presentation, while dialectic is an objective search for truth.
Carl:
I view dialectic as a method of searching for truth, and not necessarily
objectively. (Kant's Categorical Imperitive leaps to mind here.) As you
say, it all depends on the ontology from which the search begins.
Mark:
What you call "Pirsig's objections" would be of similar nature to the
"objections" that psychology would have with Pirsig's model. The
question would be: Which interpretation of reality is most useful for
you? Certainly psychology has its uses, especially in the medical
field. However, outside of that it is possible to consider psychology
as a very powerful branch of Western thought, and perhaps somewhat
misguided in its Knowing the appropriate dogmatic approach. That of
course if for you to decide; I can only present my own reservations.
Carl:
My perception is one of the political aspect, rather than the scientific
basis. Most of what we call "science" now is based on political agendas,
rather than a pure search for truth. I think that was a large part of
Pirsig's objection.
Mark:
In terms of your final question, I would have to equate "importance"
with "meaningfulness". Therefore the question could be rephrased as:
Is it meaningful to really know what it is? Is knowing what it does
enough? This is of course a question that one must ask oneself. In
psychological terms we could ask whether this knowing brings
happiness. Is to live within a meaningful world a happy world?
Carl:
Minor problem here. The whole concept of happiness is questionable to me.
I have read, (although I don't remember where) that our percieved need for
happiness is a delusion. It's great if it happens, but just how necessary
is it for us to be functional humans? To me, it's important to know if I am
percieving something correctly. The problem is that one function of age it
to bring everything into question. The assumptions that I willingly
accepted when I was younger are falling apart, and I'm looking for a better
way of determining what is real, what effects they have, etc. That was the
basis of my question, and even restated as you did, it becomes more
relevant. It IS important to me that my conclusions be meaningful.
Mark:
With regard to your "really know", I can only offer the following
opinion: What we know intellectually is what we create as models.
Knowing is a creative process, which to me mean that knowing is the
same as that which we know; they cannot be different. We create
things in order to opperate in a meaningful way, that is knowing and
what we project to know. We are not finding something we do not know,
we are creating something that we previously did not know. I would
say that "really knowing" is a human expression which we can use or
not. The intellect of the mind is an expression in the same way that
a flower is an expression of a plant. Some people like flowers,
others do not. If such knowing is not enough then there are other
ways of interacting with reality, like eating a good dinner.
Carl:
In my opinion, to "really know" something is to know it in its nature,
without reguard to any skewed perception that may be involved. The problem
there is that we are a product of our society. I had a long discussion once
with a professor of sociology about that. He maintained that social
psychology is the only kind there is. I maintained that we develop as
individuals. My ontology in that regard is that we have free will, which
describes why some people are born in the ghetto, escape from it, and go on
to lead brilliant lives. If we were forced into a deterministic existence,
we wouldn't be able to do that. He maintained that we are more affected by
our culture, etc. than we believe, and that the person who escaped the
ghetto did so in reaction to those experiences. In fact, he said, were it
not for the early experiences of the ghetto, the individual may not have
achieved the level of success he or she did. I couldn't think of any way to
refute that. It could be circular reasoning, but it made sense.
This is a great discussion. I'll try to be more prompt in my replies.
Later,
Carl
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
