Hi Carl, Happy New Year! First of all, congrats on getting back into school. We are about the same age, I will be 56 this year. At the age of 30 I went back to school. During my "years of arrogance" this seemed very old to me, and most of those I studied with were about 6 years or more younger. I was called the "old man" of the lab (in jest of course). Now at this age, I seem very young at that time. My father who is 86 says that I am still a kid. So, 56 is a good time to start learning again. Good luck with that!
I am not a brainiac by any means, especially when it comes to metaphysics. However, I find it fun to contemplate such things. What I present is my opinion only. Through discussion I learn much more. I find MoQ to be quite eclectic and enjoy mixing some of my learning through the years with some of those here. What I present is always a work in progress. So, on to your comments... On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Mark: I believe that we have the power to extrapolate beyond our perceptions. At least this is what I see the imagination as doing. During the day I am a scientist, and gather data which I then interpret. From that I design more experiments to see what will happen. It is usually the data which I do not expect that leads me to discovery. Therefore, I do not consider any data meaningless. The pictures I develop are extrapolations. They are models with which I try to make coherent in a meaningful way. I treat metaphysics the same way. I am not a big history buff in terms of philosophers, but I have read my fair share. If they make sense, I incorporate their frame of reference into mine, and tweak it a bit so that it feels right.. Psychology is a paradigm which is extremely popular these days, since it claims to depict our very being. It can be useful, but I also find it very confining. A big trend is evolutionary psychology. That is, using evolution to describe why we do the things we do. I find this model to be very incomplete, and somewhat misguided. We are evolving at this very minute, and there is more to it than simple input. There are our choices which I believe involve free will. There is little in terms of free will in modern psychology, mainly because they do not know how to deal with it. There is nothing scientific about free will, it cannot be measured. So, it is not so much that it is problematic, it is that it is the wrong paradigm in my opinion. But, I will not rant anymore about that. > > 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). > > > 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 Mark: Well, this is an interesting play on words. Unfortunately it is hard to see who wrote that article. But, I understand what the author is trying to say. I agree, that the conscious and unconscious cannot be separated. This is yet another problem that I have with some psychology. Certainly the current theories in physics can claim to dialectic monism, that is energy and mass being equivalent, and such two entities being the sum total of the universe. A problem I would have with the concept of dialectic monism would be that it is incomplete. If indeed Taoism (as expressed by the Yin and Yang) was a form of monism, it would seem that nothing would ever happen. For indeed, we can include the Yin and Yang as interconverting poles thus yielding one big monistic thing. However, why do they interact as they do? In order to explain that, a third entity must be included that is separate from both Yin and Yang. That thing describes their interaction and cannot be part of either Yin or Yang. As a part of the Tao te Ching poem says: Tao begets the one which begets the two which beget the THREE which CREATES ALL THINGS. The Tao is not really one thing, it is an expression of a tendency. In my opinion it is active in the same way that Quality is. So, monism is interesting, but I believe it leads to determinism. Free will requires an entity (such as ourselves) that is separate and distinct from other things. > > 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." I am a big fan of Watts, and he was quite an entertainer (as he called himself). He had a way with rhetoric that I find compelling. He is referring to the 'two sides of a coin" analogy here. Which is fine for instructional purposes for depicting the interrelatedness of everything. However, for us to have any consciousness, the two sides must be distinct. I have the iphone app for Watts by the way. He is much better to listen to than to read. If taken at face value, Emptiness is entirely deterministic. However, from what I have learned from Buddhist monks, the concept of emptiness is presented simply to get the student to begin to think differently. As such, it is a tool, and cannot be taken literally. As Buddha is said to have said, such tools are like rafts. However, once one reaches the other side of the river, one can leave the raft behind. Buddhism was never meant to be dogmatic, it simply provides a perspective from which to work from. It has been fine tuned (and misrepresented) over the years so that the student can reach enlightenment more quickly. However, we in the West want to know exactly what it is, so we take the teachings and make them into truths, and then disagree with them. We are fighting windmills. What the doctrines state is simply rhetoric to provide a path one can walk on. What one does on that path is up to them. > > 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. Mark: Yes, DQ and sq are presented by Pirsig for us to get a handle on what he is trying to describe. We really have no idea what he personally sees as reality, we only have his descriptions. DQ and sq do not really exist as such, but are a representation of a manner of thinking. For the purposes of understanding MoQ, we use DQ and sq to explain other aspects of the metaphysics. We treat them as real to see where our logic will lead us. Any metaphysics requires structure of some kind. However, once one gets into that mode of thought, DQ and sq are not necessary anymore. > > 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>) Mark: Yes, co-creating, two things (or more) at work there. If we want to take a pseudo-monistic view, we could say that all we experience is our creation. However, this type of rhetoric has not worked for me when I am trying to explain Quality to others. > > 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: I cannot disagree with what you say above. I present the concept that we are adapting and not controlling simply to combat the notion that we are controlling the world. Certainly we represent the world as much as anything else, we cannot separate ourselves from it. The terrain controls a river's contour, but the river also controls the shape of the terrain. Our "ability" is no different. Perhaps a good analogy would be when the colors blue and yellow blend to form green. So, is the blue controlling the color of the yellow, or is it the other way around? Of course the question is a bit silly. We could say that the green controls the expression of the blue and the yellow. It is taking this second format that helps me understand Quality. More on my idle thoughts on that sometime. Yes, DQ can become sq, but I believe the oposite is true as well; sq can become DQ. If I enter into that mode of thought, things make more sense to me. Energy becomes mass, but mass can become energy. Like you said, DQ does not exist without sq. So it cannot be DQ forever, it always has a little bit of sq associated with it. This is symbolized by the interacting dolphins of the Yin Yang circle. A frame makes a window, but both the frame and the opening are required. Take one away, and the window disappears. DQ cannot exist without sq. > > Mark: >> >> 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: I think you are saying the same thing that I was. When we are asleep, we are still present, just in a different way. The point I was trying to make was that our very being of awareness does not simply originate in the brain. It has been shown (I forget how), that the rest of our bodies also makes up our thoughts. The brain is simply the final place where we convert our thoughts into something we can share with others. I am not sure what is meant by coincidence except that it is thought that there is a mechanical world out there where chance is king. I do not see how this can be the case. Chance is just another word for "we do not understand". If chance were king, we would not be around. I am a firm believer in the presentation of synchronicity by Jung. I take it a step farther, however, to say that every moment of our lives is synchronous. We just happen to remember the most important ones. Back in grad school, I wrote a paper on the mechanisms of sleep. It is complex, but basically it follows a circular pattern. It can be analogized to the repetitive heart beat we experience, which is also a circular pattern. Precognition is recognizing the patterns of synchronicity in my opinion. We do it all the time. > > 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: Yes, although I have a problem with the "searching" part of this. A truth is something we create. I do not see how there is anything to find. The better we are at creating it, the better it depicts what we sense. A truth is like a constellation, we are connecting the stars to make something meaningful. I will check out the Kant reference when I get a chance. I like the way he thought although I do not agree with him all the time. Probably because I am too ignorant of what he is really saying. > > 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: Yes, no doubt about that. I call it Scientism. It is really no different from the high priests of the past telling everyone what was real. We have got all sorts of scripture being written every day on what is real and what is not. We have to take it at face value since those scientists are so smart. We are soon not going to be able to buy regular light bulbs because of these priests. Go figure, this is where we have come with all that. It is all about control, which of course is what politics is. Soon psychologists will tell us what we are (in a nutshell). It is a drone's world. Please tell me why I feel this way! I need a high priest to show me the way! > > 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. Yes, measuring happiness has the same problems as measuring quality. I was using it a turn of phrase. Every time we try to measure these things, it gets confusing and they disappear. However, the concept of happiness is used extensively by psychologists in a behavioral manner. If people buy into this, then it becomes very real. Any model (such as psychology) can create a reality. I just do not think it is the one for me. I try to determine if I am perceiving things in the most useful way. If I feel uneasy about something, it is a clue that perhaps there is something I should be questioning. My goal is to try to bring about the most meaning I can. This is one reason why I truly feel that every single thing has free will. What a marvelous world! No hurry with any replies, so long as I see my name at the beginning of the post, I will pick it up. I do not have the time to read all that is posted. But I will keep a look out for your name as sender. Best regards, 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
