Carl, Cool, let's make it manageable. Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark
On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:42 PM, "Carl Thames" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark: > I replied to this with a LONG reply, and it shows that I replied to it, but > it didn't come back from the server. I will try to reply to it again and > break it into parts so maybe it will go through this time. It may be a day > or so before I get to it though. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "118" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 1:05 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy > > >> 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 >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date: 01/02/12 > > 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
