Part Deux:
Mark:
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.
Carl:
Feel free to rant away! <G> Keep in mind that you're basically preaching to
the choir here. I agree with what you're saying, and have put a bit of
thought into it. A lot of people are fairly limited in their grasp of human
functionality, so they try to find a box that will describe the way humans
function in a way they can understand. Most of them end up with a
odd-shaped box that still doesn't work very well, but they hold it up and
proudly proclaim that it's the way it is. I generally see that as one of
the main functions of organized religion. It's a complete program, and if
you color within the lines, it's all you need. It doesn't handle questions
very well, but that's okay. For some, the act of questioning isn't allowed,
so they're covered. Some of the muckity-mucks of psychology are trying to
force their brand of psychology into the same mold. If you disagree, you
are a heretic, and should be shunned at best, or destroyed at worst. Freud
was a bit like that, and it's what drove the wedge between himself and Jung.
Freud demanded adherence to his ideas, and Jung wasn't able to do 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.
Carl:
When I first began studying oriental philosophy, I distinctly remember
seeing a figure that was the traditional yin-yang symbol, only it had three
dolphin-shaped things in it. I think it was described at the time as
positive/negative/neutral, but I can't remember. (It's been a LONG time.)
That actually fits with what you're saying, although I personally wouldn't
call the third aspect neutral. There was a guy on Coast to Coast last night
that talked about the way the universe works. He's written a book, and is
offering it for free in an e-book format. You have to send an email to:
[email protected]
and ask for a copy. The book it titled, The Unobservable Universe, and
purports to explain a lot of things. I haven't read it yet, but he sounded
like he was on the right track. I am not affiliated with him in any way, it
just sounded interesting to me, and hey, it's free. I think it will be in
PDF format. From what he said, it will add to this discussion.
Now, onward with the discussion. I spent a little time thinking about the
way things work. Part of that involved thinking about the different forces
in the world. As you already know, there are five accepted unifying aspects
in physics. There is electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
force, gravity, and duct tape. These things hold the universe together,
according to physics. There has already been some disagreement on that,
specifically by Nassim Hariman (sp?) who said that there is no such thing as
strong nuclear force. They knew something was there, and affecting the mass
of the universe, but they didn't know what to call it so they made up strong
nuclear force. If you do a search on him there is some interesting stuff
out there.
Okay, I don't know enough about formal physics theory to really talk about
that, so I went a step further. I thought about about the four elements:
earth, air, fire, and water. (In Hinduism there are five, but I can't
remember what the fifth one is.) Taking that idea, I started looking
around. Earth is obvious, to most. All you have to do is look down to find
that one. Likewise with air. Water is equally obvious. Where's the fire?
That one stumped me for a little while, until I realized that the element
they call fire is actually the animating force of the universe. What you're
calling free will. It lends itself nicely to that concept, although I think
it's more complicated than it first appears. The main problem is one of
potential. Unless the potential exists, it can't happen.
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
