[MD] Morality and Prudence

[Carl Thames]

> DMB said:
> The psychopathic Brujo? No way. I mean, psychopathology is a
> serious mental illness that precludes morality whereas the culture
> bearers are extraordinarily moral.
>
> Matt:
> I don't see why "no way."  I thought it was Pirsig's point that we need
> a new, finer-grained understanding of insanity to understand how the
> extra-ordinary appears by the very fact of its extraness to be outside
> of reality, which for most is simply "the ordinary."
>
> I wasn't intending to get into the nitty-gritty of an ethico-psychological
> discussion, about which I do not have any expertise.  I was simply
> taking Carl's definition of the psychopath for granted ("A psychopath
> experiences a break with reality") and transposing Pirsig's
> understanding of insanity onto it, and discussing it in terms of the
> conversation about praise/blame, intention, and moral responsibility
> I had generated from the remarks you and Steve exchanged.  I
> wasn't inquiring into whether Carl's definition was right, nor
> intending to suggest different medical treatment for them.  But
> according to a distinction between a "psychopath" and a "sociopath"
> that Carl supplied, the first was operating in a different reality and
> the second was operating in _our normal_ ethical reality, just with
> no care for doing what that normal ethical reality calls for.  The
> tricky part in dealing with psychopaths, on this understanding, is the
> tricky part in dealing with brujos or any potential Dynamic advance:
> they could be Dynamic Quality or they could be degeneracy.  It's
> hard to tell in the present, as opposed to in the future looking back
> at the past.  As you say, "even though they both break the rules, it's
> a whole different deal."  It's just that knowing which deal it is can
> be difficult, and Pirsig seems to say that there are no assured
> methods for telling which kind of deal it is.  Maybe you disagree
> with that, but I can't help but think that doing so would violate some
> of the advances Pirsig did intend to make in the philosophy of
> insanity.

Carl:
Time for a big slice of humble pie here.  I did confuse the definitions. 
(Who was it that said something about a little learning being a dangerous 
thing?)   See the following for a one-page definition of the distinction 
between psychopath and sociopath:

http://helpingpsychology.com/sociopath-vs-psychopath-whats-the-difference

And the following for a very brief description of psychotic:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/psychoticdisorders.html

The discussion did go in the direction intended, though.  If someone is 
experiencing a break with reality, does their behavior then become immoral? 
Perhaps another question to present is, "Who gets to decide which reality?" 
We normally choose conscential reality, because it's the one we're familiar 
with, but does that automatically discount other realities?  Persig would 
probably include the Brujo's other reality here.  It is interesting that he 
chose the Brujo, rather than the Currendero (sp?) in his discussion. 
Traditionally, the Brujo was consider a "witch" who was attributed with 
malicious intent, whereas the Currendero was considered a "healer."  Both 
accessed altered states of consciousness, it's just that they did so for 
different reasons.  Another interesting aspect of that is the idea that both 
were able to access a different state of consciousness and did so with a 
specific intent.  Would they be diagnosed as psychotic?  The general 
impression is that a psychotic break is disorganized, yet both the Brujo and 
the Currendero sought a different reality with a specific intent, which 
implies a high degree of organization.


> Dan said:
> Yes, gotta agree with Dave. The terms Carl and Matt used are
> incorrect. A psychopath isn't suffering from delusions. I believe Carl
> is thinking of a psychotic. A big difference between the two is that a
> psychotic person can be treated with drugs while there is no way to
> make a psychopath care about others.

A minor hair to split here.  A psychopath believes they are the center of 
the universe.  Isn't that delusional?  Specifically, they believe that their 
behaviors are acceptable if they further their personal goals, and that 
others don't matter.  Humans are a herd animal, ergo social beings; 
operating as a group is a survival thing with us.  We don't do well on our 
own.  Isn't operating as a singularity in that situation the definition of 
delusional?

> Matt:
> I'm not sure why technical correctness here matters for the
> philosophical points being made.  However, what Carl--with the
> DSM-IV in front of him--did mean by "psychopath" was "psychotic"
> (as one can see by comparing what Carl said about psychopaths and
> what the DSM-IV says at the beginning of its chapter on
> "Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders" (p. 297)), and that
> differentiated from the sociopath or "person with an antisocial
> personality disorder."  And what's interesting is that, indeed, the two
> are in vastly different sections of the manual.  But I'm not sure why
> we should get caught up too much on technicalities, especially if they
> don't seem to matter to the larger point (which, Dan, it appears you
> did agree to: your distinction between psychotic/psychopath perfectly
> coincides with Carl's psychopath/sociopath).

Carl:
It's great when people understand what you mean instead of listening only to 
what you say. <G>  It's frustrating at times when I try to join a discussion 
such as this.  I did a "stress burnout" in 1988 after which most of the 
'details' went away, along with my ability to focus and concentrate.  I know 
the concepts I'm trying to express, but the kind of linear, logical thinking 
required to express them the way I want just isn't there.  I can maintain a 
topical discussion for a bit, but I am easily distracted now.  I have read 
ZMM and Lila's Child, although I have to admit that ZMM resonated a lot more 
than LC did. Could that be because I read ZMM many years ago, before the 
event?  I don't know.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I'm consistently impressed with the insights 
I read here.  There is some discord, but it's handled in a civilized manner 
for the most part.  Personally, I think that's a good thing.  Discord can 
provide as much enlightenment as pedantry, and usually more.  I am most 
impressed by the fact that the participants are people who are willing to 
THINK.  I live in a town with a major state university, two smaller 
colleges, and a community college, and the difficulty in finding intelligent 
conversation amazes me.  I guess the point of this is to ask for an 
indulgence, now and in the future.  I want to contribute to the discussion, 
and will try hard to keep it relevant.  Knowing my limitations, I'm not 
offended when someone corrects me.

Now, one more question:  From reading the thread, it strikes me that 
Persig's definition of DQ is very similiar to the concept of superposition 
in quantum theory.  Once a particular option is chosen, it then becomes SQ. 
Does that sound too far 'out there'?