[MD] Psychology and Philosophy

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Mark,

I think the problem is/was/may-have-been that you were concerned 
about people you needn't be concerned about...?  I don't know.  I 
don't engage in cultural polemic too often when I do philosophy, so I 
wasn't thinking about people who take Dr. Phil seriously, of which I 
agree, there are some.  I wasn't thinking about advertizing agencies, 
though I'm not sure whether that's an ethical issue at a different 
level than how we conceive of the mind.  But like I said, we probably 
swing in different circles.  Though I've also been known not panic at 
the cultural level.

My suspicion, which puts us at odds, is that you have a reductionist 
view of the discipline of psychology, one that only focuses on 
reductionists.  But I don't know.  All I know is that you must have 
misspoke in your statement that you "do not believe that our minds 
can be objectified," because if it was a matter of "can," then we 
wouldn't be able to do it, which means you'd have nothing to fear.  
One might put it that I _do_ actually think that our minds can't be 
objectified, but that's only because the sense of "objectified" you 
seem to have been using is based on SOM assumptions, and I don't 
think those assumptions give us a working picture of the mind.  
Whatever "objectivity" about the mind may be, it is not rooted in that 
problematic.  The problems you want to talk about seem to me much 
more discussable only when we don't talk at such an abstract level 
as you do.  But I'm likely in the minority here, as Pirsig does discuss 
these problems at that level of abstraction.  But either way, your 
conditional claim that "the intent of psychology to 'understand' the 
mind through rigorous data collection" doesn't seem right to me as 
history or conceptual substance.  It sounds like the oversimplification 
you otherwise want to avoid.

As for whether I was ready to deal with ZMM or ZMM created me, I 
thought the one thing we did agree solidly on is that it was nearly 
impossible to tell which was which?

Matt

p.s.  That's a SOMist notion of proof you used at the end.

> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:36 -0800
> From: ununoctiums at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy
> 
> Hi Matt,
> Perhaps we are talking past each other.  Perhaps I am projecting
> concern where there should be none.  Perhaps as you say, people do not
> take the behavioural aspects of psychology too seriously and take Dr.
> Phil with a grain of salt.  Perhaps the use that advertizing agencies
> make of Pavlovian tactics is indeed benign since we always have free
> choice.  Perhaps psychiatrists are seen more as friendly counselors
> useful for getting problems off ones chest and delivering some
> friendly advice.  I don't know, but I have heard stories to the
> contrary.
> 
> I would agree that psychiatry, if done by a good psychiatrist, is
> beneficial.  I suppose the same would be true for heart surgeons.  If
> it is done by a misguided psychiatrist then perhaps not.  The
> psychiatrist holds great power over the patient since they become
> privy to all their inner anxieties.  Such patients are looking
> desperately for solutions.  Now that psychiatry has gone into
> prescribing drugs, it does matter how they think we should think,
> since their opinion is important in suicidal cases, for example.
> 
> My great grandfather, Jan Egbert Gustaaf van Emden (whom my father got
> his first and middle names from), was a collegue of Freud's.  Jan van
> Emden was based in the Netherlands, and I believe the first Dutch
> psychiatrist.  My grandmother used to tell us funny stories about all
> the wierd people that used to come to her house when she was young.
> She said that the wierdest was Freud.  I do not have too many friends
> who are professional philosophers, so maybe it is all relative (heh,
> heh).
> 
> I suppose, that in a nutshell, I do not believe that our minds can be
> objectified.  To do so is to put ones thinking into an artificial
> place, and surround it with rules.  If it was the intent of psychology
> to "understand" the mind through rigorous data collection, and if it
> was the perception that psychologist are those who truly understand
> the mind, then perhaps you too would agree with me that perhaps it is
> wrong.  Perhaps I have seen Clockwork Orange one to many times..
> Perhaps, Perhaps.
> 
> If the ideal is to attenuate the SOM form of reality, I do not see how
> psychology helps us with that.
> 
> My guess is that when you read ZAMM you were ready to receive the
> message.  Many of us were.  In fact, the message sounded familiar.
> During our schooling, we had to receive the message whether we liked
> it or not.  "Now children, it has been conclusively proven that we
> came from monkeys".  At least we know better now.  There is no proof.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark