[MD] Psychology and Philosophy
Carl Thames
cthames at centurytel.net
Tue Dec 20 21:59:38 PST 2011
Hi, Mark,
To begin, I think you may have inadvertantly hit on a very important aspect
of MoQ in this post. Specifically, what the heck are we talking about.
Consider the first two paragraphs of the definition of psychology in
Wikipedia:
"Psychology is the study of the mind, partly via the study of behavior,
grounded in science.[1][2] Its immediate goal is to understand individuals
and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific
cases.[3][4] For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit
society.[5][6] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is
called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist,
behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to
understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior,
while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that
underlie certain functions and behaviors.
Psychologists explore such concepts as perception, cognition, attention,
emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality,
behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth
psychologists, also consider the unconscious mind.a Psychologists employ
empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between
psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing
empirical and deductive methods, some-especially clinical and counseling
psychologists-at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive
techniques. Psychology incorporates research from the social sciences,
natural sciences, and humanities, such as philosophy."
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. This is similar to the
question of whether or not Newton invented gravity. In a way, he did.
Before he began talking about it, the only thing people really knew was that
apples fell down when they seperated themselves from the tree. It was the
concept of gravity that he invented. We knew what it did, not what it was.
The same can be applied to Quality. The same arguments that apply to mind
can be applied to quality, and this, at the heart of it, is my take on the
objections that Pirsig has/had with psychology. We're trying to measure
humidity with a yardstick. The problem to me is that he identified the
concept, but he didn't do much to define the subject any more than Newton
did. Next question: Is it important to really know what it is? Is knowing
what it does enough?
----- Original Message -----
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy
> Hi Ian,
>
> I agree with you that the use of psychology in addressing MoQ is
> interesting. Believe me I have dabbled in psychology which I find
> intriguing since it creates great debates between me an my friends. I
> have a fair grasp of its theories and its gurus. I do find that it
> is a self-perpetuating system, since psychology creates psychology,
> and how can one argue with that except to say: Doesn't that sound a
> bit funny?". Can we say that philosophy is created because of
> philosophy?
>
> Of importance, is the idea that MoQ should not fall under the "spell"
> of modern psychology. That is, if MoQ is interpreted in terms of the
> current models of psychology, much can be lost. I am not sure if I am
> being clear here, since I seem to get responses that are avoiding
> taking about this. The question is: Does MoQ govern psychology or
> does psychology govern MoQ. If MoQ and psychology are distinct but
> overlapping disciplines, then that may be OK in my book, depending on
> what the person means.
>
> However, what I read is that MoQ or any philosophy has a psychological
> cause. What this implies is that psychology is the governing body.
> I would much prefer it if MoQ creates psychology as one of its
> products. In this way psychology does not preempt MoQ. We could say
> that due to Quality, a form of understanding called psychology
> results. In this way Quality and its metaphysics cannot be ascribed
> to psychology any more than a tree can be ascribed to an apple. It is
> a question of hierarchy.
>
> There is no doubt that modern psychology and its theories hold great
> sway over the Western world. It is hard to get away from them. What
> we must understand, is that such models are simplistic, and somewhat
> reductionist. They also seem to rob people of a sense of personal
> responsibility since much can be attributed to stimulus response,
> which is "outside of our control". It is claimed that advertisers can
> use the principles of psychology to make people buy things, and that
> politicians can use psychology to convince people of their stature.
> These kind of examples are self-fulfilling since we are taught to look
> at the world through a psychology prism. We say: "yes of course
> psychology is used in this way, since psychology is the way the world
> works". Who is to say that this is the best interpretation of the
> human condition?
>
> It is the reduction of human awareness to a mechanical model that
> leaves current psychology lacking. If we use the Jungian model, this
> mechanistic approach is much tamer. I have posted on synchronicity
> and its applications to MoQ. Archtype theories are outside of
> personal psychology since the refer to a spiritual presence. It is
> our responsibility for us to tame psychology and not have it tame us.
> I am not suggesting this out of personal experience, or for
> "psychological" reasons, for if I did, I would be under the spell of
> psychology. I am subscribing to the idea that a "world view" which
> falls under the modeling of psychology can be somewhat lacking simply
> on logical grounds. Mystical experiences simply become a psychotic
> episode, and are not something we can learn from, as something that
> exists outside of ourselves and our immediate environment. Of course
> psychologist will deny such a thing since they will say that the way
> we think stems from the structure of our brains and our experiences.
> Isn't this a little simplistic for anyone? Doesn't it somehow
> denigrate our experience in this life? Aren't there better models
> than modern psychology?
>
> I have heard the argument that scientist pursue things for
> psychological reasons, and the models of reality they build are such
> due to their psychology. Doctors want to help people purely for
> psychological reasons. A good song writer has the psychology to be
> able to do that. In short, psychology is our new religion. Replace
> "psychology" (or its grammatical forms) with "God" and you get exactly
> the same sense. We behave the way we do because of God. Isn't this a
> bit silly?
>
> By describing MoQ as a psychological apparition, which stems from the
> behavioural models of modern psychology, puts MoQ into a relative
> environment. The expression of a being becomes firmly established as
> a result of his environment. I ask then: how does free will fit into
> all of this? Modern determinism is firmly grounded in psychology,
> i.e. "you would have done that anyway, there is nothing free about
> it". It seems to victimize of the human race. This is why insanity
> is used in the courts of law. For, the "true" person could not
> control what he did. What exactly does that mean? Are we really
> something other than what we are? Are we giving allowances to someone
> who we say is possessed by a demon? Are psychologists the new
> exorcists? Please, Doctor, tell me if I am insane!
>
> My posts are intended to warn about gaging Pirsig or MoQ from a modern
> psychological angle, as a Very important perspective. If we do choose
> to do that, then we need to have a firm grasp on what that means.
> Sometimes it seems like the term psychological is thrown around
> without much meaning.
>
> So, my question to you Ian, is: What do you mean by a "psychological
> angle"? What models are you referring to that you are adopting? Feel
> free to bring in important psychological experts in. I am happy to
> read a quote from a psychologist that you find reflects your views, be
> it behavioral, physical, or whatever. Some relevant quotes from
> Maslow would be just fine. If his philosophy is similar to Pirsig's
> and he claims to be a psychologist, then that is a good place to
> start.
>
> There, that is my question. The theories of psychology can be dealt
> with in exactly the same manner as theories in philosophy. That is,
> what sort of ground do they stand on. So, let us get down to details
> shall we? We can see if indeed psychology is important to MoQ, and
> more psychological terminology should be brought in to provide the
> true meaning of MoQ. I am open to any conclusions by the group. I am
> for what best suits MoQ.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks, I've hung back out of this thread - even though my original
>> catch-phrase was "it's (the MoQ) evolutionary psychology, stupid" - so
>> now it's hard to know how to interject.
>>
>> I too cannot see how the "psychology" of Pirsig and the MoQ can be
>> anything but interesting and relevant.
>>
>> Even the psychological breakdown (hard enlightenment maybe, Pirsig
>> suggested) is relevant, the whole Orpheus episode. I lose count how
>> many times I've invoked the phrase "there but for grace ... (go we
>> all)". Of course between that direct personal enlightenment and
>> writing up the MoQ, Pirsig thoroughly objectified what he was dealing
>> with - think of all those index cards of facts and meta-facts, started
>> even before the ZMM trip - but of course so much fit with wider
>> philosophy was unknown to Pirsig until much later.
>>
>> I've had the psychological angle on Pirsig since I first encountered
>> his work, but more recently I've been commenting on the
>> "rehabilitation" of Maslow in the "positive psychology" school - the
>> parallel's between Pirsig's levels and Maslow's hierarchy are patently
>> obvious (even here on MD many years ago).
>> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3907
>>
>> Sorry, this is all about me, is there a specific question I could address
>> ?
>> Ian
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> 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: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4693 - Release Date: 12/20/11
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list