[MD] Psychology and Philosophy

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy


> Hi Carl,
> Thank you for your post.  You may have inadvertantly realized one of
> the premises for my recent posts.  This is perhaps a better way of
> understanding what I am presenting since it arises out of your own
> system of beliefs rather than through acceptance of dogma.
>
> My posts are discussions, and should not be viewed as dogma, in my
> opinion.  What I am presenting should be understood within one's own
> awareness of reality (ontology) and not be simply accepted as the
> correct system of belief (epistemology).  Ontology as I use it here,
> is "that from which there is no view out".  An epistemology has many
> possible views to that outside.  So your ontology provides the view
> from which you interpret reality, and many epistemologies are
> available from that.  MoQ challenges the very ontology in which we
> find ourselves within our current Western interpretation.  As such, it
> can not be fit within a Western framework, which is what many in this
> forum attempt to do.  The use of modern psychology being one such
> attempt to Westernize MoQ.
>
> Having said that I will continue the discussion you present below.

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.

>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> 
> wrote:
>> 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]  [snip]

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).  It is like the presence of a car describing how it
> came to be.  We can use the various features of a car to provide a
> model in which all these features came to be.  You must admit,
> however, that such conscious interpretation of the mind is incomplete,
> and can change at any time.

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

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."

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.

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>)

Carl:
> 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?

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:
> Science requires a system of measurement since that is the scientific
> method.  This system brings the abstract into the measurable.  The
> measureable thus becomes an interpretation of the abstract.  It is the
> governence of what we call the "objective" over the "subjective", that
> may not work for the mind.  Of course, the objective is much more
> useful in the social level, since we must exchange intuitive notions
> in the form of objective concepts.  One must realize, however, that
> the objective does not exist without the subjective, which is its
> creator (again imo).

Carl:
I agree with this.  The intuitive notions are conceivably DQ, which are then 
reduced to actuality and become sq.  This probably explains why the reality 
is never as "good" as the expectation.  Another problem is one you describe 
in another post in that there are some things that resist measurement.  The 
mind is one of those.  By insisting on measuring it anyway, we force it into 
an invalid model, which you also talk about.

Mark:
> Modern psychology presents itself as such system of measurement
> (psychology as a science), and provides a way in which to interpret
> our very being which we can say is our "mind".  It then becomes an
> ontology with which to create a reality through epistemology.
> 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:
> 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:
> 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:
> 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.

Mark:
> With regard to your "really know", I can only offer the following
> opinion:  What we know intellectually is what we create as models.
> Knowing is a creative process, which to me mean that knowing is the
> same as that which we know; they cannot be different.  We create
> things in order to opperate in a meaningful way, that is knowing and
> what we project to know.  We are not finding something we do not know,
> we are creating something that we previously did not know.  I would
> say that "really knowing" is a human expression which we can use or
> not.  The intellect of the mind is an expression in the same way that
> a flower is an expression of a plant.  Some people like flowers,
> others do not.  If such knowing is not enough then there are other
> ways of interacting with reality, like eating a good dinner.

Carl:
In my opinion, to "really know" something is to know it in its nature, 
without reguard to any skewed perception that may be involved.  The problem 
there is that we are a product of our society.  I had a long discussion once 
with a professor of sociology about that.  He maintained that social 
psychology is the only kind there is.  I maintained that we develop as 
individuals.  My ontology in that regard is that we have free will, which 
describes why some people are born in the ghetto, escape from it, and go on 
to lead brilliant lives.  If we were forced into a deterministic existence, 
we wouldn't be able to do that.  He maintained that we are more affected by 
our culture, etc. than we believe, and that the person who escaped the 
ghetto did so in reaction to those experiences.  In fact, he said, were it 
not for the early experiences of the ghetto, the individual may not have 
achieved the level of success he or she did.  I couldn't think of any way to 
refute that.   It could be circular reasoning, but it made sense.

This is a great discussion.  I'll try to be more prompt in my replies.

Later,
Carl