[MD] Psychology and Philosophy

[Carl Thames]

Mark:
I replied to this with a LONG reply, and it shows that I replied to it, but 
it didn't come back from the server.  I will try to reply to it again and 
break it into parts so maybe it will go through this time.  It may be a day 
or so before I get to it though.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Psychology and Philosophy


> Hi Carl,
> Happy New Year!
>
> First of all, congrats on getting back into school.  We are about the
> same age, I will be 56 this year.  At the age of 30 I went back to
> school.  During my "years of arrogance" this seemed very old to me,
> and most of those I studied with were about 6 years or more younger.
> I was called the "old man" of the lab (in jest of course).  Now at
> this age, I seem very young at that time.  My father who is 86 says
> that I am still a kid.  So, 56 is a good time to start learning again.
> Good luck with that!
>
> I am not a brainiac by any means, especially when it comes to
> metaphysics.  However, I find it fun to contemplate such things.  What
> I present is my opinion only.  Through discussion I learn much more.
> I find MoQ to be quite eclectic and enjoy mixing some of my learning
> through the years with some of those here.  What I present is always a
> work in progress.
>
> So, on to your comments...
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Mark:
> I believe that we have the power to extrapolate beyond our
> perceptions.  At least this is what I see the imagination as doing.
> During the day I am a scientist, and gather data which I then
> interpret.  From that I design more experiments to see what will
> happen.  It is usually the data which I do not expect that leads me to
> discovery.  Therefore, I do not consider any data meaningless.  The
> pictures I develop are extrapolations.  They are models with which I
> try to make coherent in a meaningful way.  I treat metaphysics the
> same way.  I am not a big history buff in terms of philosophers, but I
> have read my fair share.  If they make sense, I incorporate their
> frame of reference into mine, and tweak it a bit so that it feels
> right..
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> So, monism is interesting, but I believe it leads to determinism.
> Free will requires an entity (such as ourselves) that is separate and
> distinct from other things.
>>
>> 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."
>
> I am a big fan of Watts, and he was quite an entertainer (as he called
> himself).  He had a way with rhetoric that I find compelling.  He is
> referring to the 'two sides of a coin" analogy here.  Which is fine
> for instructional purposes for depicting the interrelatedness of
> everything.  However, for us to have any consciousness, the two sides
> must be distinct.  I have the iphone app for Watts by the way.  He is
> much better to listen to than to read.
>
> If taken at face value, Emptiness is entirely deterministic.  However,
> from what I have learned from Buddhist monks, the concept of emptiness
> is presented simply to get the student to begin to think differently.
> As such, it is a tool, and cannot be taken literally.  As Buddha is
> said to have said, such tools are like rafts.  However, once one
> reaches the other side of the river, one can leave the raft behind.
> Buddhism was never meant to be dogmatic, it simply provides a
> perspective from which to work from.  It has been fine tuned (and
> misrepresented) over the years so that the student can reach
> enlightenment more quickly.  However, we in the West want to know
> exactly what it is, so we take the teachings and make them into
> truths, and then disagree with them.  We are fighting windmills.  What
> the doctrines state is simply rhetoric to provide a path one can walk
> on.  What one does on that path is up to them.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Mark:
> Yes, DQ and sq are presented by Pirsig for us to get a handle on what
> he is trying to describe.  We really have no idea what he personally
> sees as reality, we only have his descriptions.  DQ and sq do not
> really exist as such, but are a representation of a manner of
> thinking.  For the purposes of understanding MoQ, we use DQ and sq to
> explain other aspects of the metaphysics.  We treat them as real to
> see where our logic will lead us.  Any metaphysics requires structure
> of some kind.  However, once one gets into that mode of thought, DQ
> and sq are not necessary anymore.
>>
>> 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>)
>
> Mark:
> Yes, co-creating, two things (or more) at work there.  If we want to
> take a pseudo-monistic view, we could say that all we experience is
> our creation.  However, this type of rhetoric has not worked for me
> when I am trying to explain Quality to others.
>>
>
>> 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:
> I cannot disagree with what you say above.  I present the concept that
> we are adapting and not controlling simply to combat the notion that
> we are controlling the world.  Certainly we represent the world as
> much as anything else, we cannot separate ourselves from it.  The
> terrain controls a river's contour, but the river also controls the
> shape of the terrain.  Our "ability" is no different.  Perhaps a good
> analogy would be when the colors blue and yellow blend to form green.
> So, is the blue controlling the color of the yellow, or is it the
> other way around?  Of course the question is a bit silly.  We could
> say that the green controls the expression of the blue and the yellow.
> It is taking this second format that helps me understand Quality.
> More on my idle thoughts on that sometime.
>
> Yes, DQ can become sq, but I believe the oposite is true as well; sq
> can become DQ.  If I enter into that mode of thought, things make more
> sense to me.  Energy becomes mass, but mass can become energy.  Like
> you said, DQ does not exist without sq.  So it cannot be DQ forever,
> it always has a little bit of sq associated with it.  This is
> symbolized by the interacting dolphins of the Yin Yang circle.  A
> frame makes a window, but both the frame and the opening are required.
> Take one away, and the window disappears.  DQ cannot exist without
> sq.
>>
>
>> Mark:
>>>
>>> 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:
> I think you are saying the same thing that I was.  When we are asleep,
> we are still present, just in a different way.  The point I was trying
> to make was that our very being of awareness does not simply originate
> in the brain.  It has been shown (I forget how), that the rest of our
> bodies also makes up our thoughts.  The brain is simply the final
> place where we convert our thoughts into something we can share with
> others.
>
> I am not sure what is meant by coincidence except that it is thought
> that there is a mechanical world out there where chance is king.  I do
> not see how this can be the case.  Chance is just another word for "we
> do not understand".  If chance were king, we would not be around.  I
> am a firm believer in the presentation of synchronicity by Jung.  I
> take it a step farther, however, to say that every moment of our lives
> is synchronous.  We just happen to remember the most important ones.
> Back in grad school, I wrote a paper on the mechanisms of sleep.  It
> is complex, but basically it follows a circular pattern.  It can be
> analogized to the repetitive heart beat we experience, which is also a
> circular pattern.  Precognition is recognizing the patterns of
> synchronicity in my opinion.  We do it all the time.
>>
>> 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:
> Yes, although I have a problem with the "searching" part of this.  A
> truth is something we create.  I do not see how there is anything to
> find.  The better we are at creating it, the better it depicts what we
> sense.  A truth is like a constellation, we are connecting the stars
> to make something meaningful.  I will check out the Kant reference
> when I get a chance.  I like the way he thought although I do not
> agree with him all the time.  Probably because I am too ignorant of
> what he is really saying.
>>
>> 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:
> Yes, no doubt about that.  I call it Scientism.  It is really no
> different from the high priests of the past telling everyone what was
> real.  We have got all sorts of scripture being written every day on
> what is real and what is not.  We have to take it at face value since
> those scientists are so smart.  We are soon not going to be able to
> buy regular light bulbs because of these priests.  Go figure, this is
> where we have come with all that.  It is all about control, which of
> course is what politics is.
>
> Soon psychologists will tell us what we are (in a nutshell).  It is a
> drone's world.  Please tell me why I feel this way!  I need a high
> priest to show me the way!
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, measuring happiness has the same problems as measuring quality.
> I was using it a turn of phrase.  Every time we try to measure these
> things, it gets confusing and they disappear.  However, the concept of
> happiness is used extensively by psychologists in a behavioral manner.
> If people buy into this, then it becomes very real.  Any model (such
> as psychology) can create a reality.  I just do not think it is the
> one for me.
>
> I try to determine if I am perceiving things in the most useful way.
> If I feel uneasy about something, it is a clue that perhaps there is
> something I should be questioning.  My goal is to try to bring about
> the most meaning I can.  This is one reason why I truly feel that
> every single thing has free will.  What a marvelous world!
>
> No hurry with any replies, so long as I see my name at the beginning
> of the post, I will pick it up.  I do not have the time to read all
> that is posted.  But I will keep a look out for your name as sender.
>
> Best regards,
> Mark
>>
>> 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: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date: 01/02/12
>