[MD] Psychology and Philosophy Pt.3

[Carl Thames]

Part 3:

Mark:
> 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.

Carl:
The problem with that is that we can't exist as separate and distinct
beings.  Do you see what I'm saying here?  We have to interact with the
other elements/condiditons in order to exist.  That's where potential comes
in.  We have free will, but only within that which is possible.  We can't
decide to jump up and fly to New York without the benefit of an airplane,
because the potential doesn't exist.  The animating force can give us the
urge to do that, but the reality gets in the way.  We can't decide to
interbreed with a bird, because the physics won't allow it.  I am as adamant
as you are about free will, and our ability to make choices, but I'm also
cognizant of the limitations involved.  We have to have an infrastructure in
which to do what we do.  Does it lead to determinism?  To a point, in that
we are limited to those things which a human is capable of doing, but within
that, we have a myriad of choices.

Mark:
> 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.

Carl:
Agreed.  Now, on with the discussion.  <G>  First question: What is
enlightenment?  What does it mean to you?

Carl:
>> 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:
Okay.  Where are we when we've transcended DQ and sq?

>> 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.

Carl:
Exactly.  That's what I was talking about earlier.  We have to work within
potential.  One of our limitations is our ability to percieve that
potential.  In order to create something, we must be able to conceive of it
first.  I think that's where your concept of quality comes in.  If we're
working from a concept of lower quality, we end up producing things of lower
quality.  I saw that repeatedly working with certain segments of the
population while towing.  For them, life was a VERY deterministic thing.  X
happened, and because their daddy had always responded with Y, that's the
way they responded.  I could point out to them that if they responded with
Z, they would get a different, more positive result, but they would often
reject that, because it wasn't the way their daddy did it.  Frustrating?
You bet.