[MD] Psychology and Philosophy Pt. 4

[Carl Thames]

Part 4:

>> 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.

Carl:
To extend the analogy, without the person to look through it, the window
becomes irrelevant.  In this scenerio, the person becomes the animating
force.  i.e. brings the "quality" of the window into context.

>> 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.

Carl:
I think that's where the basic problem arises.  We don't seem to be able to
interact without first putting everything through our intellect.  Some have
a more developed intellect than others, and we see the result of that every
day.  What would society look like if we stopped putting everything through
the intellect filter?  Would we be just another big dog pack?  We're social
animals, and need each other to get along.  Most of that "get along" is pure
social conditioning.  That's what psychology is trying to understand, I
think.  Does that social conditioning actually provide what we think of as
"quality"?  Food for thought.

Mark:
> 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.

Carl:
I know Einstein had a real problem with the idea of random chance.  I think
his comment on it was, "God does not play dice with the universe."  So your
concept of precognition is really one of predication?  I don't have a
problem with that.  We see potential, and recognize it, and are able to
forecast certain things based on our understanding of it.  That does feed
into the idea of determinism, though.  To an extent, I don't think we can
totally avoid at least some determinism.  For example, we know for a fact
that once we wake up, we will eventually get hungry, and after we've been
awake for a while, we will get sleepy again.  It's the nature of the beast,
IMHO.  How we respond to those conditions makes the difference.

>> 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.

Carl:
How do you respond to the statement about "discovering" the truth?  I'm sure
you've encountered someone with an agenda.  They operate in a manner that
furthers that agenda, and one day, you figure it out.  Did you create that
agenda?  It impacted you.  It had a direct affect on how you do what you do.
It may have even run counter to the stated goals of whatever organization
you were involved in, but there it was.  In a way, we do co-create simply by
"going along" (social conditioning again) but we also have the ability to
reject.  There may be consequences, but we have that ability.