[MD] Psychology and Philosophy Pt. 5

[Carl Thames]

Part 5:

>> 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!

Carl:
Actually, once they have everyone on drugs, it won't matter. <G>  My
problem is that I won't take the drugs, and insist on figuring things out 
for
myself.  Needless to say, I'm having a bit of a problem dealing with
society.  The upside to that is that it's making a pretty good therapist.
I'm able to listen and hear what people are saying, rather than assuming,
(drawing lines within constellations) and coming the wrong conclusions.
As you say, the real problem is when we look outside of ourselves to
identify our feelings.

>>
>> 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:
> 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.

Carl:
This reminds me a bit of Hertzberg's Two-Factor theory.  He realized
one day that if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, and then you 
stop
hitting yourself, you don't feel good, you just stop feeling bad.  He
extrapolated that theory to include what he called satisfyers and
dissatisfyers.  i.e. if you have a lousy job that you hate, but you make a
lot of money, the money won't make you like the job.  The flip side of
that is that if you have a job that you love, but you don't make enough
money at it to live on, you can become dissatisfied because of the money. 
The
money itself isn't enough to help your achieve 'happiness'.

Mark:
> 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!

Carl:
Yes, and no.  It CAN be a marvelous world, if people would just make
the effort to do what you're doing.  I do the same thing, with mixed
results. Yes, Sigmund, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  i.e. I have a 
real
tendency to "read into" things, rather than taking them at face value.
I am aware of that tendency, though.  The end result has been a lot less
certainty in my life.  Oh well.

Mark:
> 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.

Carl:
Okay.  I'm trying to be more punctual, but again, I'm also trying to
avoid flippant responses.  I think we're nibbling at the edge of the problem
here, and getting closer.  From a business course a long time ago, half of
the solution to the problem is identifying the problem, so keep going. <G>

Later,
Carl