Re: MD MoQ based psychology

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Aug 30 2004 - 07:11:39 BST

  • Next message: Ilya Korobkov: "Re[15]: MD DYNAMIC PRESSURE (?)"

    Dear Ilya,

    You were 13 Aug 2004 13:06:45 +0400 not sure what I meant with:
    'Answering "experience" to "What do we have?" implies giving the broadest
    possible answer according to the MoQ ontology.'

    According to the MoQ experience is all there is and everthing is experience.
    Answering "experience" to "What do we have?" does not restrict psychology or
    distinguish it from any other field of human endeavour in any way.

    You continued:
    'Why [does the question "What can we do about it?" presuppose a meta-ethics,
    i.e. an answer to the question "How can we know what we should do about
    it?"]? The main concern of the ethics is moral, am I right? But I didn't ask
    what we SHOULD do about it. I asked what we CAN do about it!'

    The question "What CAN we do about it?" presupposes that we SHOULD do
    something about it.

    If the "psyche" in your "psychology" is everything "human" and if your
    "psychology" wants to know how humans can be helped to satisfy their needs,
    it looks a lot like my "economics": "I define economics as (our study of)
    the way in which we organize that people get what they need (some more than
    that, others not at all). Or, less
    morally biased: (our study of) the way in which we organize that people get
    what they want." (see
    www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/schrijfsels/economics.htm)...

    You continue:
    '[The] individual himself should choose his goals. And who is to judge what
    goals are the highest?'

    Looks like an argument for value-free science... I don't believe that's
    possible. Even by studying how to help people satifsy specific needs and by
    saying that a specific 'want' is a 'need' you express that those 'needs' are
    'higher' (more worthy of your attention) than other 'wants'.

    You wrote 17 Aug 2004 15:18:53 +0400:
    'Being open to DQ means experiencing that your static patterns (or, more
    corretly, "static patterns you are composed of") do not adequately reflect
    DQ. Consequences of being open to DQ depend on how strongly you cling to
    your static patterns.'

    DQ is (experienced as) patterns of value that change into new patterns of
    value. Patterns of value cannot 'reflect' DQ. Openness to DQ means (for me):
    openness to change to the better (to be distinguished from change back to
    already existing patterns of value: i.e. degeneration).

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 30 2004 - 07:12:51 BST