Quantum Psychology

Good day.

With my first post in this important new forum I'd like to very briefly cover the subject of Quantum Psychology. I'm sure some of you will already be familiar with it due to the popular title of the same name by Robert Anton Wilson. Or, perhaps, through amalgamating the same source material Wilson used (and maybe some he didn't) yourself. This thread is for those unfamiliar with Quantum Psychology and why it's especially important to the membership of a site such as this one.

I started in the direction of Quantum Psychology myself several years ago after not being able to understand why people didn't see things the same way I did. Particularly; "how can someone not think 9/11 was an inside job?" Or, "how can someone not see that we are the Terrorists?" I just couldn't understand how people with practically the same information as I to go on could come up with the exact opposite of conclusions. What I didn't realise is that they didn't have practically the same information. Everything they had experienced, everything they had thought, also comes into play -- as well as certain psychological "imprints." It also helped me to stop judging people with different viewpoints to my own.

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry describes it thusly:

It focuses primarily on the metaphysical and epistemological problems of Aristotelian reasoning and its use in everyday language, covering E-Prime and how it addresses many of the semantic (and resulting perceptual) "spooks" that common language lets in.

It also covers, in a way that doesn't end up as discontinuous as it might sound: psychosomatic healing and a possible explanation for it; non-local effects in quantum physics (Bell's Theorem) and the theories of David Bohm; and a brief recap of the Timothy Leary eight-fold consciousness theory of human consciousness which Prometheus Rising covers in much greater detail. In Quantum Psychology, Wilson posits four additional circuits.

And off the back cover:

Throughout human history, thoughts, values and behaviours have been coloured by language and the prevailing view of the universe. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, relativity, non-Euclidean geometries, non-Aristotelian logic and General Semantics, the scientific view of the world has changed dramatically from just a few decades ago. Nonetheless, human thinking is still deeply rooted in the cosmology of the middle ages. Quantum Psychology is the book to change your way of perceiving yourself -- and the universe -- for the 21st Century.

I would recommend anyone interested in these subjects to read up on Quantum Psychology wherever they can, if they haven't already. I think it's very important reading for any serious conspiracy theorist.

An exerpt can be read here.

(.pdf versions of Wilson's Quantum Psychology are around on the various trackers)

I see this one really took hold... Some interesting replies, here.

Oh, well... If even a couple of people read the excerpt and only one goes off and reads the book, something will have been achieved.

Very interesting read, and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. I was struck by the notion of E-Prime language parameters, and how it seems to correlate with the idea of the tenuous nature of establishing a fact. I believe we frequently use the word "fact" when "evidence" resonates more accurately. Consider the elusive nature of a "fact". Subjective observations might more easily reflect facts, however paradoxically, seem more difficult to prove.... for example: " I own the computer I am typing on."

Hi Cadbury, Cool Thread - I'm a big fan of R.A.W. myself.

I think E-Prime is great...

The words we use shape our view of the world, more than most of us realise... Removing the "is" and "all" type statements from language forces you to communicate only in terms of how your brain is observing (and interpreting) the signals that it's receiving.

You're no longer saying what something "is", but "what it seems to be", which in my opinion is a lot more accurate.

Here' some examples of E-Prime for those who haven't seen it before...

A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

A. John is bright and cheerful.
B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
B. I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

A. This is a fascist idea.
B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
B. Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

A. That is a sexist movie.
B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

A. The fetus is a person.
B. I classify the fetus as a person.

-A. is Standard English
-B. is E-Prime)


I think the world would have a lot less conflict and fundamentalism if we all communicated this way. E-Prime would accelerate the transition from the old aristotlean way of thinking to this newer, Quantum "maybe" type logic.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by NeuronDivide]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by NeuronDivide]

Although I've never read anything on quantumpsychology it all seems a pretty good thing to do some reading about. The part about E-prime looks very good to me since it's something I already have tried to implement in my daily life. It leaves more options open, and I really like that. I believe that truth isn't a set thing and that it's indeed formed by the observer (I did watch what the bleep )

reply to post by Cadbury

I like this topic, and it seems well suited for this new forum.

I think that people should reject E-Prime as a valid technique for human communications. In fact, I contend that E-Prime unnecessarily redirects people away from reality by attacking the most basic constituent of reality, that constituent being what the word "is" means.

There exists a big difference between the words "is" (which implies a fixed nature to the universe) and the word "appears" (which implies only a subjective nature to the universe.) Likewise, attempts to replace "is" with "exists", and other creative ways to eliminate this word from writing and speech, deny the obvious fact that humans often require affirmation of "state of being" as a part of any discourse that has bearing on reality.

To me, eliminating the word "is" (proscribed by E-Prime) will actually result in poorer (not richer) communication. Using a similar logic to E-Prime, the word "zero" serves no purpose (because "zero" means "nothing", hence cannot be regarded as important, and therefore should be eliminated from speech.)

This type of fallacious argument runs completely contrary to what we know as true, and what we require in order to operate effectively within the real world.

There – I believe I wrote this entire post in E-Prime. What a drag.

(I guess I am no fan of Robert Anton Wilson.)

(Ouch, how did that last "am" sneak in here?)

I read R.A.W as a teenager, enjoyed the Cosmic Trigger Trigger series a lot, was bored by the Illuminatus Series.

I didnt know he had a system called Quantum Psychology out which looks sensible enough but also typically R.A.W.

I wouldnt follow this E-prime (new label for me) as a general rule (for the same reason Buck Division states) but its interesting to not that I and many others do talk this way naturally when we wish to de-charge heated situations or take a more gentle approach of communication toward someone.

It is true that too many statemets of is-ness cement reality to be a bit less flexible and fluid.

Interesting indeed.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply. Now we actually do have some interesting responses.

Originally posted by Buck Division
reply to post by Cadbury

 

I like this topic, and it seems well suited for this new forum.

I think that people should reject E-Prime as a valid technique for human communications. In fact, I contend that E-Prime unnecessarily redirects people away from reality by attacking the most basic constituent of reality, that constituent being what the word "is" means.

Thanks, there.

But what "is" "reality," and how much can we really say about it for a definite? Wilson once said his goal was to try and induce a state of agnosticism on his readers. Not agnosticism about concepts of God and religion specifically, but agnosticism about everything. I term this "Hyper-Wilsonian Agnosticism," where not a great deal "is" a certainty.

[FNORD]"Mu!"[/FNORD]

And I don't agree that he's "attacking what 'is' means." Rather, he's "attacking" what we're saying is "is," if you see what I mean -- he's attacking an object or notion that we deem "is" something, but not in the way you think, I don't think. That may be why he called it Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You And Your World.

Originally posted by Buck Division
There exists a big difference between the words "is" (which implies a fixed nature to the universe) and the word "appears" (which implies only a subjective nature to the universe.) Likewise, attempts to replace "is" with "exists", and other creative ways to eliminate this word from writing and speech, deny the obvious fact that humans often require affirmation of "state of being" as a part of any discourse that has bearing on reality.

I'd say we only require it due to Aristotelian and/or other similar reasoning systems that we still use as our model of logic (for the most part). But you are right, I know how silly it sounds to say "it seems to me that the man was hit by a bus," when you just saw him get wrecked at almost point-blank range with your own eyes. And I don't really think you need to take E-prime to that extreme all the time when relating phenomenological observations about the "objective" world, but just think about what he's saying and why a more "operational" language could be beneficial.

Also, think about this:

Since we will soon find reasons to avoid the "is" of identity, and other forms of "is", let us reformulate that that in more operational language -- language that does not assume that we can know what things metaphysically "are" or "are not" (their invisible "essences") but only that we can describe what we phenomenologically experience. The Copenhagen Interpretation then means, not that there "is" no "deep reality", but that scientific method can never experimentally locate or demonstrate a "deep reality" that explains all other relative (instrumental) "realities". Dr David Bohm, however, states it this way: "The Copenhagen view denies that we can make statements about actuality." This says something more than Dr. Herbert's formulation, if you chew on it a bit.

Both Dr. Herbert and Dr. Bohm reject the Copenhagen view. Dr. Herbert has even called Copenhaganism "The Christian science school of physics." Like Dr. Bohm, Dr. Herbert -- a good friend of mine -- believes that physics can make statements about actuality.

I agree. But I limit "actuality" to that which humans or their instruments can detect, decode and transmit."

-- Robert Anton Wilson - Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You And Your World. New Falcon Publications. (page 28)

To me, eliminating the word "is" (proscribed by E-Prime) will actually result in poorer (not richer) communication. Using a similar logic to E-Prime, the word "zero" serves no purpose (because "zero" means "nothing", hence cannot be regarded as important, and therefore should be eliminated from speech.)

This type of fallacious argument runs completely contrary to what we know as true, and what we require in order to operate effectively within the real world.

I think you misunderstand what Korzybski, Bourland, Jr. and Wilson were trying to say. I apologise for this but I'm going to have to refer you to the full title, sorry. I'm not Robert Anton Wilson and am having difficulty explaining all this. I need to read the titles again myself to refresh my memory. I've made too many mistakes already.

There – I believe I wrote this entire post in E-Prime. What a drag.

(I guess I am no fan of Robert Anton Wilson.)

(Ouch, how did that last "am" sneak in here?)

Very nice. I still don't (or rather can't) speak and type completely in e-prime, but I believe I have made an effort to incorporate it when and where I deem it necessary.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I read R.A.W as a teenager, enjoyed the Cosmic Trigger Trigger series a lot, was bored by the Illuminatus Series.

I still class The Illuminatus! Trilogy to be one of the best books I've ever read. I found it crazy and I didn't agree with everything he seemed to be trying to convey, but my gosh, what a book! I certainly would never call it "boring."

I didnt know he had a system called Quantum Psychology out which looks sensible enough but also typically R.A.W.

Wilson is often underrated and overlooked in this field. (Whoops!)

I wouldnt follow this E-prime (new label for me) as a general rule (for the same reason Buck Division states) but its interesting to not that I and many others do talk this way naturally when we wish to de-charge heated situations or take a more gentle approach of communication toward someone.

It is true that too many statemets of is-ness cement reality to be a bit less flexible and fluid.

Interesting indeed.

I agree about the change in language you noted, but I don't agree with Buck Division.

Thanks for your input, Skyfloating.

I'd just like to also mention that both the subject of Quantum Psychology and the work by Wilson of the same name are in no way limited to the discussion of General Semantics and English prime. The excerpt I provided was a chapter specifically covering those topics, but it goes way, way, deeper and broader than that. Take a look at the table of contents I just lifted from my .pdf version of Quantum Psychology (I own a physical copy, also, so New Falcon can # off):




Yep!

I'll gladly distribute the full .pdf to anyone who wants it via private communication (until a moderator tells me to stop).

EDIT: Resized image



[edit on 14-6-2008 by Cadbury]

Now that I see the table of contents I know I read this somewhere along the way afterall.

Yep, sure enough. Thats basic education, the kindergarden of enlightenment...and yet...the msm-crowds dont even seem to have a grasp of the basics.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Now that I see the table of contents I know I read this somewhere along the way afterall.

Jolly good, Sir! Do you still agree with Buck Division after I posted Wilson's clarification?

Yep, sure enough. Thats basic education, the kindergarden of enlightenment...and yet...the msm-crowds dont even seem to have a grasp of the basics.

I'm not at all ashamed to admit that I'm still at a "Kindergarden" level of understanding with regards to some of those aspects, and I'm 25. I can basically understand it for the very most part, but when it comes to actually explaining it all I'll break sweat.

I guess that I should post this short video as it may help explain some of the concepts we're dealing with in this thread. Although in it Wilson is discussing Quantum Physics, I find that it "is" applicable still:

Seen from another angle buck division appears to be partially right

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Seen from another angle buck division appears to be partially right

Curse you, Skywalker! I should have known you'd use these wisdoms against me.

This is what I have been trying to do since I joined ATS and I had no idea about it, very srange. I try to avoid using 'fact' too much, as pretty much everything we know isn't fact, it's only a point of view. I do slip up now and then but I'm only human and I correct myself when I can.

A fact that we could say is 'from current evidence, the earth seems to be round' and not '...could be considered scientific fact, such as the earth is round'. Unfortunately, this just helps these broken and corrupted systems pull the wool over peoples eyes, or should I say 'appear' to pull the wool over people's eyes?

Originally posted by Buck Division
There exists a big difference between the words "is" (which implies a fixed nature to the universe) and the word "appears" (which implies only a subjective nature to the universe.) Likewise, attempts to replace "is" with "exists", and other creative ways to eliminate this word from writing and speech, deny the obvious fact that humans often require affirmation of "state of being" as a part of any discourse that has bearing on reality.

I agree that it's overly pedantic to attempt to use e-prime in every single situation in day to day life, since being able to quickly identify and classify things is crucial to our physical survival. It's when it comes to the kinds of subjects discussed here on ATS (theories, sprituality and belief systems, etc.) that I prefer a more "model agnostic" type of approach - which is essentially the philosophy that "no model describing reality is ever completely accurate or totally objective." As Skyfloating said before, many people do this naturally

The agnostic principle refuses total belief or total denial and regards models as tools to be used only and always where appropriate and replaced (by other models) only and always where not appropriate. It does not regard any models, or any class of models, as more “profound” than any other models (or any class of models) but asks only how a model serves, or fails to serve, those who use it.

www.timboucher.com...


For an example of how words shape our realities, let's take a look at the word "Reality" itself.

"Reality" is a word in the English language which happens to be (a) a noun and (b) singular. Thinking in the English language (and in cognate Indo-European languages) therefore subliminally programs us to conceptualize "reality" as one block-like entity, sort of like a huge New York skyscraper, in which every part is just another "room" within the same building. This linguistic program is so pervasive that most people cannot "think" outside it at all, and when one tries to offer a different perspective they imagine one is talking gibberish.

The notion that "reality" is a noun, a solid thing like a brick or a baseball bat, derives from the evolutionary fact that our nervous systems normally organize the dance of energy into such block-like "things," probably as instant bio-survival cues. Such "things," however, dissolve back into energy dances -- processes or verbs -- when the nervous system is synergized with certain drugs or transmuted by yogic or shamanic exercises or aided by scientific instruments. In both mysticism and physics, there is general agreement that "things" are constructed by our nervous systems and that "realities" (plural) are better described as systems or bundles of energy functions.

www.rawilson.com...

So, using the word "realities" seems more accurate to me because I consider everyone to have their own reality, i.e. they are the center of their own universe. The "reality" of a Russian cosmonaut is very different from the "reality" an eskimo fisherman, much the same as the "reality" of a fundamentalist Christian is very different from the "reality" of a Buddhist monk. They could be receiving the same information at the same time, but they would each filter, process and classify it very differently, due to differences in their individual neural programming and conditioning.

Good posts, you two.

In conclusion, then, I will leave you all with these words:

When Wilson describes the hand grenade, it means that a lover of an anomaly takes a coffee break. For example, the diskette indicates that a seldom varigated sperm single-handledly eats a seldom Joycean paycheck. An Ouspensky from the essay accidentally operates a burrito stand with a homo Sapiens.

Namasté.

If we all communicate in E-Prime all the time, I think that there will no longer be any facts. I believe that means that we will all be living in a world which might become a free form delusion where any interpretation is just as good as the next. I guess we might all be more maleable and more easily controlled by ruthless manipulators who may have conceived such as rediculous bastardization of reason.

I would look to a middle ground. Which happens to be the current Paradigm for most of us.

Have a nice day

Originally posted by Cyberbian
I guess we might all be more maleable and more easily controlled by ruthless manipulators who may have conceived such as rediculous bastardization of reason.

What? I'd say it's Aristotelian reasoning that's the "ridiculous bastardization of reason" spun out by "ruthless manipulators," like the Roman Catholic Church or a form of Government.

In my experience it's usually only people who have no understanding of Quantum logic or non-Aristotelian reason and can't be bothered to read or learn about it who lash out and attack it.

Do I misunderstand you?