citing
Now was Eddie Oshins at that also?
Probably.
http://www.quantumpsychology.com/pdf/Rooted-in-Genuine-Stupidity.pdf
Rooted in Genuine Stupidity. File: A.1.5.15.99
FILE: Rooted in Genuine Stupidity.A1.5.15.99
Source:
http://www.quantumpsychology.com/pdf...-Stupidity.pdf
DRAFT OF A FULLER PAPER TO BE ELABORATED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
What is Quantum Psychology?
Note I: Rooted in Genuine Stupidity
by
Eddie Oshins
Copyright c
1997, 2001 Eddie Oshins.
All rights reserved to the author.
I thank Sky Chaney for inviting me to write three short essays introducing my Quantum Psychology Project
at the Mental Research Institute for the new MRI electronic journal. Note 1 overviews how I created my
"Genuine Stupidity Logic" model as a new scientiï¬c model for psychology in the mid-1970s. Note 2 will
discuss (1) how I was subsequently called upon to serve as scientiï¬c representative and editor for imprisoned
Soviet scientist Yuri Orlov's similar "wave logic" model, and (2) how I was lead to coin the term "quantum
psychology" in 1982 to describe this class of science in order to distinguish my own quantum effort from
Orlov's nonquantum approach. Note 3 will elaborate upon what I mean by quantum psychology being a
"scientiï¬c model." I will explain how quantum psychology is science but not quantum physics.
CAVEAT: In 1994 David Finkelstein mentioned that, unbeknown to me, both he and Elihu Lubkin had
previously used the expression "quantum psychology" in physics during the 1970s in a somewhat more
casual manner. My more speciï¬c usage has been to identify and distinguish the formal, interpretive, critical,
and empirical aspects of my psychological model, and appears to be in harmony with their usage in physics.
In contrast, my scientiï¬c approach is at fundamental odds with Stephen Wolinsky's more recent, metaphoric
adaptation of "quantum psychology" for his own therapeutic enterprise. For instance, Wolinksy associates
his work with Pribram's "holographic" understanding of quantum physics which Oshins has shown to be
irrelevant to quantum physics or quantum psychology (Oshins, 1991). In subsequent notes, I hope to explore
further some of these aspects of my Quantum Psychology Project(R).
BACKGROUND: In the mid-1970s, I began to examine a controversy in the psychological literature concerning
the nature of schizophrenia as a logical phenomenon (Oshins and McGoveran, 1980). Initially, I
was interested in the formal arguments between (1a) the intrapsychic approach of E. von Domarus, Silvano
Arieti, and others, and (1b) the interactional/communications approach of Bateson, Jackson, Haley and
Weakland concerning, respectively, (2a) von Domarus' principle of "identiï¬cation by predicates" and (2b)
"double-bind theory."
The intrapsychic perspective viewed schizophrenia as a logical deï¬cit in which, instead of reasoning, e.g.:
"Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.",
a schizophrenic supposedly reasons, e.g.:
"I am a virgin.
The Virgin Mary was a virgin.
Thus, I am the Virgin Mary.".
The double-bind point of view saw schizophrenia as a consequence of the individual trying to accommodate
an inviable communications context in which he: (1) believes it is necessary to discriminate and "chose" between alternatives on more than one logical level, each of which disconï¬rms the other; (2) is not able to
step out of the "choice" context which would enable him to comment on the inviability of these "options;"
and (3) comes to expect such infeasible experience as ordinary.
I did not see these models as being in contradiction but as addressing opposite sides of the boundary between
the intrapsychic and the interpersonal/systemic systems. I thought that much of the disagreement was due
to an inadequate appreciation of the alternative theories and to an insufficient symbolic representation
for deï¬ning and comparing the differing points of view. As I understood that these issues were considered
important in psychiatry, I began to try to construct an intellectual tool to clarify the matter, as I understood
it.
At that time, I was also looking at "fuzzy logic" and "the laws of form," which are two variant logics
developed by computer scientists attempting to model thought by generalized classical logics. I saw that
there was a way to combine, with minor modiï¬cations, certain concepts from these artiï¬cial intelligence
approaches to psychology and language into a "nondistributive" logic (technically, a "lattice") as is found in
quantum theory. The "laws of form" approach likened Epimenedes' paradox ("This statement is false."), and
self-referential paradox in general, to the arithmetic equation ( x = -1/x ). I took this arithmetic equation
and converted it into a MATRIX eigenvalue equation [Xf = −I(X−1)f], where X is a 2x2 matrix, f is a two
spinor, -I is the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity, and X−1 represents the multiplicative matrix
inverse to X.
Matrices have the property that their multiplication is order-dependent. Indeed, in describing Heisenberg's
creation of quantum mechanics, Max Born stated: " ... And one morning ... I suddenly saw light: Heisenberg's
symbolic multiplication was nothing but the matrix calculus, well known to me since my student days.
... I recognized at once its formal signiï¬cance. It meant that the two matrix products pq and qp are not
identical ... that matrix multiplication is not commutative ..." (Oshins and McGoveran, op.cit., ft.nt. 6). In
quantum physics, there is a measure of the difference in such ordering, called the COMMUTATOR, which is
precisely a measure of the INTERACTION between the measuring and the measured system ... the knower
and the known. Since I was proposing a competing model to the "artiï¬cial intelligence" efforts, I decided,
tongue-in-cheek, to call my approach "genuine stupidity logic." (The change to "quantum psychology" will
be elaborated upon in Note 2.)
Within the logic framework, this order dependent interaction provides the logical equivalent of a type of
REPRESENTATIONAL AMBIGUITY between constructs viewed as reference frames. Such an interpretation
provides an operational approach to complementarity, whereby one construct restricts the simultaneous
availability of another construct while being necessary for unambiguous speciï¬cation in a different context.
A type of metalogic results involving the metalinguistic choices between competing, contrary points of view
or frameworks.
The pertinent issue, here, is not whether [˜A' is ˜true'] or whether [˜A' is ˜false'/˜not-A' is ˜true'], but whether
the (A, not-A)-system is the appropriate context. For a complementary metalogic to apply to a description,
there would exists an equally good (B, not-B)-system that could adequately describe the same phenomena
so that ˜B or not-B' is also ˜true.' In the book Change (Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch, 1974), the authors
correctly express the failure of the distributive law for a complementary metalogic in their own language
when describing reframing and second order change: [˜A or not-A' is ˜true'] but this does not mean that [˜A'
is ˜true'] nor that [˜not-A' is ˜true'] since the (A, not-A) system, itself, might be an inappropriate context
for the particular, influencing situation . The therapist has the ability then to reframe the constructs used
to characterize the phenomena in a manner that subverts the problem.
In still other language, to assert ˜Statement-A' "” a proposition about a property of a "physical observable"
"” and to assert" ˜Statement-A' is ˜true' " are different. [" ˜Statement-A' is ˜true' " is "false"] is NOT
the same as [" ˜Statement-A' is ˜false' "], i.e.,[" ˜Statement-not-A' is ˜true' "]. Both ˜Statement-A' and
˜Statement-not-A' might be inadequate to the context. Within such a metacontext, neither statement would be ˜true' nor would be ˜false' if there existed a competing, complementary ˜Statement-B' which were the
appropriate choice. In other words, the (A, not-A)-constructs compete with the (B, not-B)-constructs for
simultaneous availability as contexts although the (A, not-A)-constructs might be appropriate given an (A,
not-A)-context.(Examples can be found in Oshins (1995), and will be discussed further in future notes.)
When such "experimental contexts" are not decidable, physicists speak of this metalogical ambiguity as
"nonselecting measurement." It occurs through a highly nonclassical type of "superposition" of states of
information. This type of "quantum parallel processing," which I have called "synaptic spanning," results
in complementarity for the competing, metalogical contexts. I saw this framework of complementarity and
metalogical ambiguity as an intellectual tool to envision both the intrapsychic equivocation process discussed
by von Domarus and the metalogical communications of "double-binds" and "second order change."
Furthermore, I replaced the distributive law of classical logic, ie. [A and (B or C) = (A and B) or (A and
C)], by my PRINCIPLE OF METALOGICAL AMBIGUITY for competing/complementary contexts:
"If one does not distinguish between two unit predicates A &
B, there will always exist a third possible unit predicate C such
that (A or B) = (B or C) = (C or A),"
A, B, & C are equivalent "perspectives." There is no operational way to distinguish between A, B, & C.
(This is discussed further, for example, in my chapter in Propagations (Oshins, 1995).)
In the beginning of Change (Op. Cit.), the authors had stated that the order of two operations did NOT
matter for the mathematics of "group theory," which they were recommending. From my perspective, it
was this very property that allowed for the kind of interactions which I had proposed. I saw that the logical
structure used by physicists in talking about physical propositions could be adapted to the logical structure
used by psychologists to talk about psychology and linguistic propositions. Since much of this psychological
work had originated at the Mental ResearchInstitute, in 1976, I took a trip from New York to California to
discuss my ideas there. I never moved back, thus, beginning what became my Quantum Psychology Project.
REFERENCES:
Oshins, E. (1991). About models and muddles, part I: Why Brown's Laws of form and Pribram's "hologram
hypothesis" are NOT relevant to quantum physics and quantum psychology. In Manthey, M. (Ed.), Alternatives
in physics and biology. Cambridge, England: Alternative Natural Philosophy Association, c/o Dr.
F. Abdullah, City University, Northampton Square, London ECIV 0HB, UK.
Oshins, E. (1995)*. "Quantum psychology & the metalogic of second order change". In J.H. Weakland &
W.A. Ray (Eds.), Propagations: Samples of MRI influence over thirty years.
Oshins, E. and McGoveran, D. (1980)*. ... thoughts about logic about thoughts ...: the question ˜schizophrenia?'
In Banathy, B.H. (Ed.), Systems science and science, Proceedings of the 24th annual North American
meeting of the Society for General Systems Research, pp. 505-514.
Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch. (1974). Change: principles of problem formation and problem
resolution, New York: W.W. Norton.
* Substantial errata to Oshins (1995) is at http://quantumpsychology.com/MRI-errata.html and to Oshins
and McGoveran (1980) is at http://quantumpsychology.com/Logic About Thoughts.html
Source:
http://www.quantumpsychology.com/pdf...-Stupidity.pdf
DRAFT OF A FULLER PAPER TO BE ELABORATED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
What is Quantum Psychology?
Note I: Rooted in Genuine Stupidity
by
Eddie Oshins
Copyright c
1997, 2001 Eddie Oshins.
All rights reserved to the author.
I thank Sky Chaney for inviting me to write three short essays introducing my Quantum Psychology Project
at the Mental Research Institute for the new MRI electronic journal. Note 1 overviews how I created my
"Genuine Stupidity Logic" model as a new scientiï¬c model for psychology in the mid-1970s. Note 2 will
discuss (1) how I was subsequently called upon to serve as scientiï¬c representative and editor for imprisoned
Soviet scientist Yuri Orlov's similar "wave logic" model, and (2) how I was lead to coin the term "quantum
psychology" in 1982 to describe this class of science in order to distinguish my own quantum effort from
Orlov's nonquantum approach. Note 3 will elaborate upon what I mean by quantum psychology being a
"scientiï¬c model." I will explain how quantum psychology is science but not quantum physics.
CAVEAT: In 1994 David Finkelstein mentioned that, unbeknown to me, both he and Elihu Lubkin had
previously used the expression "quantum psychology" in physics during the 1970s in a somewhat more
casual manner. My more speciï¬c usage has been to identify and distinguish the formal, interpretive, critical,
and empirical aspects of my psychological model, and appears to be in harmony with their usage in physics.
In contrast, my scientiï¬c approach is at fundamental odds with Stephen Wolinsky's more recent, metaphoric
adaptation of "quantum psychology" for his own therapeutic enterprise. For instance, Wolinksy associates
his work with Pribram's "holographic" understanding of quantum physics which Oshins has shown to be
irrelevant to quantum physics or quantum psychology (Oshins, 1991). In subsequent notes, I hope to explore
further some of these aspects of my Quantum Psychology Project(R).
BACKGROUND: In the mid-1970s, I began to examine a controversy in the psychological literature concerning
the nature of schizophrenia as a logical phenomenon (Oshins and McGoveran, 1980). Initially, I
was interested in the formal arguments between (1a) the intrapsychic approach of E. von Domarus, Silvano
Arieti, and others, and (1b) the interactional/communications approach of Bateson, Jackson, Haley and
Weakland concerning, respectively, (2a) von Domarus' principle of "identiï¬cation by predicates" and (2b)
"double-bind theory."
The intrapsychic perspective viewed schizophrenia as a logical deï¬cit in which, instead of reasoning, e.g.:
"Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.",
a schizophrenic supposedly reasons, e.g.:
"I am a virgin.
The Virgin Mary was a virgin.
Thus, I am the Virgin Mary.".
The double-bind point of view saw schizophrenia as a consequence of the individual trying to accommodate
an inviable communications context in which he: (1) believes it is necessary to discriminate and "chose" between alternatives on more than one logical level, each of which disconï¬rms the other; (2) is not able to
step out of the "choice" context which would enable him to comment on the inviability of these "options;"
and (3) comes to expect such infeasible experience as ordinary.
I did not see these models as being in contradiction but as addressing opposite sides of the boundary between
the intrapsychic and the interpersonal/systemic systems. I thought that much of the disagreement was due
to an inadequate appreciation of the alternative theories and to an insufficient symbolic representation
for deï¬ning and comparing the differing points of view. As I understood that these issues were considered
important in psychiatry, I began to try to construct an intellectual tool to clarify the matter, as I understood
it.
At that time, I was also looking at "fuzzy logic" and "the laws of form," which are two variant logics
developed by computer scientists attempting to model thought by generalized classical logics. I saw that
there was a way to combine, with minor modiï¬cations, certain concepts from these artiï¬cial intelligence
approaches to psychology and language into a "nondistributive" logic (technically, a "lattice") as is found in
quantum theory. The "laws of form" approach likened Epimenedes' paradox ("This statement is false."), and
self-referential paradox in general, to the arithmetic equation ( x = -1/x ). I took this arithmetic equation
and converted it into a MATRIX eigenvalue equation [Xf = −I(X−1)f], where X is a 2x2 matrix, f is a two
spinor, -I is the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity, and X−1 represents the multiplicative matrix
inverse to X.
Matrices have the property that their multiplication is order-dependent. Indeed, in describing Heisenberg's
creation of quantum mechanics, Max Born stated: " ... And one morning ... I suddenly saw light: Heisenberg's
symbolic multiplication was nothing but the matrix calculus, well known to me since my student days.
... I recognized at once its formal signiï¬cance. It meant that the two matrix products pq and qp are not
identical ... that matrix multiplication is not commutative ..." (Oshins and McGoveran, op.cit., ft.nt. 6). In
quantum physics, there is a measure of the difference in such ordering, called the COMMUTATOR, which is
precisely a measure of the INTERACTION between the measuring and the measured system ... the knower
and the known. Since I was proposing a competing model to the "artiï¬cial intelligence" efforts, I decided,
tongue-in-cheek, to call my approach "genuine stupidity logic." (The change to "quantum psychology" will
be elaborated upon in Note 2.)
Within the logic framework, this order dependent interaction provides the logical equivalent of a type of
REPRESENTATIONAL AMBIGUITY between constructs viewed as reference frames. Such an interpretation
provides an operational approach to complementarity, whereby one construct restricts the simultaneous
availability of another construct while being necessary for unambiguous speciï¬cation in a different context.
A type of metalogic results involving the metalinguistic choices between competing, contrary points of view
or frameworks.
The pertinent issue, here, is not whether [˜A' is ˜true'] or whether [˜A' is ˜false'/˜not-A' is ˜true'], but whether
the (A, not-A)-system is the appropriate context. For a complementary metalogic to apply to a description,
there would exists an equally good (B, not-B)-system that could adequately describe the same phenomena
so that ˜B or not-B' is also ˜true.' In the book Change (Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch, 1974), the authors
correctly express the failure of the distributive law for a complementary metalogic in their own language
when describing reframing and second order change: [˜A or not-A' is ˜true'] but this does not mean that [˜A'
is ˜true'] nor that [˜not-A' is ˜true'] since the (A, not-A) system, itself, might be an inappropriate context
for the particular, influencing situation . The therapist has the ability then to reframe the constructs used
to characterize the phenomena in a manner that subverts the problem.
In still other language, to assert ˜Statement-A' "” a proposition about a property of a "physical observable"
"” and to assert" ˜Statement-A' is ˜true' " are different. [" ˜Statement-A' is ˜true' " is "false"] is NOT
the same as [" ˜Statement-A' is ˜false' "], i.e.,[" ˜Statement-not-A' is ˜true' "]. Both ˜Statement-A' and
˜Statement-not-A' might be inadequate to the context. Within such a metacontext, neither statement would be ˜true' nor would be ˜false' if there existed a competing, complementary ˜Statement-B' which were the
appropriate choice. In other words, the (A, not-A)-constructs compete with the (B, not-B)-constructs for
simultaneous availability as contexts although the (A, not-A)-constructs might be appropriate given an (A,
not-A)-context.(Examples can be found in Oshins (1995), and will be discussed further in future notes.)
When such "experimental contexts" are not decidable, physicists speak of this metalogical ambiguity as
"nonselecting measurement." It occurs through a highly nonclassical type of "superposition" of states of
information. This type of "quantum parallel processing," which I have called "synaptic spanning," results
in complementarity for the competing, metalogical contexts. I saw this framework of complementarity and
metalogical ambiguity as an intellectual tool to envision both the intrapsychic equivocation process discussed
by von Domarus and the metalogical communications of "double-binds" and "second order change."
Furthermore, I replaced the distributive law of classical logic, ie. [A and (B or C) = (A and B) or (A and
C)], by my PRINCIPLE OF METALOGICAL AMBIGUITY for competing/complementary contexts:
"If one does not distinguish between two unit predicates A &
B, there will always exist a third possible unit predicate C such
that (A or B) = (B or C) = (C or A),"
A, B, & C are equivalent "perspectives." There is no operational way to distinguish between A, B, & C.
(This is discussed further, for example, in my chapter in Propagations (Oshins, 1995).)
In the beginning of Change (Op. Cit.), the authors had stated that the order of two operations did NOT
matter for the mathematics of "group theory," which they were recommending. From my perspective, it
was this very property that allowed for the kind of interactions which I had proposed. I saw that the logical
structure used by physicists in talking about physical propositions could be adapted to the logical structure
used by psychologists to talk about psychology and linguistic propositions. Since much of this psychological
work had originated at the Mental ResearchInstitute, in 1976, I took a trip from New York to California to
discuss my ideas there. I never moved back, thus, beginning what became my Quantum Psychology Project.
REFERENCES:
Oshins, E. (1991). About models and muddles, part I: Why Brown's Laws of form and Pribram's "hologram
hypothesis" are NOT relevant to quantum physics and quantum psychology. In Manthey, M. (Ed.), Alternatives
in physics and biology. Cambridge, England: Alternative Natural Philosophy Association, c/o Dr.
F. Abdullah, City University, Northampton Square, London ECIV 0HB, UK.
Oshins, E. (1995)*. "Quantum psychology & the metalogic of second order change". In J.H. Weakland &
W.A. Ray (Eds.), Propagations: Samples of MRI influence over thirty years.
Oshins, E. and McGoveran, D. (1980)*. ... thoughts about logic about thoughts ...: the question ˜schizophrenia?'
In Banathy, B.H. (Ed.), Systems science and science, Proceedings of the 24th annual North American
meeting of the Society for General Systems Research, pp. 505-514.
Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch. (1974). Change: principles of problem formation and problem
resolution, New York: W.W. Norton.
* Substantial errata to Oshins (1995) is at http://quantumpsychology.com/MRI-errata.html and to Oshins
and McGoveran (1980) is at http://quantumpsychology.com/Logic About Thoughts.html
WOW I find the forum posts by Eddie Oshins!
From his LAST year alive? He died in 2003 I thought - but maybe it was 2004.
Strange - he died October 2003...
https://discuss.ilw.com/member/15878-e?filter_time=time_all
But here is the good news for you: I will be away and not posting for a while
hmmm
Oshins, E. (1995). Quantum psychology and the metalogic of second order change. In Chapter 21 of Propagations: Thirty years of influence from the Mental Research Institute (pp. 253–276). New York: The Haworth Press.
Oshins, E. (2013). What is quantum psychology. New York: Quantum Psychology Institute.
https://alt.alien.visitors.narkive.com/aQttOyxb/the-who-s-who-in-mindcontrol-remote-viewing-research
Joe K. Adams
The first psychologist to lead a seminar at the Esalen Institute. Friends
with Gregory Bateson. Former chairman of the psychology department at Bryn
Mawr. Spent a year researching parapsychology at Stanford University.
After leaving Stanford, he became a clinical psychologist, and worked at the
Veterans Administration hospital studying the causes of schizophrenia. He
also worked with LSD at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, under
grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. This was during the
time that NIHM was channelling funds for the CIA's MK-ULTRA LSD experiments,
so it is safe to say that Adams was working, directly or indirectly, for the
CIA, although I don't know if he was aware of it (most researchers weren't).
Adams himself took LSD as part of these studies, and suffered two psychotic
episodes, the second of which earned him a stay in a mental hospital.
(Anderson, Walter Truett, The Upstart Spring, Addison-Wesley Publishing,
1983, pg 59-62)
So Eddie Oshins was "invited" by Sky Chaney who was mentored by Gregory Bateson via MRI... doing CIA MKULTRA LSD experiments...
Gregory Bateson
Anthropologist, once married to Margaret Mead. 1904-1980.
Bateson was one of many LSD researchers which held the first Human Potential
workshop at the Esalen Institute, and moved there in the late '70s. Was
friends with Joe K. Adams.
"At Stanford [University], the anthropologist Gregory Bateson - who had been
introduced to LSD by Dr. Harold Abramson, one of LSD's pioneers - arranged
in 1959 for the poet Allen Ginsberg to take it as part of a research program
that was secretly sponsored by the military."
(Stafford, Peter, Psychedelics Encyclopedia, Third Expanded Edition, Ronin
Publishing, 1992, pg 44)
In 1943, Bateson was employed by the Office of Strategic Services as a
"psychological planner" in Southeast Asia.
(Lipset, David, Gregory Bateson: The Legacy of a Scientist, Prentice Hall,
1980, pg 174)
In 1963 Bateson was hired as the associate director of research for John
Lilly's Communication Research Institute, which studied dolphins in the
Virgin Islands.
(Lipset, pg 241)
QC0024: Prof. Louis H. Kauffman: Non-Commutative Worlds & Discrete Physics, Part1
video:
Prof. Louis H. Kauffman's presentation on Non-Commutative Worlds & Discrete Physics. A good part of what is thought to be physical input arises naturally from the mathematics used to describe it. Recorded: 2020 04 26 at 09 14 GMT 7
No comments:
Post a Comment