[OT] God Syndrome (OR: The why of 'why')

[Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>]

 Please keep in mind that this is an off topic post, that has very little to do
with Lojban in any way- although it does explain one of the reasons I decided
to take up Lojban: My own language (and from what I can tell from talking to
others, pretty much every other language in existence) does not have the words
to describe the concept I am espousing below.

 I will also be putting this (and any replies) up on the Wiki tommorow, if none
of you object, to avoid plaguing this group with OT posts.

 Basically, the concept is: Where x is a person, y is an action, and z is the
reason for the action, why does x do y for reason z?

 This must be built upon a bit for most, if not all of you, to (hopefully) give
a better grasp of what I am trying to get across. As I said, English does not
have words for the concept:

 x (person)
 x (person) does y (action)
 (x does y) for reason z
 why does ((x do y) for reason z)?

 For the last part, imagine 'why does' to be an operator like 'xu' is.

 Now, why means, appox., 'What is the reason ...?"
 Alternatively, you could do the sentence:
 how does ((x do y) for reason z)?

 The words why and how are both equivalent in the meaning here, even though how
means, appox., "In what way is ... possible?"

 There should be a few of you who know exactly what it is I mean already, and
the rest of you will think you do. The problem is, I have found it impossible
to explain this concept to anyone who doesn't understand it already, and those
who do understand the concept don't need it to be explained to them- and are
just as incapable of explaining it themselves.

 Why did I call this 'God Syndrome'? Because I think that every religion,
including atheism, has tried, and failed, to explain what the 'why' is, and
instead attribute the 'why' to God. (I am not saying God does not exist- I
personally believe there is absolute proof that at least one Diety exists. I am
saying that the 'why' is equated with God in religion, where the two are not,
in actuality, the same thing.)

 Why is the optional title The why of 'why'? Because there is a difference
between the reason, which is why, and the reason for "x does y for reason z",
which I hereby dub the why of 'why', or just the 'why'.

 To help to confirm to those who understand that I am talking about what they
think I am, and to hopefully help the rest of you figure it out, I have
included an excerpt of a conversation I had earlier today which took place
between myself, another who understood (Marvin_Black), a third who thought she
knew (Novarix), and two who didn't have a clue and mayhap never will (d1ng0 and
Phonix357):
(Note: this is a bit lengthy, (understatement alert), apologies in advance.)

<d1ng0> Humans aren't that hard to understand
<eye_onus> For you, maybe. But for me- I find it bordering on impossible.
<Marvin_Black> It's hard to explain... I get the reasons behind their doings,
but I can't understand them
<eye_onus> Same here.
<eye_onus> It's not that I can't figure out why humans do what they do. It's
that I can't understand the why itself.
<Marvin_Black> Someone tells me what someone else has done to him and I can
tell him why he did so, but I can not understand it
<d1ng0> They are usually emotions (did I mention I study Psychology)
<eye_onus> Even then I still can't understand.
<eye_onus> x does y for reason z is easy enough. why x does y for reason z is
what I can't figure out.
<d1ng0> There's a big group in the Psychological community who blame everything
on nature. There's another big group who blame everything on nurture and then
there's a small group that thinks it's a function of both.
<eye_onus> Why does a person send another to the hospital because the other
person called him a derogatory name? Yes, it's derogatory, yes, it's
inflammatory. But how is it justifiable to send the man to the hospital? This
being an extreme case, mind you.
<eye_onus> I know all about the 'Nature vs. Nurture' debate. It didn't help me
to understand anything.
<Marvin_Black> Or other people can't see things or understand things that are
obvious (at least for me and some other people)
<eye_onus> Especially since they are all wrong.
<eye_onus> Evolution- wrong. Creation- wrong. Every single version of 'How we
came to be'- wrong. The thing is, every single one is right, too, but they only
have peices of truth, filtered through a mind that doesn't understand the whole
thing and has to invent things to explain or replace the parts they can't
grasp.
[Edit: Please note that the above is an opinion of mine, and while shared but
most of those who understand, is still just an opinion. (Of course, it's only
an opinion unless I can prove it, but, well, I can't.)]
<d1ng0> In psychology there's besides the nature&nurture debate also the
difference between sociology and social psychology. The behavior of groups and
the behavior of individuals in the group.
<eye_onus> Neither sociology nor social psychology will help me, I'm afraid. No
aspect of psychology even deals with the thing I'm trying to understand.
<d1ng0> A fellow named Ash did some pretty nice sociology tests
<d1ng0> One of his most famous is the one with the one line that is longer...
<d1ng0> 3 lines, one of which is longer.
<d1ng0> Ask an individual in a group which one is longer after the rest of the
group has already given the wrong anwser.
<d1ng0> The individual also gives teh wrong anwser.
<eye_onus> Of course he does.
<eye_onus> And we all three know why he does.
<d1ng0> Then why is it, when this research is coupled with an IQ test, that the
most intelligent people are more often given the wrong anwser than the less
intelligent ones.
<d1ng0> and psychology is all about the Why of human behavior.
<Marvin_Black> But it's another why than we are looking for
<Marvin_Black> I can't get the why behind this why.
<d1ng0> You are looking for the why x does y for reason z ?
<d1ng0> thats psychology.
<d1ng0> Why does a cow run back into the stable that burns.
<d1ng0> Why is human agression related to the agression of the group.
<eye_onus> Because on the average, people with a higher IQ stotre information
differently than those with lower IQ, allowing them to retain more knowledge. A
person will start out knowing that one line is longer, no matter his IQ. But
the test has every single person in the three lines answer a different answer,
causing those with higher IQ's to be forced into a kind of subconscious rote
rehearsal.
<eye_onus> Those with lower IQ's are also affected, but not nearly as well-
they aren't as capable of retaining rote knowledge.
[Edit: This is not to say that those with lower IQ are stupid. IMO, stupidity
and IQ are unrelated concepts.]
<Marvin_Black> Psychology gives me the answers I already know, not the
possibility to get even behind them, for I understand perfectly the reasons for
the doings, but I can't understand the reasons themselves. As I said: I can
understand the reason why someone hurts someone elses soul, but I don't get it
into my head... I'm lacking words. In German I would use two different words.
<d1ng0> use German, I can speak that :)
<eye_onus> In 'why does x do y for reason z', we know x and y from simple
observation. Psychology goes into finding out z- what the reason is. But no
feild of science, mysticism, or any kind of knowledge field I know of, looks
for the 'why' part.
<Marvin_Black> You get the reasons, but not the why... So to say
<eye_onus> Right. Obviously, you know what I'm talking about, as you have the
same problem.
<d1ng0> Okay, I think I'm missing something here. You are wondering why humans
use reason z to do anything ?
<eye_onus> I think part of the difficulty is that I am 1) aware that there /is/
a why in the first place, and that it is different from 'z', and 2) I know the
why's for my own behaviour, and also know these why's do not hold true for the
behaviour of others.
<eye_onus> This 'why' thing is very hard to explain to someone who doesn't
already know what the 'why' is....
<Marvin_Black> The backrounds for reaons Z. We know the reasons z and the way
they got together, but we can't understand the backrounds... Something like
that
<eye_onus> We know that Mark hit the lockers with his fist because he is angry.
<eye_onus> mark is x
<eye_onus> hit the lockers is y
<eye_onus> he's angry is z.
<eye_onus> why does x do y for reason z?
<d1ng0> Okay, so we are talking about the same thing.
[Edit: Actually, no, we aren't, but the difference between what I'm talking
about and what he's talking about is what is so hard to explain....]
<eye_onus> Why mark is angry doesn't even matter in this, btw.
<Marvin_Black> For example: a bullies b around. So I get he had hard youth,
wants to feel better and feed his ego with pretending to be strong, to
compensate some event or flaw in his live. (imaginary scenario). But still I
can't understand why he chose to bullie... How he can do something like that to
another person, hurting b and his soul, leaving scars and knowing it
<eye_onus> What matters is why his being angry leads him to hit the lockers.
<d1ng0> psychology
<eye_onus> No.
<d1ng0> yes
<Marvin_Black> Psychology explains the first part of my post, not the second..
Not the final question
<eye_onus> No, psychology doesn't explain how the state of him being angry
leads him to decide to hit the locker.
<Marvin_Black> The first part, the explanation is Psychology
<eye_onus> Neither does instinct, for that matter.
<eye_onus> If I were to become angry, in no case would it lead me to hit a
locker, ever.
<Marvin_Black> Eye: Does my post put it right somehow? Is that what you are
asking yourself?
<eye_onus> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at.
<d1ng0> it doesn't explain anything. There's nothing psychological in "the X
does Y because of Z part", what interests a psychologist is Why. To define the
environment variables so to speak. Understanding X.
<Marvin_Black> So why can't you give any answer to those questions?
<eye_onus> Hitting the locker does not solve the problem of that which caused
me to be angry. The reason still would exist, and now I would also have a
pained hand and a damaged locker. I would merely be making my situation worse.
[Edit: This really doesn't help much at all, as it merely shows that my
knowledge of the 'why' leads me into a completely different cause-effect
pattern than Mark did.]
<d1ng0> oh.. you want to know why Mark hit the wall instead of Asmo ?
[Edit: Asmo (Asm0dai) is another person we have on this channel, though not
currently.]
<eye_onus> The reasoning is counter-intuitive to, well, reasoning itself.
<eye_onus> No.
<eye_onus> I want to know why being angry leads to hitting anything at all,
instead of to a solution to the cause of the anger.
<Novarix> the subject felt liek damaging somthing and the locker was the
closest thing.. anger clouded his thinking?
[Edit: This describes the z, not the 'why'- hopefully even those of you who
don't understand me can see that this is true.]
<d1ng0> His reasons for hitting the wall wasn't because he was angry.
<eye_onus> I know.
<Novarix> you have never felt the urge to damage somthing/someone?
<eye_onus> No, I have not.
<Marvin_Black> Nope
<eye_onus> not out of anger, anyway.
<d1ng0> Most people who hit objects when they are angry do so because they are
affraid of their own anger, but they still need to give in to the reflex. Or to
punish themselves.
<eye_onus> And there's the why I'm looking for.
<eye_onus> Why is that statement you just made true?
<d1ng0> Personal observation.
<d1ng0> I hit stuff when I get angry.
<eye_onus> Yes, but why?
* Novarix doesnt but feels like it
<Novarix> release
<eye_onus> I don't think I will ever get to the bottom of this.
<d1ng0> I do so because I am A) Affraid I might hurt anyone. B) It actually
feels better to vent your anger C) The pain you get from hitting something is a
kind of self inficted punishment for getting angry in the first place.
<eye_onus> I can't enable you to understand what I'm talking about, and I know
it isn't merely the limitations of the language.
<Novarix> frustrating isnt it?
<eye_onus> Very.
<d1ng0> That is the WHY I hit stuff when I get angry.
<eye_onus> The thing is, d1ng0, you aren't telling me anything I don't already
know.
<Novarix> anyway, im pretty sure i know what you mean
<Phonix357> ....
<d1ng0> then what is the problem ?
<d1ng0> Why did I get angry 
<Novarix> why does it feel better to vent your anger etc..?
<eye_onus> I know and understand everything you've said. The problem is, you're
not understanding what I'm trying to explain. I believe it's because our
thoughts processes are fundamentally different, in a way that no field of
science or religion has ever even known of, let alone explored.
[Edit: I am meaning exactly what I typed here, with no ulterior meanings or
nuances intended. I believe that d1ng0 thought I was insulting him in this
post, which is why I point out that I was not.]
<Marvin_Black> Did I miss something?
*Phonix357* Ohh..Anger managent
*Phonix357* I dont mean to pry
*Phonix357* But i do suffer from taht
<Marvin_Black> It's like people look at things from inside a system, and I want
to look at it from the *outside*
* d1ng0 ponders
<Marvin_Black> I'm not interested in yes, nows, black and whites, but greys.
<Novarix> why IS it always easier to see a solution from the outside anyway?
<Marvin_Black> Sure, but are people willing to look from the outside?
<Marvin_Black> You know the coin idiom?
<Phonix357> Two sides to each coin?
<Marvin_Black> Yup
-> *Phonix357* Actually, this has nothing to do with anger management. It has
more to do with why anger management exists.
<Marvin_Black> It says each coin has two sides. But I say, each coin has two
sides and almost always a hell of a lot of stuff between them that's worth
looking at too
*Phonix357* To keep angry people from killing the people who piss them off
<d1ng0> Why do I feel stupid because I don't understand the whole conversation
anymore.
<d1ng0> thats about the question you wanted to ask /
<d1ng0> ?
-> *Phonix357* That's not what I mean. The basis of this conversation is 'why
does x (a person) do y (an action) for reason z?'
<Novarix> who?
<d1ng0> Eye.
<eye_onus> Huh?
<eye_onus> Sorry, in pm, wasn't paying attention.
*Phonix357* Umm..Way he was rasied , religion , peronal logic , outter
variables
<d1ng0> Eye: Why do I feel stupid because I lost all understanding about this
conversation ? Is that the kind of question you want anwsered ?
<eye_onus> I don't think I even understand the question.
[Note: No, that's not at all close to the kind of question I wanted answered.]
-> *Phonix357* It's as difficult for you to explain the why part as it is for
me to explain what the why is in the first part. Your answer doesn't actually
explain the why, it explains the 'z'.
*Phonix357* True...
*Marvin_Black* It seems you get the points I'm trying to make?
-> *Marvin_Black* Yes, I understand you, and Novarix thinks she does. It's just
that d1ng0 and Phonix don't.
*Marvin_Black* To me it seems, they think within their systems and don't want
to move from their opinions. If I discuss I want to check if what I am thinking
is right and want to expand my point of view. They do not want to do this it
seems to me
-> *Marvin_Black* It's not that they don't want too, it's that they are unable
to, anymore than we are able to explain what the 'why' is.
*Marvin_Black* Would this describe it? I can get in their way of thinking, but
not their way of feeling and reasoning?
-> *Marvin_Black* Approximately, but still not well enough they would
understand. I've gotten to that point many a time before.
-> *Marvin_Black* Plus, d1ng0 at least has given up trying to understand- a
sure sign that it would be a worthless endeavor to try in future- both near and
far.
*Marvin_Black* Two probs: 1) We lack of words in some cases (They simply do not
exist) and 2) it's so obvious to us only people who "think this way" will
understand clearly.

 Marvin sums up the problem very well at the end here, and is entirely correct,
in both his and my experiences. It is very obvious to those who 'think this
way', but nearly impossible to understand for people who do not. Also, the
words do not exist, at least not in any language we know, to explain to those
who do not understand. Perhaps it would be possible to get the concept across
in Lojban, I don't know, but it is a reason I took up the language.

 The reason for this post is twofold: Lojban is about breaking down the
boundaries of your thinking. This is a definite boundary to almost all people's
thoughts, so perhaps trying to figure out what I mean by the 'why', as I've
come to call it, will help you to break down boundary (this is a case where
Lojban has an advantage, since in this instance I do not want to define the
plurality of boundary...) Of course, for those of you who already know what I'm
talking about, this won't apply.

 The other part is because I /very much/ wish to understand the 'why': While I
know of its existence, many are unable to understand me when I try to describe
it, and I am unable to understand it myself (not what the 'why' is, but the
understanding of the 'why'). It is my belief that the 'why' is akin to quantum
particles /at present/: you know of it, or understand it, but not both, i.e.
those that understand the 'why' do not know of the existence of the 'why', and
vice versa. As such, I am hoping that there are Lojbanists who understand what
the 'why' is, and I know there are those who have no comprehension of it, and
was hoping that it would be possible for the 'why' to be able to be succesfully
explained to those who obviously (see the excerpt) can't get a grasp from
curent languages, which would in turn hopefully allow those of us who know of
it but don't understand it to be given understanding by those who don't know of
it but (hopefully) understand it.

-Jon

=====
"I have a brain, I've just lost my mind." -Ian McLeod

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
GSC>$ d+(++) s++:-- a-- C++ UL P L>+++ !E W+(++) N++ o? K- !w--- O- M@ V? PS+++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ !5 X(+) R+ !tv-- b+++ DI+ D+ G e* h* r-(%) y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com