Dear Waldemar

You're entirely missing my point.
The opposition of Individual versus Collective is Individualism. And it is
that very OPPOSITION that is over. Your Collective is nothing but a
Collective of Individuals. Like so many hardcore believers of the odl faith
you simply refuse to see that the entire ideology is over.
Physics killed Atomism. The Internet has killed Individualism.
There is nothing but RELATIONAL left. And this relational is always plural
so all that is left is a SOCIAL understanding of man and technology.
Neuro science practically slaughters the idea of any solid consciousness
PRIOR to the event. So get over it.
Everything now is social as in man-machine social. But first and foremost
we understand that we live in a relationalist world as reklationalist
bodies with relationalist minds.
Read Hegel!

Best intentions
Alexander Bard

Den mån 14 okt. 2019 kl 23:29 skrev Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]
>:

> Alexander B:
>
> Thank you for your response.
> I agree that things, such as the European modernist starting point to
> which you refer are not likely to be universal.
> My point is that we Homo sapiens sapiens are “social individuals.”
> That is, that one side of the “coin” is “social” and the other is
> “individual.”
> From my perspective, each of us is both - it seems un-necessary and
> inaccurate to argue that we are either one or the other.
> At the same time it seems correct to assert that American stress on
> individualism is as uninspired as a collectivist unitary stance.
> Perceiving humans as “social individuals” seems pretty close to universal
> to me.
>
> I understand that European Philosophy is different than American
> Philosophy.
> But, I enjoy the intellectual interaction of the two views.
> I have spent a considerable part of my formative years living in Europe
> and European country colonies - ie, I am a third-culture kid.
> Which means I really don’t fit well into either the culture from which I
> arose or the culture/s in which I developed.
>
> An holistic perception of the human condition seems more likely to foster
> progress.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>
> On Oct 13, 2019, at 5:08 AM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Waldemar
>
> Acually no.
> The "I" primacy is a typically European modernist starting point and not
> at all universal.
> Still the predominant starting point among within American and European
> middle class discourse.
> But again, not at all universal and not even historically relevant outside
> of the Cartesian-Kantian paradigm that still dominates Western academia but
> which the Internet Revolution is about to explode.
> You see, the rest of the world starts with a tribal we. Usually around the
> Dubar number of 157. Nothing is less than 157.
> So much for "higher perspectives". It rather seems it takes an awful lot
> of effort for western middle class people to arrive where the rest of
> humanity starts from.
> Wilber is a Cartesian. I would much prefer if we could leave that
> religious conviction behind or at least not pretend it is a universally
> valid norm.
> And what does behaviporism prove to us if not that we behave as swarms
> and/or flocks 99,9% of the time? No "individuals" at all in action. But
> swarms and flocks that at most contain dividuals.
> Tthe future belongs to social psychology (like Peterson and Vervaeke) and
> not individual psychology at all. We are all already social and nothing but
> social.
>
> Big love
> Alexander
>
> Den lör 12 okt. 2019 kl 05:46 skrev Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Alexander (Bard):
>>
>> I am reading your works very carefully.
>> And I value the insights they invoke within me.
>> Slowly, to be sure, I am trained in medicine and science, not philosophy.
>> But there are some truths that apply to Puerto Rican mothers of 5, as
>> well as grandfathers of 5, such as myself:
>>
>>      There is an “I”.
>>      There is a relationship of “I” with “I” within “I.”
>>      There is an I-Thou relationship.
>>      There is an I-It relationship.
>>
>> And we all struggle to keep a balance within those.
>> That balance requires looking at things such as paradigms.
>> It won’t put food on the table.
>> But, it might help to do so with elan.
>>
>> Nonetheless, keep poking, brother!
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Waldemar
>>
>>
>>
>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1