Dear Chance and Steve

Absolute and total agreement. You get exactly what I've been trying to say.
The good news is that the world is full of amazing wills, drives and
desires.
We just need to get rid of this strange modern obsession with having to
possess these wills, drives and desires for oneself. The Individual is also
The Colonizer and The Exploiter of the world. Didn't work very well, did it?
Thankfully the internet as a current freakshow is also training us to enjoy
the role of voyeurs to the spectacle.
I firmly believe this is valuable training to survive in and even surf on
the digital chaos.
The axis of power and submission ought to be complemented with an axis of
exhibitionism and voyeurism. Which we can then see as productive (Foucault
and Deleuze envisioned this already in the 1970s).
Then we can start to make sense of digital social realtions for real. And
create the Syntheism I have proposed that John Vervaeke now refers to as
"the religion of no religion". A radically relationalist rather than
atomist worldview.
Let's move from the ideal of exploiting the world to imploiting the world
instead.

Best intentions
Alexander Bard

Den tors 17 okt. 2019 kl 00:49 skrev Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]
>:

> Hi ToK list,
>
> It has been a treat to follow this thread.  I believe Steve Q may have
> called attention to a core issue, which is that the empirical understanding
> of the world leaves little room for free well.
>
> Thus, all of our interactions together here are included within the
> manifestation of an  automatic process.
>
> Perhaps I hear Alexander B saying that discomfort many of us experience
> with this perspective is that it clashes with the childhood training we
> receive that there is indeed a separate and individual “I” taking place,
> when in fact we are utterly contextually bound.  Reconciling the two is
> painful.
>
> The reconciliation itself then appears to be an ironic effort.  On good
> days it is comical or enchanting, on bad days it can feel hopeless and
> oppressive.
>
> I understand Waldemar’s mentioning of “I thou” to point to a form of
> cross-contextual sanctuary.  We will never unpack our suitcases fully in
> order to meet each other plainly.  There is not time to do this, and, as
> our previous poster *Mark Stahlman* pointed out, more is added to our
> suitcases indefinitely.
>
> However, we can feel companionship with others who have become aware of
> this ironic situation by experiencing shared recognition of it. Dropping
> the effort of maintaining and negotiating our personality structures,
> contexts, and justifications (if only temporarily), The “I thou” can be
> enormously relaxing.
>
> Best to all,
>
> -Chance
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Steven Quackenbush <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 
> Hello everyone,
>
> I hesitate to jump into this discussion, as I doubt I can do justice to
> the 30+ messages included in this thread.
> But I'd like to return to the first observation made by Waldemar,
>
>
>
>
>
> *...[T]here 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.*
>
> As an ordinary language user, I believe I understand what he's saying,
> since* I do indeed experience* what Waldemar appears to be describing.
> So I might glibly declare that Waldemar is articulating a* raw
> experiential truth.*
>
> Now, suppose I'm talking to a* robot* well versed in the philosophy of
> mind.   This robot could effectively dismantle (or deconsctruct) everything
> Waldemar and I are saying (about the "I", or whatever else).
>
> Gaslighted by this robot, the "two" of us may even come to doubt our *primal,
> subjective experience*.  Indeed, I would be hesitant to put the matter
> this way (as "primal",  "subjective", and "experience" are words with long
> histories).
>
> So what am I to do?
> Well, in the final analysis, I have just one retort:  "You're a robot, and
> I'm not!"
>
> Or to put the matter another way: how do I describe a rainbow to a
> color-blind person?   I can certainly explain color as a scientific concept
> (with references to the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.), but I could never
> help the color-blind actually *see *color.
>
> What if the same thing were true in philosophy?
> What if some of us are "I"s and others of us are not?
> What if *philosophy itself *ceases to be individuated and becomes instead:
>
>    - "*the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and
>    unconscious autobiography*" [Nietzsche]
>
>
> ~ Steve Q.
>
> Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D.
> Associate Provost and Dean of Arts and Sciences
> University of Maine, Farmington
> Farmington, ME 04938
> (207) 778-7518
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:11 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gregg
>>
>> I believe it is better to move discussions on topics like "the death of
>> individualism" to the Intellectual Deep Web.
>> It is also a forum better prepared for heated discussions than the ToK
>> mailing list.
>> The Death of The Individual has been a central topic to European
>> discourse since the 1960s (Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Kristeva etc).
>> But the majority of members of this forum are Americans and psychologists
>> rather than philosophers so it makes better sense to move the topic
>> somewhere else.
>> I personally do not treat "individuals" in my method. I treat people of
>> multiplicity to engage in their own long-term agency as such.
>> In an increasingly digitalized world, this seems to work wonders.
>> "Finding one's true self" is a myth for airport bookshop self-help books.
>> It is not serious science.
>> And it is inceeasingly becoming a burdensome myth for an increasingly
>> bitter digital under class. We must do better and think fresh to get around
>> this question.
>> Those are my ten cents.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander Bard
>>
>> Den ons 16 okt. 2019 kl 13:47 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see this forum as a place for exchanging ideas and exploring “big
>>> picture” visions for the future. I also warn against dismissing and hand
>>> waving, as that too is a waste of time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As Joe M. will clearly note from a sociological point of view, there is
>>> a social systems view and a view of understanding (in)dividuals as being
>>> part of systemic social forces. From such a systems vantage point, I am a
>>> node and am typing out this reply in the web of social network exchanges
>>> that is unfolding. In other words, my behavior can only be fully understood
>>> as part of a larger complex adaptive systems landscape on the
>>> Culture-Person (and emerging digital) plane. To the extent we are plugged
>>> into each other, we all form a web of behavior that ripples through the
>>> universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, much of science has focused too much on individual isolated
>>> parts. The attached manuscript delineates the profound differences in
>>> developmental psychology from what they call a “Split Cartesian
>>> Mechanistic” view and a “Process Relational Paradigm”. My own view informed
>>> via the ToK/PTB perspective is that these are two different lenses to see
>>> the world…one part-into-whole, the other a holistic developmental systems
>>> view. It is a figure-ground dynamic. The ToK suggests that it makes sense
>>> to side with the Relational Process view in that *that view has been
>>> largely missing from the scientific discourse* and it can be now
>>> achieved with much greater relative clarity than in the past. However, it
>>> would not be wise to simply toss out the “part view” as if it did not carry
>>> any utility. An integrative pluralistic sensibility allows one to hold this
>>> dialectic with ease.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexander, I think your rhetoric might be impeding some understanding in
>>> this forum. Those who have not read Syntheism will likely experience your
>>> blanket statements as boarding on the absurd. For example, what does it
>>> mean to say that I treat “individuals” in psychotherapy? The individualized
>>> treatment plan that I started to construct last night with a new
>>> client…what is that? Am I “delusional” when I analyze an individual’s
>>> pattern of development, their patterns of investment and influence and
>>> justification? Clearly, at that level of specificity, you are the one that
>>> needs to defend the claim. I know that you define “dividuals” and
>>> “subjective agents” such that the language games do line up much more than
>>> your rhetoric suggests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, my recommendation is that we should be clear about our meaning to
>>> foster mutual understanding before making broad claims about “suitcase
>>> words” like individualism which mean a host of different things to
>>> different people in different contexts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>>
>>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>>> Professor
>>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>>> 216 Johnston Hall
>>> MSC 7401
>>> James Madison University
>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>>
>>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LAxwoPihgP9yy9IW4GnzXeF-otKBWABLMN2qUo4KaXk&s=kuymmYJfQ7do7pOe-XbLK5lAaVVR6x8lfnHhHq0R77I&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UaRgEZzTXtTzT0nJ_0nScVa8lkAp_FXAF057_fBdqy8&s=PVZVrJSa3su47OL8Hvx1iprUS4_8Guwv814WxMYeElc&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:45 AM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: Basic interactions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Frank and Waldemar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We can either sit and exchange niceties and make this forum a
>>> competition for who shows the most humility. Like a classical salon. Fine.
>>>
>>> Or we could try to move forward and challenge each other in a friendly,
>>> respectful but firm manner. I would definitely prefer the latter. Because I
>>> consider the first option a waste of valuable time.
>>>
>>> When I say that there is social and only social as in relational and
>>> only relational I mean exactly this.
>>>
>>> So where is this dear "Individual" actually located? Where does this
>>> continous undivided Individual reside?
>>>
>>> To me it's beginning to sound like old church ladies who insist that God
>>> must exist ontically because they are only comfortable with God existing
>>> and have never contemplated any alternatives. So they just raise the cloud
>>> where God resides higher and higher until there are no more clouds left to
>>> put him on. In what way is the insistant defense of "The Individual" any
>>> different?
>>>
>>> I see only systems called bodies and systems called brains within those
>>> bodies. And then systems called technologies around those bodies and
>>> brains. And then highly functional delusions of continuity and unity as
>>> "awarenesses" within these systems. But delusions nevertheless.
>>>
>>> Where I guess the burden of evidence lies with you and not with me,
>>> gentlemen!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best intentions
>>>
>>> Alexander Bard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Den tis 15 okt. 2019 kl 22:01 skrev Frank Ambrosio <
>>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> Dear Waldemar,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would not worry much about “entirely missing the point,” Bard’s or
>>> anyone else’s,      because the truth you consistently enact in our
>>> discussions  is intellectual and personal humility, and as far as I can
>>> tell, that pretty much IS the point. Bickering about the comparative merits
>>> of divergent conceptual schemas, whatever their pedigree, is usually unwise
>>> except in rarified cases, because it is to ignore one of the most basic
>>> truths humility imposes: every artifact of human culture, like its
>>> artificer, exists historically, which means its sustainable vitality is
>>> painfully limited and will shortly pass. The fact of death does not make
>>> human existence meaningless by any stretch, but memento mori, it’s a good
>>> idea to keep it in mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All good wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:14 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexander (B):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You could be correct about me - I may have entirely missed  you point.
>>>
>>> It wouldn’t be the first time the obvious flew past me without making
>>> contact - unfortunately, it is probably not the last!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are correct, again, in suggesting that I should read Hegel - but
>>> first I have to learn to read German!
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I’m studying Bard & Søderqvist - with whom I do not entirely
>>> agree or disagree, by the way but from whom I gain a much, much wider
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My argument is more along the lines of Alexander E.
>>>
>>> I favor neither individualism nor collectivism.
>>>
>>> Rather, I recognize that the human condition entails, for each person,
>>> their nature as a “social individual.”
>>>
>>> One whose social side requires an individual to interact with and being
>>> involved by other individuals and the social structure.
>>>
>>> Developing into an individual requires a social structure and
>>> involvement - in the absence of the social structure and function the
>>> “abandoned” orphanage infants did not thrive.
>>>
>>> The social structure and function in any setting requires the
>>> participation of separate (ie, individual) human beings within that social
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> There is no “one” without the “other."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we are using different words and phrases to acknowledge
>>> essentially the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do thank you, again, for commenting.
>>>
>>> It’s our interpersonal interactions that allow me to expand and explore
>>> my horizons - little by little I come to apprehend the human condition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best personal 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 15, 2019, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD
>>>
>>> Associate Professor of Philosophy
>>>
>>> Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship
>>>
>>> Georgetown University
>>>
>>> 202-687-7441
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> ############################
>
> 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