Hi everyone,
I'm glad to see that the perennial is-ought problem is getting the
attention it deserves on this listserv! For the most part, I don't think
psychologists feel the weight of the problem. I'll cite Kohlberg as a
noteable exception (as his account of moral development can be read as the
progressive de-yoking of* is* and *ought*).
Comments:
- Nick writes: "There only IS, there is no ought."
- There's a sense in which I agree with this. The "ought" lacks
ontic being. It* is not. *All we can say about it is that it *should
be.*
- I think we are making a category mistake when we question the*
existence* of Value (akin to asking about the volume of a triangle).
- We can indeed speak of "values" as existing states of affairs
(as when we compare the ideologies that inform the thinking
of liberals and
conservatives in the United States). But these are simply values
considered as facts. Value *as such* is left untouched in these
discussions. In the end, the question is not "what *do* I value",
but rather, "what *should* I value?"
- Michael writes: "Oughts are created in the very process of our
intersubjective engagement with each other"
- I agree, at least insofar as intersubjective engagement (the
cultural dimension of human experience) gives rise to the
problem of value.
- From this point of view, an important question concerns why the
problem is ignored (or deemed irrelevant) by otherwise thoughtful
individuals.
- For some, I suspect that a tendency to deny the reality of
the "ought" is a healthy response to an Other who imposes
(or threatens to
impose) ego-dystonic values. In other words, standing
against the "ought"
may be a first step on the path to spiritual freedom. I'm
reminded here of
the second of Nietzsche's "three metamorphoses" (see link
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nietzsche.holtof.com_Nietzsche-5Fthus-5Fspake-5Fzarathustra_I-5F01.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rVhOmXU3MCP8htFkeCtogMLYieVZAI38mxfKDkvztLo&s=_RU4xYbAM63ZwWu4NHzbrD2Lo_lZQqm609kzYB166fw&e= >).
But, needless to say, the "ought" so denied is not the
Ought that *ought
to be*.
- For others, a failure to appreciate the weight of the
is-ought problem might be attributable to the fact that
the problem is
truly meaningless* in the context of their experience*. How
do we explain the concept of color to a person blind since
birth? How do we explain Value to someone who has never
really been
anything other than *what they are.*
- I'm reminded here of Sartre's discussion of the role that
generative relationships (e.g., parenting) play in
encouraging individuals
to cross "the barrier of the moment" and consider their
lives in relation
to a valuable future.
- According to Sartre (1971/1981), “if later on, with a
little luck, [the child] can say: ‘my life has a
purpose, I have found a
purpose in my life,’ it is because the parents’
love, their creation and
expectation…has revealed his existence to him as a
movement toward an
end...He is the conscious arrow that is awakened in
mid-flight and
discovers, simultaneously, the distant archer, the
target, and the
intoxication of flight” (p. 133).
- Simply put, the individual's subjective experience of
time as unfolding toward a meaningful future is
contingent upon the fact
that his/her existence was already meaningful to
someone else.
- This, I think, is an important aspect of what Michael
refers to as "our intersubjective engagement with
each other".
When these relationships break down (e.g., when I am
little more than an *object* in the eyes of the Other),
the is-ought distinction collapses with it.
- All this has stunning implications: The is-ought problem
is not really a "philosophical" problem at all. Or, if you
prefer, there
are psychosocial conditions that must be met in order for a person to
participate in this sort of philosophical inquiry.
~ Steve Q.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 4:31 PM Andrea Zagaria <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Beautifully said, Micheal.
>
> I merely dissent on the juxtaposition of natural vs human/social sciences.
> Humans are natural beings, so the symbolization ability is inherently
> natural. Don`t get me wrong: there is no doubt an epistemological emergence
> in the cultural dominion due to something like Gregg`s JH (he would
> probably argue for an onto_epistemicological emergence, I nevertheless
> prefer to focus only on a epistemological plane, as I have some concerns
> with ontological emergentism). Social sciences are legitimately separated
> from natural sciences. However, I have some concerns in labelling morality
> as something that is not natural. Maybe it should be better to describe it
> as something that needs more than a naturalistic paradigm to be
> satisfactorily explained, I won't question you on that. But that morality
> is not natural, that doesn't sound convincing.
>
> Neither I am an advocate of neuroethics, for the record. Social sciences
> are on a different plane of
> explanation (connected to " lower " planes, though not determined by
> them).
>
> A beautiful essay by the philosopher Alex Morgan came to my mind
> ("representations gone mental"). He argues that symbolization is present
> not only in animals but also in plants and maybe in things as well. As
> always, the problem is that we do not have a unanimous definition of what a
> symbol is.
>
> In TOK`s terms, however, symbolic justification is uniquely human.
> Problem is, we do not exactly know what a justification is. As Gregg knows,
> I have my personal formulation (a proposition aimed at explaining why), but
> perhaps I am going too far....
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Andrea
>
>
> Il sab 28 nov 2020 21:38 Greg Thomas <[log in to unmask]> ha scritto:
>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> Thanks, Michael, for bringing up insights by Kenneth Burke. He was a
>> favorite of two of my key intellectual and cultural influences, Ralph
>> Ellison and Albert Murray.
>>
>> Here's a post-election essay in which I refer to Burke also:
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tuneintoleadership.com_blog_election-2Dreflections-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dblues-2Didiom&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rVhOmXU3MCP8htFkeCtogMLYieVZAI38mxfKDkvztLo&s=VpmN18tS1QwmZUh-FdqCv3U18LMk3Jz27bjUQP-o78E&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tuneintoleadership.com_blog_election-2Dreflections-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dblues-2Didiom&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QscKv3YjvxhGbrSz5LurOMaJrmEROKMKND9yQAlFo3Q&s=S9KxYbM6riQ0w4B1o0JJuKz510kDBH4L0rgFqNUlbKk&e=>
>>
>> Greg Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 12:56 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Nick and All:
>>>
>>> Nick: I read your Is-Ought Fallacy essay with interest.
>>>
>>> I will focus only on the central point as it relates to the is-ought
>>> fallacy. You write:
>>>
>>> There only IS, there is no ought. There can’t be an ought outside of an
>>> idea, which is a conclusion subjectively derived either mentally or
>>> biologically to perpetuate a belief system or evolutionary process,
>>> respectively and very generally speaking in a mind and matter dialectic.
>>>
>>>
>>> In his famous "definition of man" [sic], Kenneth Burke, building on
>>> Spinoza, remarked that “there is no negative in nature”. That is, there is
>>> only “there” in nature — there is no “not there”. The “not there” is
>>> provided by symbol using animals. With the capacity to build symbols,
>>> humans (and some other animals) are capable of inventing the negative — the
>>> “no — the “not there”. And with the “not there” — this wonderful invention
>>> of symbol using (and mis-using) animals, comes the capacity for morality —
>>> that is, the sense of what is “not there” but *should* or *ought *to be
>>> there.
>>>
>>> In this way, I would suggest that Nick is right that there is no ought
>>> in the natural world — no reason why the tiger ought not to eat the lamb.
>>> However, there are oughts in the human world — in the human world of *shared
>>> symbolically-mediated experience*. Oughts are forms of evaluation
>>> (what the philosopher Charles Taylor calls “strong evaluations”) . They are
>>> brought into existence through the human capacity for symbolization as it
>>> occurs within *intersubjective* exchanges with others. That is to say
>>> that the “ideas” of which “oughts” are a part are *not* simply
>>> subjective constructions; ideas are not private experiences that are
>>> encased within individual persons. Ideas have their basis in the human
>>> capacity for symbolic and *intersubjective* (that is
>>> “inter-experiential) engagement with each other. Oughts are created in the
>>> very process of our intersubjective engagement with each other: I take the
>>> bread out of your mouth; you resist, cry, strike out; I feel empathy, fear
>>> or the like. We now have the task of figuring out how we ought coordinate
>>> our needs. This brings us to the oughts of morality.
>>>
>>> And so, I suggest that oughts exist — not the the natural world, but in
>>> the intersubjective world of human relations. Although the intersubjective
>>> world is constructed, it is as real as the material world. It just exists
>>> in our human experience.
>>>
>>> All my very best,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D. *Academic Director, Compass Program
>>> Professor, Department of Psychology
>>> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
>>> 978.837.3503 (office)
>>> 978.979.8745 (cell)
>>>
>>>
>>> Political and Interpersonal Conflict Website: Creating Common Ground
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=dgTa_pW0C9MTBqjmeOfFCBWMAgWLLxS5z7t9gDbZ0d0&e=>
>>> Blog: Values Matter
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=LwOrxJ8xvwG1edjvJ2-uZQSdwDuU8bF_EDetto7rCtI&e=>
>>> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=hoRbCyL4HmDFe3bi-4iNDNl96g-XtkQSw9mTzO7XoBo&e=>
>>> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=gOFU3lvnXNjFnp7sJV-3BhanDrtg2wRVuQyQ7wmV_8I&e=>
>>> Academia Home Page
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=j01BbHSTUCVYFR7RGPc9Zabc531p4JBJdkiWaDFturk&e=>
>>>
>>> Constructivist Meetup Series
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=hC0cpAZOxmCox7_jGJJ0uqAYfvW9JbR9ahatrPDewlU&e=>
>>>
>>> *Things move, persons act.* -- Kenneth Burke
>>> *If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well*. -- Donald Hebb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Well Gregg, that does appear to be the question doesn't it? I imagine
>>> the 1st-person perspective equivalent to what you're describing as me being
>>> able to see in all directions, and based on what is perceived make attempts
>>> to look at itself by those same perceptual processes. Like the hole in a
>>> donut trying to see itself as the donut and the hole simultaneously.
>>> Although you may not be satisfied with my answer, which of course comes
>>> from a nondual perspective, I hope you can see the value of the position I
>>> take in finding an answer from the position you take, I believe therein
>>> lies the key, a sort of nondual empiricism.
>>>
>>> But I think we'd agree that the situation you've described is our
>>> current state of affairs (i.e, literally all of your work to systematize
>>> knowledge and more). I think that this kind of barrier is in our definition
>>> of ourselves. "We" can't get that view as individual human beings or forms
>>> of life. The systems, ecological and otherwise, that allow life to exist
>>> also can't get that view. They are two sides of the same coin, and we are
>>> that coin. We are that unknown knower. I am this (a human, secondarily
>>> identified as "Nik") so that I can know that (apparently external reality),
>>> and I am that (the reality) so that I can know/be this (the apparently
>>> separate individual human identified as "Nik"). To define my existence
>>> according to only what I am conscious of or can be made conscious of (our
>>> existing knowledge systems) doesn't appreciate the limitations of the human
>>> organism, nor does it give credence to the omnipotence of existence itself.
>>>
>>> I was free writing about this earlier in thinking about Is-Ought, I
>>> figure I'll format into an essay but I've attached it below. It may better
>>> address your question if I am understanding it correctly. Quite a
>>> thought-provoking discussion!
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 9:54 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nik. As you know, I am a big fan.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my question:
>>>>
>>>> What if the object you are looking at is an evolving 7 dimensional set
>>>> of nested cones that we are both inside of but trying to get an outside
>>>> view of?
>>>>
>>>> (To get seven plus the inside/out, there are three space, one time in
>>>> Matter, which is four, then there the superimposed Life, Mind, and Culture
>>>> dimensions, then there is the scientist that is from the inside trying to
>>>> be on the outside, the there is the Imaginary Garden perspective that
>>>> factors the scientific knower perspective in then out which then collapses
>>>> into wisdom energy)
>>>>
>>>> Hope folks have a good break 😄✌️.
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 28, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>> content is safe.
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Greetings all!
>>>>
>>>> I hope everyone was able to enjoy some sort of festivities with loved
>>>> ones in recent days.
>>>>
>>>> Given the complex nature of the varied listserv discussions and
>>>> community presentations over the past few months in particular, I thought
>>>> I'd share this short (7min) bit of wisdom spoken by the brilliant Daniel
>>>> Schmachtenberger. Enjoy!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_ZNcyc-5FsEtpU&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rVhOmXU3MCP8htFkeCtogMLYieVZAI38mxfKDkvztLo&s=k6f4ShjNndiEdVali0Swk2lWc0RETglXeepqGUnTZRY&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_ZNcyc-5FsEtpU&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zPCtsvHTO1_srLNBYxiLq3MphYKIqpWTRXplqU9H_fQ&s=vFydBqoN6IlVrdLwkI3llciIB4XYhpFzJYGOo2OUlDQ&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> <The Is-Ought Fallacy_Free Writing1.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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
|
