We're open, complex systems with the same system-world-boundary
challenge as all other open, complex systems: whether you are a discrete
entity or a drop dissolving in the ocean depends on the level of
complexity at which you are looking at it--which is, I guess, the whole
point in Gregg's TOK model?
/ Lene
On 15-10-2019 23:49, Waldemar Schmidt wrote:
> Frank:
>
> How nice to hear from you.
> And, thank you for kind and encouraging words.
>
> 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 15, 2019, at 1:00 PM, Frank Ambrosio <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
>>>> <mailto:[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]
>>>> <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]
>>>> <mailto: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]
>>> <mailto: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]
>>> <mailto: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]
>> <mailto: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]
>> <mailto: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]
> <mailto: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
|
