Dear men of so many (shared) words,
Is it only modern Western toddlers who separate their sense of self from
their mother (and others)?
Best,
Lene
On 14-10-2019 11:21, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Dear Gregg
>
> Point taken. And America is also Pragmatism, both Peirce and Whitehead
> are firmly rooted in community and intersubjectivity (inherited from
> Hegel).
> America would do really well with a huge Pragmatist revival as opposed
> to today's one-fight-against-everybody vulgar Cartesianism. Isn't that
> what both you and Zak Stein do already?
> My opposition is therefore against your ORDER of things with
> "Individual" first. Why even start with The Individual? Is that merely
> because Psychologists's sales-pitches always start as self-help
> manuals? Or why else?
> As Wittgenstein says, we are 100% social, every word we use is
> borrowed from somebody else. Priority must be given to "colaboration"
> over "competition" because it is way more correct for humans.
>
> Best
> Alexander
>
> Den sön 13 okt. 2019 kl 14:18 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Bard,
>
> There is much to be said for understanding the human unit as the
> Dunbar “socioont” and we in the US, with our history of embracing
> hyper-individualistic objectivist philosophies like that of Ayn
> Rand need to see that we are defined by intersubjective dialogue
> and the movement of the herd in a way that Rand foolishly denies.
>
> However, I think we can go too far in our rejection of the
> individual. I prefer the Bronfenbrenner socio-ecological lens of
> concentric circles, from the individual to family to the
> clan/tribe/community to the nation to the globe.
>
> But the (in)dividual or subjective agent is a fundamental unit.
> Personality psychology lives in relation to social psych.
>
>
> G
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:09 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Basic interactions.
>
> 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]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|