Dear Alexander,
Have you ever had toothache?
/ Lene
On 17-10-2019 10:38, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Dear Lene
>
> I don't do morality. I do serious science of the effects of
> communication technologies and information storage and processing.
> Troughout human history.
> The Individual was basically invented by Descartes in 1632 to serve
> the top-down interests of the European nation-state Napoleonic
> structure (as it colonized the world and became an ideological
> hegemony in the 19th century, perfected through the creation of its
> spin-off, the United States of America).
> Humans are social. We come out of a we. We are a massive we. And
> within that massive global we, we are smaller local we's.
> So what philosophy has worked itself toward and neuroscience has
> proved is that there is no continuous singularity anywhere to be
> found. It is a linguistic trickl, not a factual reality. The "you"
> thats society screams at you is just the internalized "I".
> The fact that this system has fostered you to believe that you are an
> individual with freedom and rights only proves how massively
> successful that system has been at establishing that submission. It
> served the system well.
> Now the internet with its flat structure and enormous pressure toward
> bottom-up emergences and "eventologies" are changing the game
> dramatically.
> I have read your books, dear Lene, you should treally read and study
> mine. To avoid further misunderstandings. OK?
>
> Best intentions
> Alexander Bard
>
> Den tors 17 okt. 2019 kl 07:18 skrev Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic
> Bildung / Fremvirke <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> What I hear Alexander say is that digital overlords have the moral
> right to strip us of our individuality and thus our freedom.
>
> - Or did I hear something that wasn't there?
>
> / Lene
>
> On 16-10-2019 19:07, Alexander Bard 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] <mailto:[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=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=EFsqjE80OYXwPHNpQNTlWtpjbsOyFlTcOo77JcFEJNk&s=k1CpwOWgpT3tlpb8yK71Mi4yZc2_34Ui-ERPAToU5C4&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]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of
>> *Alexander Bard
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:45 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <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]
>> <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
>
############################
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
|
