Michael; thank you for that.
As a physician I am frequently asked by patients "should I...?"
I routinely tell them that I do not work in the should-shouldn't axis, which is a moral axis.  I work in the is-isn't axis.
This discussion points to the premise that there is no negative thing.
The "ought" that Michael suggest as existing within the social intersubjective world only exists within some justification systems, and thus must be recognized as being a dependent function of justification systems in general.  It can have no independent existence.
What is of particular interest to me in this vein relates to what E Michael Jones wrote of Sigmund Freud in that (paraphrasing) "(h)e took the confessional (of the Catholic Church) and turned it into the therapy couch (for private gain)."
I get the sense, particularly after watching the recently suggested Daniel Schmachtenberger video talking about (something which might reasonably be considered a) transperspectival perspective, that this appears to be a simple rebranding of spirituality.  I don't recognize any difference whatsoever.
What is interesting is that this (general discourse) appears (to me, still recovering from my formerly apostatic condition) as a (semblance of) group therapy for such recovery from apostasy, in order to regain the hope of faith, in that the recovery of that faith with redeem humanity from the fate which must befall the damned, who suffer from privation from the benefits which must come with that faith.
I would point to "Covid-19," and "Climate Change" as the names of the curses, horsemen, or fates of such damnation, which humanity is to be redeemed of, as (perhaps) motivating the conversation.
Mr. Schmachtenberger famously talks a lot about "sensemaking," as if this were some lost art.
It is not, and cannot be.
Academics verbalize about sensemaking, as if neologisms and philosophical heuristics would magically recover by incantation that art which is incorrectly perceived to have been lost in the distant mists of time.
I would like to present the argument that the Academies have been lost for years, to the Marxists, who themselves are lost, as well.  Looking to lost people like the famous deconstructionists to find the way seems remarkably dim-witted to me.
In short, it makes no sense.
The people have not taken leave of their senses, by my experience of those people on a daily basis.  They frequently appear to be misguided by interested parties, however, which I regard as an intentional shortcoming of those parties for their own particular gain, which would be "evil" (in Thomas Aquinas' understanding), from which they are to be delivered.
In this delivery, which I honestly believe that you, in this discourse, are seeking to provide, it would seem that some thought should be directed towards the Church as a source of Wisdom (of which I read a lot in these threads), for the Church has spent 2000 years working on these problems.   (And the Church is corrupt, as it is an institution of man), (but) (W)e cannot reasonably ignore the products of the works of thousands of years of dedicated work by untold numbers of highly intelligent men and women for the purpose of illuminating our way into the future, it seems to me.
Otherwise, we are left seeking to reinvent the wheel, it would seem.
That makes no sense, either.
When we talk about "ought" in a social sense, it seems like we are talking about governance, and certainly we are hinting at "government," and The Law.
This is where things become pushy-and-shovey very quickly.  Especially when people become concerned about their mortal existence and the mortal existence of their children and their unborn grandchildren, and their progeny, too.  Really, when they become concerned about their immortal soul, as the Church would phrase it.
The question that I would pose to everyone here is how much coercive force is justifiable given such stark potentials as we are considering, and how is it to be governed? 
These seem to be the ultimate questions on the table, at least to me.
Please accept my apologies if I have offered any insult unintentionally.

Bradley

Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author. 

    On Saturday, November 28, 2020, 10:56:32 AM MST, 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 aconclusion 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 ofshared 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 withinintersubjective exchanges with others.  That is to say that the “ideas” of which “oughts” are a part arenot 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
Blog: Values Matter
Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
Academia Home Page 
Constructivist Meetup Series
Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth BurkeIf 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=kwXWzfjzJFra6EHNIJX1m4B1nxB5mDWtakhRYcbcsYg&s=BV1WBZmX4NLwm5shaFmOs1qPNW9pWKmg6PTfPFRYHL0&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