At some point in our development we become aware of the fact that there is
deep disagreement between human beings regarding the interpretation of
events (figure). Later still, we become aware that there is disagreement
regarding reality itself (ground).
For me, and perhaps others on this listserv, all earthly business and
activities would have to be considered with this awareness in mind. While
many enjoy a stable position within a cultural flow, once we are out of
sync with our school of fish there is a deliberateness to participation
that creates the opportunity for a runaway self-consciousness. Sure, we can
push aside the fundamental situation and drift into waking dreams of our
own, or other's, stories, and this can temporarily soothe the hard edges of
the existential situation. And yet once seen, it seems it cannot be
unseen.
From there we seem to deal with the issue according to our unique arrival
point in space-time. Some of us, through inclination and opportunity, are
thrown into a relationship with physics, and I *cannot* imagine how the
masters of that discipline experiential perceive reality after 40 years of
sensory adaptation to those principles. Others with the deep need to
*determine* or *repair* social reality may end up in disciplines such as
math, religion, philosophy, biology, or psychology. Others still may turn
to mysticism and spiritual practices.
No matter the discipline we were destined to follow, the fundamental
situation is a *relentless presence*. Leave it alone for too long and we
find ourselves as though waking up having fallen asleep while driving.
Concentrate too hard and we feel estranged from the vibrancy of our own
authentic being.
My goal is to develop the most sustainable way of perceiving accurately and
behaving effectively. Gregg's work shows that this is impossible to do
without an internalized justification system that is up to the task of
assimilating all of the known variables in our personal world. It is a
bold ambition to develop such a justification system, and yet when I sit
down, drop my ego, and take in all that I am aware of that is going on, and
with the awareness that this is only the tiniest sliver of the total
comprehensible situation, then I must acknowledge that the present
situation is, by all objective measures, *unnervingly grandiose.* The view
of the fundamental situation is determined by the scope and quality of the
theory one is able to internalize as a justification system.
I cannot speak to how Gregg would fare amongst professional modern
philosophers. If the structure of the profession is the same as
psychology's, then at the highest levels it is a highly elaborate and
exclusive dance. However, for those of us who fell into the profession of
psychology out of that desire to determine or repair the discrepancies
observed in social reality, it seems obvious to us that the *human knower* must
be accounted for in the equation. The Justification Hypothesis allows us
to become self aware of the mechanism of justification, which then allows
us, with confidence, to factor that mechanism into any subsequent
interpretations of the fundamental situation.
The establishment of such solid ground is a relief. In the same way that
if we were trekking up a tall and perilous mountain, we would seek out a
secure and stable position to set camp at the highest level possible. From
this camp we can safely survey horizontal and vertical terrain, and return
to that point for orientation.
*Mark*, I cannot track it down, but I have memory that Marshal McLuhan
commented that the popularity of Zen Buddhism in Japan was a consequence of
an intolerably chaotic social reality. That the retention of sanity
demanded that consciousness contract to the immediacy of the knowable, and
verifiable, present moment situation. From my humble position in
space-time, I believe that we are being thrashed around by intense,
unregulated quantities of information and social influence. Along a
continuum, those that are temperamentally Open to Experience will find
themselves energetically expanding and complexifying, whereas those that
are temperamentally conservative in their orientation will be contracting
and hardening.
Zen, and similar forms, becomes a refuge when one wishes to retain
integrity of the self in the midst of the bombardment you eloquently
articulate when describing the effects of media.
I am saddled with an early psychic imprinting of a Gnostic-Christian
worldview and several seasons of Mattel's *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*.
Advertisers know this, as they are now trying to sell me Honda cars by
looping back on the religion they created for me in the first place:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3I9Su9Sy6Ao&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=h2Re9J9cQ0U4Zkx9Xy6AIn9ydY5Ua_uwMceGcdfL-I8&s=z0cVYBwHkat7BJGE4dR1vZM_2fjvLXqbjT4iz0n_u6k&e=
For me, the Justification Hypothesis is base camp that allows me observe,
meta-cognitively, the ways in which the social maelstrom rapidly
reconfigures my beliefs, assumptions, and social positioning. As you say,
everything must go, but one thing that we know will *not* go is the
justification mechanism itself, which is built upon other tiered and
reliable principles of human/animal/biological/physical nature.
I hope everyone is doing well!
-Chance
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:43 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Gregg &al:
>
> As has been noted many times on this list, psychology just isn't
> "theoretical" anymore. It has become overwhelmingly "clinical."
>
> But then there is Gregg. While he is trying to generate a *new*
> "philosophy" (from bits-and-pieces of old philosophies), even he has
> to couch his activity in terms of the clinical implications. Such is
> psychology today.
>
> Gregg is no philosopher. He has, however, read Will Durant's 1926
> "The Story of Philosophy." My guess is that didn't help too much.
>
> Alas, there is a thriving field known as "philosophical psychology"
> and, as it turns out, one branch of that field has been busy working
> on the key topics of perception for quite a while now.
>
> They call themselves "Analytical Thomists" (yes, 100 years ago that
> would have been an oxomoron <g>) and one of their key textbooks is
> available for free (if you don't might tapping into the wonderful
> world of libgen.pw).
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__libgen.pw_item_adv_5a1f05a43a044650f5136f02&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4TiEKmwGbyfT9EP0D-JrfOJBwtn0YJ9uRinWjy_RPW4&s=kq0SUp4FEvHFVQeg0dQvKgcukYWxRT9HaQnSa8Ra9Qk&e=
> (or, if this
> doesn't work, just enter the title and get another link for
> downloading.)
>
> Anthony Lisska's 2016 "Aquinas's Theory of Perception: An Analytical
> Reconstruction" is the latest monograph from this group. It explains
> itself this way --
>
> "This book is the result of several years spent undertaking research
> and writing on the difficult issues surrounding Thomas Aquinas’s
> theory of sensation and perception. It presents an attempt to
> ‘reconstruct’ and interpret the texts of Thomas on sense knowledge.
> The emphasis in this inquiry, accordingly, is directed towards
> developing a philosophical analysis of the internal and the external
> senses, with particular reference to the internal sense of the vis
> cogitativa. Approaching the texts of Aquinas from contemporary
> analytic philosophy, this study suggests a modest ‘innate’ or
> ‘structured’ interpretation for the role of this inner sense faculty.
> Furthermore, this analysis sheds light on the workings of what Aquinas
> calls the ‘agent intellect’ (intellectus agens) and its corresponding
> cognitive process of abstraction. Inner sense and abstraction are two
> concepts in general Aristotelian epistemology and philosophy of mind
> that require rethinking and tough-minded analysis."
>
> I highly recommend it . . . !!
>
> Mark
>
> ############################
>
> 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
|
