Hi Nik,
I would say that the things we observe are instances of ontic. More specifically, they are ontic-epistemic instances a pure awareness. We can think of Kant’s phenomena as the noumena. That is, the experience can be referenced as the thing-in-itself for itself (or however). What it can’t say is anything about anything else. That is, if I experience a coffee cup in front of me, that is a reality of experience. Indeed, we can use a variant of Cartesian foundationalism to say, “I experience….am is”. It seems to me that level of isness taken for itself is an instance of the ontic as I would define it.
Now, this gets tricky relative to before because a common frame for the ontic is mind independent. I do not like that frame at all. Much better is that which exists independent of an external knower. A subtle but important difference.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Podcast on the ontic reality
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.
________________________________
The simplest way to put it is that the ontic is beyond quality or description, it is unobservable in a 3rd-person empirical epistemology, meaning it can't be described in an objective way. We don't see the words we're reading we see the light, the words have a physical, observable ontology in the data, software, and hardware, the light in electricity, what about perception? The actual act of seeing (via one sense or another)? This is the closest we can get to observing the ontic and it's the basis for 1st person empirical epistemologies, but it's purely subjective and phenomenological, even though those are objective cognitive processes that we can observe, we can't say that we're sure we experience the ontic in the same way, and the variability of perception even within distinct parameters tells us that if we are ever going to account for all the potential variables that manipulate or moderate perception, we'll need a quantum computer to do it. To your point about them being simultaneously behind and in front of each other, the ontic is a word for what ontology can only point to, ontology is then a function of epistemology, which is dependent on an ontic to exist in the first place. Simple right? 😅
Sorry this is my favorite thing in the world to talk about.
Regards,
Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 4:43 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Tjarlz,
Thanks for this note and I am not aware of such a text that would compare those concepts.
I will share a bit more, just because I am working how to explain where UTOK is in this domain of inquiry. My route into these issues is through the problem of psychology into what I call the Enlightenment Gap which I resolve via the UTOK metapsychology. And this path was carved first via Justification Systems Theory, which allowed me to identify the Culture-Person plane of existence, and then the ToK System.
I share this because it gives rise to not only a new view of psychological science and practice, but because it gives rise to a new view of science, and then philosophy. And my experience is that it provides a better, clearer and more accurate views than those that have proceeded it.
So, my first entry point on these issues is (a) recognized that humans build systems of justification and that all human explicit language based systems are that; (b) recognize that science is a system of justification, but was grounded on a new kind of epistemological method that allowed for the control of the specific human perceiving knower; and that (c) it produced an ontological picture of the ontic reality that is (i) the most valid we have and (ii) might be somewhat transcendent; that is, it might not be completely dependent on human knowing categories (i.e., if we encountered aliens with similar kinds of capacities for understanding the universe, they likely would have access to the atomic theory of matter).
Given this analysis, it frames science as a kind of epistemology that generates an ontological map of the ontic reality. And these frames are highly interdependent. That is, to talk about the ontic reality without talking about scientific onto-epistemological knowledge is close to useless. That was my take on the philosophy podcast. Or, shall I say, the relationship between his conception of what exists independent of the human mind (i.e., what I call the ontic) and scientific knowledge was not well specified in the conversation (although, consistent with my point, they kept bumping up against it).
The bottom line from UTOK is that the Tree of Knowledge System is a new descriptive metaphysics that maps our scientific onto-epistemologies in relationship to ontic and epistemic processes in the real world that allow for much greater clarity regarding the relationships between matter and mind, subject and object, scientific theory and the real world, social/subjective and scientific knowledge and a host of other potentially confusing categories. If UTOK is correct, then it affords a new view based on puzzle pieces that have been missing in past efforts to put a complete picture of human knowledge, including our knowledge of reality, together in a coherent whole.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of D Charles Williams
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 3:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK Podcast on the ontic reality
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.
________________________________
Hi Gregg,
& Greetings all, my first post here :)
Although I don’t see the term used all that often, I like to speak about “onto-epistemologies”. It seems to me that ontologies and epistemologies dance together into the vanishing point of “the mystery”. I’m sure it’s possible to set up a system that gives clear precedence to one other the other, but it doesn’t feel intuitively or intellectually ’right’ (to me) to do so. It seems that Ontology is always one step behind and one step ahead of epistemology and vice-versa.
There also seem to be a proliferation of names for the ontic “primary reality”… Korzybski’s “event”, Lacan’s “Real”, Bion’s “O”, The Dao, Kant’s “noumenon”, etc. Do you know of any accessible works that comparing and contrasting these various related concepts?
Cheers
Tjarlz
On 16 Jan 2022, at 23:05, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi TOK List,
You may sometimes hear me speak of the “ontic” reality. As noted by this wiki entry, this refers to the world as it exists independent of our beliefs about it. Now, I do not believe much can be said about the ontic reality per se. Why, because what we can say depends on knowledge, not reality. Thus, in the way the UTOK frames it core metaphysics, we develop ontological theories about the ontic reality. Science is the best example of this. That is, science is a kind of epistemological system that generates ontological theories about the ontic reality.
I am sharing this with you in case anyone wants to listen to this Mindscape Podcast, on “What is and isn’t real?” with Jody Azzouni<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.preposterousuniverse.com_podcast_2022_01_03_178-2Djody-2Dazzouni-2Don-2Dwhat-2Dis-2Dand-2Disnt-2Dreal_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ry9ziOTk4ed1PgqaBN3OhDAgjVmRhmiwqG8RuU4YCN0&s=VW2aiKQ8gdnyMAanT49_o9QBiEXa-JsZMEkA9FMkuB8&e=>. Now, for me Azzouni goes about framing these issues all wrong. He is trying to deduce what is real, which he defines very similarly to how I define the concept of the ontic reality, which is reality independent of mind/knowledge about it. However, I think that prior to diving into this question, you have to first set up your metaphysics correctly, and I don’t think Azzouni does that. Certainly, in this podcast, he and Sean Carroll do not do that explicitly. And, I find that the discussion is a bit confused and confusing. Nonetheless, if anyone wanted a basic frame for how to think about the ontic reality, this podcast is a good one to do so. From a UTOK language system perspective, what should happen to frame the conversation is a discussion about metaphysics, then a discussion about the ontic reality in relationship to first, epistemic processes in general, and then one’s large scale ontology framed by an epistemology.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
President of the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration (2022)
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 the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ry9ziOTk4ed1PgqaBN3OhDAgjVmRhmiwqG8RuU4YCN0&s=4YqU8OJzewzo03K7lBuo93L-T8o6k9t9ALrH-EyewOA&e=>
############################
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
|
