Dear Joan,
/Indeed within the existing scope of knowledge it has to be decided
whether consciousness is either an entity, property/relationship./
/Truly yours
Deepak Loomba/
//
On 11/6/2020 4:48 PM, Joan Walton 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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Gregg
>
> Thank you for your response. I'm not sure whether our sense-making
> can line up or not, but as I think it is important to cooperatively
> try to make sense of the crazy world we live in, and the significance
> of our individual lives within that world, then I'll explain a little
> of where I am coming from. At the end of this email, I copy a short
> section from a paper I wrote, which contextualises some of the points
> made in the email.
>
> Firstly, I think the implications of quantum physics for a new
> worldview are phenomenal - that is a worldview which
> fundamentally challenges the mechanistic, Newtonian one that dominates
> and influences an increasingly neoliberal politicised world. What
> quantum physics does is challenges the separatist, determinist,
> reductive ontological assumptions of classical science, and instead
> shows us that we live in an entangled, inter-relational universe,
> where the observer does not exist independently of the world s/he
> observes. I don't think we can separate out 'macro-science' and
> quantum physics, because they are both emergent from the same
> underlying reality, but their underlying assumptions are in fact
> mutually exclusive (separate v entangled, certainty v uncertainty, etc).
>
> In the classical, Newtonian worldview, it is possible to believe that
> (inanimate) matter is primary, and that consciousness (life) is a late
> emergent property of matter. Am I understanding your model correctly,
> where you have 'matter' at the base, and 'life' as emerging from
> matter? You do not mention consciousness, but - and correct me if I
> am wrong - I am assuming that in your model, consciousness emerges
> with 'life' - and perhaps, in line with the Newtonian view,
> consciousness is a by-product of the brain?
>
> Although there are many interpretations of quantum physics, a central
> one is that it questions the nature of Consciousness (written with a
> capital C to differentiate it from the individualised form of
> consciousness we all experience) - with some physicists suggesting
> that the only way to explain the double-slit experiment is if you
> accept that particles have Consciousness. In other words, it is
> possible that Consciousness is primary, fundamental, universal - which
> would change everything. Your timeline starts with the Big Bang - but
> what existed before then? Possibly Consciousness - and if
> Consciousness is a living dynamic energy, and we are all an expression
> of that fundamental Consciousness, then in fact Life would precede matter?
>
> In other words, the theory is, that if the universe were destroyed by
> a nuclear bomb right now, the physical world might be destroyed, but
> Consciousness in its essential form, would not be. It is in that
> context that Max Planck's quote makes sense.
>
> John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, develops this thinking when he
> states: "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the
> world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be
> upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory
> universe’ ".
>
> I'm interested in exploring what it means to live in a 'participatory
> universe' with an ontological assumption that we, as living beings,
> are essentially creative expressions of a 'participatory
> consciousness'. Which means that how we experience each present
> moment, the choices we make, right here, right now, influence the
> reality that is created. There are no inbuilt laws, no predetermined
> reality, the future is open to us, and will reflect the extent to
> which we are able to 'tune in' and resonate with the fundamental
> consciousness which is the source of our being. And in that sense,
> the quantum principles of entanglement, interconnectedness and
> interrelatedness become central. This becomes important when we
> think of problems like climate change, environmental degradation,
> terrorism, the many forms of abuse and oppression that epitomise our
> world - all stem from perceptions of separation and alienation, and a
> lack of connection to each other and the wider planet.
>
> Where does this tie in with psychology, which I know is your main
> interest? Well, with the kind of ontological foundation that I am
> proposing, I see psychology, the different sciences, sociology,
> politics, economics, etc etc as all being interrelated, and it is
> important to see each discipline in the context of all the rest -
> again to follow any one of these without attention to their
> relationship to all the others, merely exacerbates the sense of
> separation which I think is core to all world problems.
>
> If this is not really relevant to your interests, please do say! But
> it does worry me that there are so many intelligent people on this
> planet, many with great ideas about what needs to be done to make the
> world a better place (and listening to Trump in the last 24 hours, we
> definitely need more intelligent alternatives), and with theoretical
> frameworks (such as your own) which aim to enhance understanding and
> wisdom. However if we don't make some attempt to 'join up' these
> different approaches, and translate these into some form of
> cooperative (including political) action, then our individual voices
> will be drowned out by the tsunami of ignorance, selfishness and
> self-centredness etc, that threatens to overwhelm us.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Joan
>
> Quantum physics has revealed that reality is much more complex, and
> far less easily comprehensible, than had appeared to be the case when
> it was believed that the Laws of Newtonian Science were applicable to
> all of reality.
>
> Scientists have recognised the problems that are inherently
> challenging in this. Einstein (1879-1955) summed it up as follows:
>
> We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory
> pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the
> phenomena of light, but together they do." (Einstein & Infeld
> 1938:262-263).
>
> **
>
> John Wheeler (1911-2008), a theoretical physicist and a colleague of
> Einstein’s, reflected on the very different worldview that emerged
> from quantum physics:
>
> Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world
> exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be
> upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory
> universe’. (1994: 126)
>
> Wheeler suggests that, rather than being passive bystanders in the
> world, we are instead active participants, who create rather than
> discover the universe with which we are interacting.
>
> In summary, quantum physics reveals that we live in a
> non-deterministic universe, where it is not possible to predict with
> certainty, but only in terms of probabilities; and where there is no
> independent observer, as the act of observing and measuring reality
> changes the nature of that reality. The phenomenon of entanglement
> identifies that the influence of one particle on another cannot be
> explained by cause and effect, but instead indicates a relational
> interconnectedness that can only be understood within the context of
> the whole in which both particles are located.
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:15, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> Thanks for this note. I appreciate your question/point about
> ontology. I am somewhat familiar with Barad’s work, but did not
> dive deeply to see how much it aligns with my own. I will say that
> think there are many different issues here that need to be
> disentangled. For example, I was not sure if you were talking
> about scientific knowledge or other forms/domains/claims
> pertaining to knowledge. The issues are a bit different depending
> on the frame.
>
> If we are talking about our scientific knowledge of the
> universe, the ToK System aligns quite well with Roy Bhaskar’s work
> in critical realism. He does good work separating epistemology
> from ontology. Note that most of his focus is on macro science and
> everyday knowledge. Things are a bit different if we move into the
> quantum domain, so I would need to know which domain you were
> focused on.
>
> Here is the basic map of scientific knowledge and reality afforded
> by the ToK System. It characterizes Matter, Life, Mind, and
> Culture as planes of existence, which represents the ontic
> reality. It identifies science as a kind of justification system
> that generates ontological claims about the ontic reality via
> epistemological methods that justify those claims.
>
> Given this map of the ontic reality and scientific
> onto-epistemology, I don’t know how to interpret Max Planck’s quote.
>
> I would welcome your interpretation to see if our sensemaking
> lines up here or not.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Joan Walton
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>
> *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 __
>
> I was interested in a sentence in the email below: "I am noting
> an interesting set of tensions is emerging between folks in the
> group who emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded
> in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v 3)
> intersubjective/language)".
>
> I would be interested in the ontological assumptions that you and
> others consider inform these epistemological positions? So often,
> ontology gets explicitly ignored (whilst implicitly influencing
> everything).
>
> I'm very interested in the idea that separation of any kind is an
> illusion, and am exploring the idea of the 'inseparability of the
> knower and known'. I don't know if you are familiar with Karen
> Barad's /Meeting the Universe Halfway - quantum physics and the
> entanglement of matter and meaning/, and her concept of
> 'ethico-onto-epistemology' where ethics, ontology and epistemology
> are entangled. In exploring these ideas, my starting point is
> that everything starts with our experience (hence
> phenomenological); and we have no experience without consciousness
> - so consciousness is fundamental to all that we think, say and
> do. So our beliefs about the nature of consciousness become
> integral to all other ontological and epistemological issues. Max
> Planck's “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter
> as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind
> consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we
> regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (1932: /Where is
> Science Going). /
>
> But we need to start with our experiences of consciousness, and
> share those experiences, with any theories grounded in, and
> resonating with, those first person experiences.
>
> Within this context, my sense is that selecting an epistemological
> position from the three you identify is in itself a form of
> separation, which we need to try to move beyond?
>
> I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it there. Sorry, I do not
> have the space to read all the emails on this list, though I read
> a fair number, and I may be writing about stuff you've already
> covered, or is not particularly relevant to your main points of
> discussion, but just thought I would give a quick response to that
> section which caught my attention.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Joan
>
> /
>
> /
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 10:52, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his story
> regarding the problem of value in psychology. It affirmed for
> me strongly how fraught the problems of simply applying the
> methodological language game of MENS is to human psychology,
> as it comes with many different “value parameters” that can
> quickly be overlooked and hidden, and extreme assumptions of
> “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the methods.
>
> My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK System
> instead of empirical methodology as the language game of MENS.
> The reason is obviously, metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For
> example, it was clear that the exchange, as all the TOK
> Community exchanges have been, along with virtually all other
> zoom exchanges, take place on the Culture-Person plane of
> existence and involve justification, investment and influence
> dynamics. In the broad sense, Steve shared his justification
> narrative for his struggles with the justifications that
> empirical psychology, especially trait personality psychology,
> offer.
>
> Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat. The
> problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the right
> metaphysical map of human psychology. The “traits” of the Big
> Five are, indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge over
> the course of development. There are genetic differences that
> track onto behavioral dispositional differences, although the
> road is complicated and filled with feedback loops, such that
> genes clearly don’t cause traits.
>
> I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory of
> “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for talking about
> our entire subject matter. And, ala Mike’s arguments, that
> does need to be intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW, I
> am noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between
> folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions
> that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2)
> objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language).
>
> The question I pose: What is the proper language game for
> human psychology? For me, the metapsychology provided by UTOK
> provides the best way forward. For starters, it shines the
> light on the Enlightenment Gap
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=meyfxoGp13Dr61ajBU9icCoVaWoi7x-1EVnbsJSORMs&e=>
> and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was in the
> shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve found his
> “is-ought” problem. And the proper way forward is not via the
> empirical methods of science, but first, a language game that
> gets the field of inquiry clear. We were headed in that
> direction near the end: What are the/needs/ we have as
> Primates? How do we /justify/ our selves as Persons?
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> 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 the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=DhghFF4CRqfk1Kv2vt-zYOQMUvFVU0sqDrpG7PSbFyY&s=dwJJpqFTdTnIUn4Kp5tqcdbq9vp3Rp79uJa9Sjmi7Mk&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=g0V3gh806uhoNKQyWv1SB_52tEzR45nG9MsiUdzIu2U&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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
|