Zak,
  You are, of course, correct. The absence of the developmental view and developmental theorists is definitely one of the most significant weaknesses in the book. If only there were other outstanding developmental theorists out there who could fill that lacuna, then maybe the project could actually have legs and move forward 😊!

  My only defense is that, as I noted in the final sentence, the book is merely an “outline” of the foundational grounding of an emerging scientific humanistic worldview. There is much that needs to be filled in!

  Finally, I appreciate the reference to Brandom. A while back I started to dive into his stuff. I even wrote him a note to try and strike up a conversation with him, but I did not get a reply. He clearly has thought deeply about the justification dynamic and ways that both support and enrich the central insight of JUST.

Best,
Gregg

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Zachary Stein
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 6:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Two Hard Problems

Gregg,

We do see things similarly. Although you don’t mention Piaget or any developmentalists in your wonderful and groundbreaking book  ;-)

Brandom is honing in, as an analytical philosopher, on what you'd call the 4th joint point, or what Brandom’s teacher Sellers called  “the space of reasons.” And he means it, as Hegel means it, that reason (not to be confused with *instrumental rationality*) is the distinguishing feature of the human, by which he means:

the distinctively human social practice of reflectively justifying norms—
of giving and asking for reasons/justifications,
of granting and assuming normative statues/roles.

This is the top of the compound individual’s embodied social-skills stack, which is developmentally unfolded, and it brings us up and out of sentience and into the realms of sapience.

Cue Hegel’s bad infinities and Kant’s radical evil—“we have met the norms and they are ours” as Brandom puts it, to encapsulate the view that with sapience comes *responsibility for/to reality itself.*

That is how bad the meaning crisis possibly is. There is no stopping us from getting quite far away from reality as a result of freely created social agreements, both as to what counts as a reason/justification and *who* is granted (and can grant) which social statues/roles (and their powers).

The trick is to discover what Hegel believed he had discovered (of course, we all know this went wrong). The *key to reason* (philosophers stone) the dialectic, the Logos that is Pathos, which could allow us live well together in the space of reasons, opening out (after history) into the freedom of Spirit.

Or so the story goes.

zak







On Oct 18, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Zak,
  We see this similarly. I think an exchange on the metaphysics of experiential consciousness might be interesting, but more pressing is: What does it mean to be human and how do we educate people accordingly? If only we had more educational philosophers and metapsychologists around! Without addressing this issue, it seems highly plausible that the Digital Identity Problem will spiral out of control.

  One of my former students, Chance, who chimed in earlier, argued that the key was found in the concept ofrelational value. How do we create societies that enable the growth and development of the self in a way that fostered mutual relational value (i.e., from the Matrix, the felt sense of being known and valued by important others)? This was similar to some thinking that Michael Mascolo has done on concern for self and love of other. In its scientific language, the ToK suggests we need to get the “J I I Dynamics” right, that is the justification investment influence dynamics such that folks achieveinner balance/harmony and relational connection.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201601_happiness-2Dis-2Dinner-2Dharmony-2Dand-2Drelational-2Dconnection&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Fsk73jq5AHMiE-ilPwxaI8CYiJCZstxieqPIFWhShys&s=FyA26IJeKEBj7Gc7pU5iIMQv98nJz-Rl0zmWwSUGj9g&e=>

  I am sure folks on this list would love to hear any reflections on the problem of sapience you would be willing to offer…

Peace,
G



From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Zachary Stein
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Two Hard Problems

Hi Gregg,

You would likely find Robert Brandom’s framing of this issue helpful. It is something like:

The (easy) hard problem is about *sentience.* This is the one most everyone goes on about, having to do with *what it is like to be* e.g., a bat etc. That 1st person qualia “magically” arising out of complex meat. (Of course, it only appears to be magical according to bad metaphysics, but that is another email).

The (hard) hard problem is about *sapience.* This one most nobody is tracking, and has to do with *normativity* or *the intersubjective validity of normative status/claims.* Not what is it like to be something, but what does it mean to be a something who is a claimer of intersubjective statues.

You can see how this framing fits well with the ToK system, and is I think a more general frame than "the problem of other minds.”

If we can get people working on the problem of *sapience* then we will have people doing philosophy and psychology again, for real, which would be nice, cause the world is going crazy ;-)

zak





On Oct 18, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Here is my blog for the week:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201910/there-are-two-hard-problems-consciousness-not-one<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201910_there-2Dare-2Dtwo-2Dhard-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness-2Dnot-2Done&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_GU7pjWFDeKry23auW2dHEQoocwNjqiGl-Yz1UUcyHs&s=nvkLo8qgtw829XHc9RgEaGrxGaJi4q5C0o-HosQfris&e=>
Best,
G
############################
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