What I hear Alexander say is that digital overlords have the moral right
to strip us of our individuality and thus our freedom.
- Or did I hear something that wasn't there?
/ Lene
On 16-10-2019 19:07, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Dear Gregg
>
> I believe it is better to move discussions on topics like "the death
> of individualism" to the Intellectual Deep Web.
> It is also a forum better prepared for heated discussions than the ToK
> mailing list.
> The Death of The Individual has been a central topic to European
> discourse since the 1960s (Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Kristeva
> etc).
> But the majority of members of this forum are Americans and
> psychologists rather than philosophers so it makes better sense to
> move the topic somewhere else.
> I personally do not treat "individuals" in my method. I treat people
> of multiplicity to engage in their own long-term agency as such.
> In an increasingly digitalized world, this seems to work wonders.
> "Finding one's true self" is a myth for airport bookshop self-help
> books. It is not serious science.
> And it is inceeasingly becoming a burdensome myth for an increasingly
> bitter digital under class. We must do better and think fresh to get
> around this question.
> Those are my ten cents.
>
> Best intentions
> Alexander Bard
>
> Den ons 16 okt. 2019 kl 13:47 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I see this forum as a place for exchanging ideas and exploring
> “big picture” visions for the future. I also warn against
> dismissing and hand waving, as that too is a waste of time.
>
> As Joe M. will clearly note from a sociological point of view,
> there is a social systems view and a view of understanding
> (in)dividuals as being part of systemic social forces. From such a
> systems vantage point, I am a node and am typing out this reply in
> the web of social network exchanges that is unfolding. In other
> words, my behavior can only be fully understood as part of a
> larger complex adaptive systems landscape on the Culture-Person
> (and emerging digital) plane. To the extent we are plugged into
> each other, we all form a web of behavior that ripples through the
> universe.
>
> In addition, much of science has focused too much on individual
> isolated parts. The attached manuscript delineates the profound
> differences in developmental psychology from what they call a
> “Split Cartesian Mechanistic” view and a “Process Relational
> Paradigm”. My own view informed via the ToK/PTB perspective is
> that these are two different lenses to see the world…one
> part-into-whole, the other a holistic developmental systems view.
> It is a figure-ground dynamic. The ToK suggests that it makes
> sense to side with the Relational Process view in that /that view
> has been largely missing from the scientific discourse/ and it can
> be now achieved with much greater relative clarity than in the
> past. However, it would not be wise to simply toss out the “part
> view” as if it did not carry any utility. An integrative
> pluralistic sensibility allows one to hold this dialectic with ease.
>
> Alexander, I think your rhetoric might be impeding some
> understanding in this forum. Those who have not read Syntheism
> will likely experience your blanket statements as boarding on the
> absurd. For example, what does it mean to say that I treat
> “individuals” in psychotherapy? The individualized treatment plan
> that I started to construct last night with a new client…what is
> that? Am I “delusional” when I analyze an individual’s pattern of
> development, their patterns of investment and influence and
> justification? Clearly, at that level of specificity, you are the
> one that needs to defend the claim. I know that you define
> “dividuals” and “subjective agents” such that the language games
> do line up much more than your rhetoric suggests.
>
> So, my recommendation is that we should be clear about our meaning
> to foster mutual understanding before making broad claims about
> “suitcase words” like individualism which mean a host of different
> things to different people in different contexts.
>
> Peace,
>
> G
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> 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 my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sXY2F3BbQ_K6jvaGL2Krh7IBLnnH_RaDaYyTHljJokk&s=1SQ5ZY5-Ui-4MinlXWlVQereWMHKJ1f6EdfkqaB8Ids&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UaRgEZzTXtTzT0nJ_0nScVa8lkAp_FXAF057_fBdqy8&s=PVZVrJSa3su47OL8Hvx1iprUS4_8Guwv814WxMYeElc&e=>
>
> *From:*tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:45 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Basic interactions.
>
> Dear Frank and Waldemar
>
> We can either sit and exchange niceties and make this forum a
> competition for who shows the most humility. Like a classical
> salon. Fine.
>
> Or we could try to move forward and challenge each other in a
> friendly, respectful but firm manner. I would definitely prefer
> the latter. Because I consider the first option a waste of
> valuable time.
>
> When I say that there is social and only social as in relational
> and only relational I mean exactly this.
>
> So where is this dear "Individual" actually located? Where does
> this continous undivided Individual reside?
>
> To me it's beginning to sound like old church ladies who insist
> that God must exist ontically because they are only comfortable
> with God existing and have never contemplated any alternatives. So
> they just raise the cloud where God resides higher and higher
> until there are no more clouds left to put him on. In what way is
> the insistant defense of "The Individual" any different?
>
> I see only systems called bodies and systems called brains within
> those bodies. And then systems called technologies around those
> bodies and brains. And then highly functional delusions of
> continuity and unity as "awarenesses" within these systems. But
> delusions nevertheless.
>
> Where I guess the burden of evidence lies with you and not with
> me, gentlemen!
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander Bard
>
> Den tis 15 okt. 2019 kl 22:01 skrev Frank Ambrosio
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Dear Waldemar,
>
> I would not worry much about “entirely missing the point,”
> Bard’s or anyone else’s, because the truth you
> consistently enact in our discussions is intellectual and
> personal humility, and as far as I can tell, that pretty much
> IS the point. Bickering about the comparative merits of
> divergent conceptual schemas, whatever their pedigree, is
> usually unwise except in rarified cases, because it is to
> ignore one of the most basic truths humility imposes: every
> artifact of human culture, like its artificer, exists
> historically, which means its sustainable vitality is
> painfully limited and will shortly pass. The fact of death
> does not make human existence meaningless by any stretch, but
> memento mori, it’s a good idea to keep it in mind.
>
> All good wishes,
>
> Frank
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:14 PM Waldemar Schmidt
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Alexander (B):
>
> You could be correct about me - I may have entirely missed
> you point.
>
> It wouldn’t be the first time the obvious flew past me
> without making contact - unfortunately, it is probably not
> the last!
>
> You are correct, again, in suggesting that I should read
> Hegel - but first I have to learn to read German!
>
> Meanwhile, I’m studying Bard & Søderqvist - with whom I do
> not entirely agree or disagree, by the way but from whom I
> gain a much, much wider understanding.
>
> My argument is more along the lines of Alexander E.
>
> I favor neither individualism nor collectivism.
>
> Rather, I recognize that the human condition entails, for
> each person, their nature as a “social individual.”
>
> One whose social side requires an individual to interact
> with and being involved by other individuals and the
> social structure.
>
> Developing into an individual requires a social structure
> and involvement - in the absence of the social structure
> and function the “abandoned” orphanage infants did not
> thrive.
>
> The social structure and function in any setting requires
> the participation of separate (ie, individual) human
> beings within that social structure.
>
> There is no “one” without the “other."
>
> I think we are using different words and phrases to
> acknowledge essentially the same thing.
>
> I do thank you, again, for commenting.
>
> It’s our interpersonal interactions that allow me to
> expand and explore my horizons - little by little I come
> to apprehend the human condition.
>
> Best personal regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> */Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD/*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A
> Einstein)*
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Bard
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Waldemar
>
> You're entirely missing my point.
>
> The opposition of Individual versus Collective is
> Individualism. And it is that very OPPOSITION that is
> over. Your Collective is nothing but a Collective of
> Individuals. Like so many hardcore believers of the
> odl faith you simply refuse to see that the entire
> ideology is over.
>
> Physics killed Atomism. The Internet has killed
> Individualism.
>
> There is nothing but RELATIONAL left. And this
> relational is always plural so all that is left is a
> SOCIAL understanding of man and technology.
>
> Neuro science practically slaughters the idea of any
> solid consciousness PRIOR to the event. So get over it.
>
> Everything now is social as in man-machine social. But
> first and foremost we understand that we live in a
> relationalist world as reklationalist bodies with
> relationalist minds.
>
> Read Hegel!
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander Bard
>
> Den mån 14 okt. 2019 kl 23:29 skrev Waldemar Schmidt
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Alexander B:
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> I agree that things, such as the European
> modernist starting point to which you refer are
> not likely to be universal.
>
> My point is that we Homo sapiens sapiens are
> “social individuals.”
>
> That is, that one side of the “coin” is “social”
> and the other is “individual.”
>
> From my perspective, each of us is both - it seems
> un-necessary and inaccurate to argue that we are
> either one or the other.
>
> At the same time it seems correct to assert that
> American stress on individualism is as uninspired
> as a collectivist unitary stance.
>
> Perceiving humans as “social individuals” seems
> pretty close to universal to me.
>
> I understand that European Philosophy is different
> than American Philosophy.
>
> But, I enjoy the intellectual interaction of the
> two views.
>
> I have spent a considerable part of my formative
> years living in Europe and European country
> colonies - ie, I am a third-culture kid.
>
> Which means I really don’t fit well into either
> the culture from which I arose or the culture/s in
> which I developed.
>
> An holistic perception of the human condition
> seems more likely to foster progress.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> */Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD/*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of
> value. (A Einstein)*
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2019, at 5:08 AM, Alexander Bard
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear Waldemar
>
> Acually no.
>
> The "I" primacy is a typically European
> modernist starting point and not at all universal.
>
> Still the predominant starting point
> among within American and European middle
> class discourse.
>
> But again, not at all universal and not even
> historically relevant outside of the
> Cartesian-Kantian paradigm that still
> dominates Western academia but which the
> Internet Revolution is about to explode.
>
> You see, the rest of the world starts with a
> tribal we. Usually around the Dubar number of
> 157. Nothing is less than 157.
>
> So much for "higher perspectives". It rather
> seems it takes an awful lot of effort for
> western middle class people to arrive where
> the rest of humanity starts from.
>
> Wilber is a Cartesian. I would much prefer if
> we could leave that religious conviction
> behind or at least not pretend it is a
> universally valid norm.
>
> And what does behaviporism prove to us if not
> that we behave as swarms and/or flocks 99,9%
> of the time? No "individuals" at all in
> action. But swarms and flocks that at most
> contain dividuals.
>
> Tthe future belongs to social psychology (like
> Peterson and Vervaeke) and not individual
> psychology at all. We are all already social
> and nothing but social.
>
> Big love
>
> Alexander
>
> Den lör 12 okt. 2019 kl 05:46 skrev Waldemar A
> Schmidt, PhD, MD <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Alexander (Bard):
>
> I am reading your works very carefully.
> And I value the insights they invoke
> within me.
> Slowly, to be sure, I am trained in
> medicine and science, not philosophy.
> But there are some truths that apply to
> Puerto Rican mothers of 5, as well as
> grandfathers of 5, such as myself:
>
> There is an “I”.
> There is a relationship of “I” with
> “I” within “I.”
> There is an I-Thou relationship.
> There is an I-It relationship.
>
> And we all struggle to keep a balance
> within those.
> That balance requires looking at things
> such as paradigms.
> It won’t put food on the table.
> But, it might help to do so with elan.
>
> Nonetheless, keep poking, brother!
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
>
>
> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> --
>
> Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD
>
> Associate Professor of Philosophy
>
> Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship
>
> Georgetown University
>
> 202-687-7441
>
> ############################
>
> 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
|