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.
[cid:image003.jpg@01D6B364.C204BC00]
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]> On Behalf Of Joan Walton
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM
To: [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://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=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
############################
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
|
