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]>
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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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] 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