Gregg:
> as we dialogue about we each think is going on in the world and what
> we think should do about it.
Wow. I wasn't aware that the ToK System implies *any* views about
what is going on in the world-at-large (nor does it seem to convey any
expertise on these topics) . . . !!
Where will I find those views? Have we been "dialoguing" about them?
Do they extend beyond the disarray in the psychology profession -- for
which the ToK is presented as a solution (via the therapeutic
application of CALM MO)? We have philosophers, physicians, scientists
&c involved but what do these people know about the world situation
and, in particular, what to do about it?
However, that topic is precisely the business of the Center. We are a
spin-off from the highest level "think-tank" in the Pentagon, called
the Office of Net Assessment (ONA). We deal with world affairs every
day -- way deeper than the headlines (which are almost always wrong.)
We have operations in Beijing, Tokyo, Moscow, Delhi, Berlin, Rome &c.
We even have a scan of Henry Kissinger's unpublished senior thesis.
Not exactly the same as your typical encounter as a "clinician" . . .
<g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Office-5Fof-5FNet-5FAssessment&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=ON186sF2Nn2xOh5ikvOSObtooTsNpUbFwcBnlqohoL8&e=
As you say in your blog --
"Psychologists have long documented, however, that what people “know”
about themselves and others is a function of their backgrounds,
motivational frames, and unique/biased perspectives . . . "
Sounds like a solid observation. Particularly, as regards what we
know about ourselves and those we have important relationships with.
But how about the "world" (with which we have no significant
relationship or responsibility)? What are the "positional knowledge"
requirements to actually "know" something on that scale?
You go on to say --
"In sum, naïve realism is an easy position to assume, but deeper
reflection reveals it is deeply flawed. Instead, it is the human
condition to operate from versions of reality that are a function of
our unique positions in the world . . . "
Again, that makes sense. So, what sort of a "unique position in the
world" is required to actually have some effective and responsible
knowledge -- which is no longer naive -- about the wider world and,
indeed, what to do about it . . . ??
Mark
P.S. I noticed that Craig Shealy uses the phrase "levels of analysis"
and not "dimensions of complexity" in his 2004 paper. Would that
still be his view today? Btw, he also seems to like the phrase "the
human psyche."
P.P.S. I appreciate that Craig highlights how "a scientific-humanist
appreciates that “scientists” are not somehow immune to the same
potentially biasing factors and forces that plague the rest of
humanity." He's correct, as far as he goes but what *causes* those
biases doesn't seem to be his focus. "Developmental" and "contextual"
variables aren't explored in any detail. Yes, "social psychologists
have powerfully demonstrated that our attitudes and actions are shaped
by potent social and situational forces (e.g., to conform), even
though we tend to underestimate or minimize the impact of such forces
on our own behavior . . . " He continues with "models or theories are
needed to account for processes and dynamics that are relevant to
understanding and investigating the acquisition and maintenance of
beliefs and values in general, regardless of their specific
manifestation." Okay, so what causes this "acquisition" to happen?
For what it is worth, those causes -- missing in so many accounts
(including Craig's) -- are best described by Aristotle's "formal
causality" and were the whole point of McLuhan's work (and, therefore,
of the Center today.) Indeed, Marshall is often considered to be a
protege of Harold Innis, author of the famous "The Bias of
Communication" (although, in fact, McLuhan went far beyond Innis, who
also did not understand *formal* cause and with whom he had little
contact.)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Bias-2DCommunication-2D2nd-2DSecond_dp_B0087BMCJG&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=EhsSGdCFuYRnH0UL7i6RGUA813uLr9vL1puSxP9sZnA&e=
P.P.P.S. When Craig begins his "Justifying the Belief in Belief"
section with "Disney notwithstanding . . . " he is getting to
something important. Disney was a deliberate fantasist. He invented
"Fantasy Land," after all. He goes on to say, "This phenomenon is
particularly apparent in the subjective spheres of politics and
religion" and "If such processes are operative even within the
temporal and material realm, imagine how much more equivocal matters
become around issues of political ideology or religious faith." Just
imagine.
As we all know, we live in a "post-truth era" and daily have to
contend with "fake news." But why is this all-of-a-sudden something
we cannot ignore? What has broken-down with our earlier
"justification system"? Where did that one come from and why doesn't
it work anymore? Might our previous "justifications" (aka "biases")
have come from Disney (or others like him, like televangelists and
others also on *television*) and somehow we don't "believe" in any of
that anymore? Or, as Craig puts it, "What causes change to
justification systems?" How might the ToK System explain this
apparent radical *paradigmatic* shift in our "belief inventory"?
P.P.P.P.S Craig goes on to say, "More specifically, as presently
articulated, the JH does not consider how, why, and under what
historical or contextual circumstances a particular set of
justifications might be acquired, retained, or modified as a result of
maturation and experience. Nor does it speak to the “content” of
justification. That is, what are the linguistic artifacts of
justification (i.e., what does justification sound like)? What are its
constituents or components (i.e., can and should “justification” be
defined in more basic terms)? How do we know the difference between
“justification” proper and what might simply be ordinary human
discourse with no justifying intent?"
Have these "holes" (into which Craig generously inserted his EI and
BEVI, detailed in another 2004 paper I'd be glad to share with the
list) been subsequently filled by you and what does all this tell us
about our "versions of reality" . . . ??
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Mark,
> I may come back to the substance of your post regarding dimensions
> of behavioral complexity (tomorrow, if time permits), but before I
> sign off for the day, I did want to address your "PS" about being
> insulted by my version of reality comment. I did not intend to
> insult you or Jeff at all, only to frame our exchange. I describe
> "versions of reality" in a blog here: Your Version of Reality, and
> Mine<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201504_your-2Dversion-2Dreality-2Dand-2Dmine&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=6NmEfQbapNbUAfzL0Xyr_lZw6x02iumQd8bDiXWra_k&e=>. In this context, I consider the ToK to be a version of reality. It is a term that my friend and colleague Craig Shealy often uses, as he described in his contribution to the JH (Justifying the Justification Hypothesis)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_uploads_2_4_3_6_24368778_justifying-5Fthe-5Fjustification-5Fhypothesis.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=bTVrhqrbMmt-bxvoBogvkU37W8wCufLlsVQH2L-jRv0&e=>. Many of us find it very helpful in the clinic room, as the blog
> explains.
>
> I will say that I did intend for it to be a bit of a "boundary
> framing," so your gut was indeed reacting to something. I felt the
> need to make frame because there were some pronouncements being
> offered as if they were undisputed facts about the world and its
> future. For example, it was my experience of Jeff's email that he
> saying that if my ToK "pet project" was to go anywhere, then I
> should jettison the term "mind" because of the baggage that comes
> with it, and the suggestion was made that it should be replaced with
> "soul". To the extent that that was an accurate read, then I wanted
> to be clear that that was his interpretive frame about reality;
> hardly an articulation of reality as it is and must be to any
> "God-like" observer of truth.
>
> Those of us who are clinicians are particularly sensitive to the
> relational process / self-other dynamics in communication. So, no
> insult intended. But I did use it to send a message and give us a
> frame to orient around to ensure that we are on the same
> "self-other" page as we dialogue about we each think is going on in
> the world and what we think should do about it.
>
> 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 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=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=f27j9UOSVl6YIeQLBOg6hXK4MR-Uo2Bi3Hr2CGL4EbU&e=
>
> Check out my webpage at:
> www.gregghenriques.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Es3kIb2vokCqXI1iI5y88frVuVe1C9UHjbqT2gzUO3I&s=9Klk4jMMj15cgCpigWw8XXtX0L7uexWM9iDQxhi2C5Q&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
|
