Thank you for your post, Steve, which helped frame and organize the
question of intellectual integrity and how we might approach it. The
gentleman carnivore quote really struck home.
-Chance
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:05 AM [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Steve:
>
> Is it possible for you to share that Sartrean paper to which Gregg refers?
>
> 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 Aug 30, 2018, at 5:09 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for this. As I think I mentioned on this list, I forced myself to
> confront my meat eating and stopped eating pork a month ago. Maybe I will
> have the fortitude to go full on vegetarian.
>
> I am very encouraged by your work with Sartre. I now see what might be
> called the “dialogical justification process” (both intrapsychic and
> interpersonal) as being very much at the center of Sartre’s concern about
> and conception of freedom.
>
> When I connect this to the work I am doing with Joe on social forces
> (justification, investment, influence), a picture emerges that stretches
> from the deep philosophical concerns of Sartre, to the sociological
> processes in which we are embedded to the work I do in the clinic room, all
> tied to our evolutionary history.
>
> Best
> Gregg
>
> PS For anyone interested, Steve has an absolutely brilliant paper that
> offers a Sartrean critique of positive psychology.
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Steven Quackenbush
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2018 4:52 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: The value of intellectual integrity
>
> Hi List,
>
> I too enjoyed reading Gregg's blog post, and I share his concern that
> intellectual integrity is a value that is currently under assault in the
> United States.
>
> I'd like to suggest that there are several (interrelated) issues at play
> here:
>
> - *Simple Deception* -- promoting falsehoods, etc.
>
>
> - Here, I know the Truth (e.g., I recently colluded with the UMF
> History Department to increase the likelihood that a prized motion will be
> approved by faculty senate). However, I try to minimize the chances that
> anyone will discover this Truth (e.g., by discrediting those who might
> accuse me of collusion).
>
>
> - *Simple Ignorance* -- a failure to grasp (or appreciate) the truth
>
>
> - Here, I don't know the truth (e.g., the misinformed voter). This
> may be attributable to the deception of others. However, insofar as I have
> an obligation to pursue Truth (utilizing appropriate tools of critical
> thinking), I also remain responsible for my own ignorance (which does not
> diminish the responsibility of the deceiving Other).
>
>
> - *Self-Deception* -- I intentionally ignore (or deny) Truth
>
>
> - Here, I know the Truth (e.g., I was inappropriately* rude* to a
> colleague yesterday), but I deny or defang this very Truth (e.g., I say to
> myself: "I was just joking!" or "He deserved it!").
> - This presents us with the perennial problem regarding how I can
> be both the *deceived* and the *deceiver *(at the same time).
> This question is more difficult to resolve that it might appear. We really
> need to ask: "What are the cognitive conditions of possibility for
> self-deception?" [or: "What must be true about the human mind if it is
> indeed capable of self-deception?"]
>
>
> - It is worth noting that the boundary separating simple ignorance
> from self-deception is quite blurry. If I refuse to assimilate (or apply)
> appropriate critical thinking skills, I am (by definition) aware of this
> refusal -- yet I deny its implications (for the *process* of
> acquiring Truth). This is effectively self-deception, even as it
> masquerades as *simple ignorance*(or, what amounts to the same
> thing, *simple opinion*)
>
> If we recognize self-deception as a real possibility, then we should also
> consider question of* motivation*: As the old saying goes, "The truth
> shall set you free"; so *Why on earth would I want to deceive myself? *Gregg
> and I will be presenting a paper exploring this very question at the
> upcoming meeting of the North American Sartre Society. One issue that is
> worth considering here is the psychosocial *price* we must pay if we do
> indeed pursue the Truth. In one of his notebooks (entitled *Truth and
> Existence*), Sartre considers the example of a meat eater ("carnivore")
> who never bothers to learn about what happens in a slaughterhouse:
>
> - "The slaughterhouse is at the edge of the night, let it remain
> there. The gentleman-carnivore would be an *accomplice* if, through
> his knowledge the chateaubriand transformed itself into dead flesh before
> the eyes of his guests" (TE)
>
> In other words, the authentic quest for Truth "places me before new
> responsibilities." Given the potential weight of these responsibilities,
> there is a perpetual temptation to be satisfied with mere opinion and to
> "dispute human reality's verifying mission" (Sartre).
>
> This means that questions regarding intellectual integrity cannot really
> be separated from the problem of *moral *integrity. The full realization
> of our collective responsibility as global citizens requires that we
> *live* Truth as "danger, effort, [and] risk." (Sartre)
>
> ~ Steve Q.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Gregg,
>
> I enjoyed reading that blog post, and I felt that the comment section of
> your blog post has examples of the challenge of seeing Trump with a clear
> consensus along the lines of intellectual integrity. Fortunately, it seems
> that most people are quite aware of, and disapprove of, his lying.
> Tea-party type conservatives want the federal government weakened, and so
> Trump has been given license to be destructive so long as his base feels
> like they are part of the "inside joke." If Bernie Sanders had won and
> chaos resulted, I can easily imagine his followers rationalizing the
> instability as a necessary reorganization that would lead to longer-term
> stability.
>
> Jamie, your reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect seems to be important,
> and may be an obstacle in arriving at a unified vision of intellectual
> integrity. Uncertainty is a painful experience for many, if not most of
> us, and so the deliberate path of uncertainty is challenging, and I
> imagine, not pragamatically useful to many individuals with needs and
> interests prioritized above a search for truth.
>
> Mark, thank you for the history regarding radio and television's influence
> on the collapse of the print world, and how that collapse influenced
> current trends in academia. Your commentary frequently validates and
> expands my understanding of what is going on around me, and encourages me
> to adopt an identity that is resilient and adaptive to the media effects
> you articulate within the context of the cultural transmissions and battles
> going on.
>
> Joe, thank you for sharing your personal intellectual and creative
> process, which I found to be encouraging of a longer-term path towards
> constructing durable wisdom for one's self and then others.
>
> -Chance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:14 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Mark.
>
> Perhaps one way to think about the ToK/UTUA Framework as attempting a grid
> that captures us on the past to present into the future axis and one that
> attempts to coordinate the bottom up (physics into sensation) and top down
> aspects (culture and technology) of our being in a way that is both
> coherent and promoting of dignity and well-being for persons and the planet
> at large.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The value of intellectual integrity
>
> Gregg:
>
> Good blog! As we've discussed, Culture has its *causes* and "intellectual
> integrity" isn't something that is an automatic effect by any means. In
> particular, the human intellect doesn't come first but rather last in the
> "chain" beginning with sensations (external), followed by perceptions
> (internal.) If that entire "structure" -- which you have carefully
> diagrammed -- is disordered at its foundations, then so will be the
> resulting "values."
>
> In part as a product of the German emphasis on the "intellect" (giving us
> our modern academia and the PhD &c) and its radical distortion in the
> early-20th century -- leading to Hitler &al -- the Rockefeller Foundation
> launched its "Radio Research Project" in 1935 at Columbia University, later
> expanding it to Princeton and ultimately costing $30M+ (in today's money.)
> Among its outcomes was the establishment of "public opinion polling" (which
> is why Gallup and Roper &c are located in Princeton.)
>
> Following WWW II, based largely on the insights of psychological warriors
> in that conflict, Social Psychology took up this task -- by denigrating
> what many thought to be the "intellect" in favor of a sort of "pluralism"
> that denied the possibility of any "ultimate"
> integrity, the pursuit of which it considered to be "proto-Nazi."
> Instead it promoted what became "deconstruction" of all "grand narratives"
> and the *false* belief that reality was "socially constructed" (aka
> "versions of reality.") Today's academia is the direct result of this
> retreat from its 19th-century German intellectual origins.
>
> Trump is a product of that severely degraded "intellectual" world --
> *formally* caused by RADIO in the early part of the 20th century and then
> dramatically deepened by TELEVISION in the second half, fundamentally
> collapsing whatever was left of the PRINT world in which those
> intellectuals previously resided. The promotion of "logical coherence" and
> "consistency of thought" has been sweepingly denounced for 50+ years now
> and Trump's cynical exploitation of the situation is the result. Needless
> to say, his opponents also share the same
> handicaps. Yes, "democratic-socialism" is also a RADIO throwback.
> They are all the product of Walter Ong's "Secondary Orality."
>
> By forging ahead with the ToK, you are in conflict with your own
> profession and, indeed, the wider field of social science which has
> collapsed under the weight of its own *deliberate* lack of "integrity."
> That paints a target on your back. The conflict you have had over
> plagiarism of your "Justification Hypothesis" is only the beginning of what
> you are going to face. Hopefully, a suit-of-armor will be under your 2018
> Xmas tree for what you've done with the Garden (previously the topic of a
> hippie anthem.)
>
> Also in the 1930s, a movement was begun to try to restore PRINT as a
> viable *environment* for the intellect. It was called "Great Books"
> and it came out of the University of Chicago (also Rockefeller funded),
> which had acquired the rights to the "Encyclopedia Britannica." In 1946,
> Marshall McLuhan, a newly minted PhD from Cambridge, attempted to insert
> himself into that process but was rejected by then-UofC-head Robert
> Hutchins. Great Books went on to form the curriculum at many schools,
> perhaps most notably St. John's
> (Annapolis) -- where Joe Sachs has masterfully translated Aristotole
> (which then became the basis of the LADS seminar at the Center, which is
> finishing its experimental run this evening.) Today, there are no viable
> expressions of that ideal (and some of what remains is working with the
> Center.)
>
> The West had many parents. Most would agree that Athens and Jerusalem
> were among them -- to which Alexandria also needs to be added. The
> "Decline of the West," however, has only one parent -- ELECTRICITY (or
> what McLuhan described as the collapse of the "Gutenberg Galaxy.")
> Now that we are DIGITAL that earlier parent-of-decline is no longer
> *forming* new intellects -- through sensation (external) and perception
> (internal) -- and, instead, has become the rear-view-mirror that is Trump,
> Bernie &al.
>
> "Toto, I believe we aren't in Kansas anymore . . . " -- Dorothy (speaking
> of RADIO taking over from PRINT in the 1930s)
>
> To grasp our future -- as the West, which is only a portion of humanity --
> we need to understand the implications of the new "City"
> in which we all live. And that understanding is the purpose of the Center
> for the Study of Digital Life.
>
> www.digitallife.center
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pE2lyR4Bef3U5wvm2bFT6dyUWHYK8PKOOQcI6i38Hw8&s=rd91MZlf5MkA6UEonb303M_g_9t9F64HTMiAjdcf1yk&e=>
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > I have been thinking quite a bit lately about the value of
> > intellectual integrity. As I have blogged about before, (see, e.g.,
> > here We Need to Value Intellectual
> > Integrity<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psy
> >
> chologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201602_we-2Dneed-2Dvalue-2Dintellectual-2Dintegrity&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=AIBYKCx_OuaVu2lBxxuPVO5NjduWEQrFsoXuwCtbY7w&s=yrj5Nnexpf78IrG2owq8aydEum_n5PT3t5FQwX7HN-I&e=>)
> it is one of the values that I as being in most danger, especially on the
> political scene, but also more broadly.
> >
> > I would love to hear what others think. It seems to me that the
> > desire for a Theory of Knowledge would go hand in glove with a value
> > of intellectual integrity. Do we as a society deeply share this value?
> >
> > Best,
> > Gregg
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair
> Division of Psychology & Human Development
> University of Maine, Farmington
> Farmington, ME 04938
> (207) 778-7518
> [log in to unmask]
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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