Agreed! This would make an excellent debate blog post... On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Marquis, Andre < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I, for one, am enjoying the dialogues between Gregg and John! > andre > > From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> > on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> > Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:23 PM > To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of > Neoliberalism > > Gregg, you are taking an anthropocentric position IMHO. I would submit > that if you woke up in a fly's realm, but with your human attributes that > you would rapidly succumb to the fly swatter absent the fly's skill set. > All of the human qualities you enumerate are highly admirable, but they are > what we humans use to do human things. And they have evolved from our > bidpedal body habitus, freeing our forelimbs for specialized functions like > tool making and texting, followed by language as another 'tool' needed to > express ourselves while operating tools. Yes, we are probably unique in > 'knowing that we know', but that has also resulted in our species being the > only one that is destroying the planet, so that should give us pause. > > And yes, all organisms are conscious in their own idiosyncratic ways, in > service to being aware of their specific enviornments, in turn in service > to passing their genes from one generation to the next as the biologic > imperative- that's why all species are engaged in evolution. Bottom line is > that all of life exists in recognition of the Singularity as its origin as > the template for our existence pre-Big Bang, the 'equal and opposite > reaction' complying with Newton's Third Law of Motion, which we now > identify as homeostasis as the reason that matter exists....without > homeostasis there would only be energy. This is the basis for Alfred North > Whitehead's "Process Theory". He intuited that matter is a transient state > of energy, and that it is for this reason that only relationships matter > (pun intended). I think that until we come to this realization we will > continue to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a > different outcome, which is a functional definition of insanity, > recognizing that I am ironically responding to a psychologist (with the > best of intentions on my part).... > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Yes, John, we have confirmed we disagree on this point. J >> >> >> >> You do agree that we humans have a different form of information >> processing than animals called symbolic, syntactical language, correct? And >> you agree that we humans are the only animals that have the self-reflective >> capacity, such that we know that we know, right? And we are the only >> creatures that develop science and attempt to map the Explicate v. >> Implicate order, correct? So, if consciousness is awareness (which is a >> point that I believe you have made), then it seems to me that there are a >> number of dimensions of awareness (i.e., self-conscious, reflective, >> linguistically explicit, logical analysis) that represents a big difference >> between we humans and, say, houseflies…or fish or snakes or ravens or rat >> or chimps or dolphins…but wait, are you saying all animals have the same >> level of consciousness? That would be a radical claim, at least as I am >> conceptualizing consciousness (note, I mean little “c” not your big “C”) >> >> >> >> You have your “diachronic versus synchronic deck chair” claim, which I >> continue to try to wrap my “evolutionary time oriented” mind around. Keep >> in mind I have my argument that the universe represents different levels >> and dimensions of complexity, with the different dimensions of complexity >> emerging as a function of different information-communication systems, >> Life-genes, Mind-nervous systems, Culture-human language, which I think you >> have trouble wrapping your mind around. >> >> >> >> Best of intentions, >> >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 1:32 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> As you well know Gregg, I respectfully disagree with the distinction >> between animal consciousness and human consciousness. I maintain that >> consciousness is derivative of physiology, and if that is correct, we don't >> distinguish the principles of physiology in animals and humans.....to the >> contrary, we study animal physiology to understand human physiology, not >> just for ethical reasons, but because the comparative anatomy, biochemistry >> and molecular biology inform us about the evolution of physiology. As for >> mapping the relationships between disciplines, it must be more than just >> the synchronic real-time 'rearranging the deck chairs'; it must entail a >> diachronic, across space/time transcendent perspective in order to factor >> out the artifacts of the human subjectivity about our origins and mechanism >> of evolution, starting with unicellular organisms, moving forward. Just to >> be clear, there are commonalities between how Mendeleev configured the >> Periodic Table of Elements and that for Evolutionary Biology as I have >> conceptualized it based on experimental data rather than inductive >> reasoning. This is an important insight because both chemical equations and >> the mechanisms of physiologic evolution offer the opportunity to transcend >> space/time, providing that essential diachronic view I have alluded to that >> is necessary in order to get to the fundament of Nature as the literal >> product of the Big Bang. Only then can we understand interdisciplinarity >> IMHO. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for these thoughts, Jason and John. >> >> >> >> One thing I would offer from a ToK System lens regarding the point about >> “behavior” and psychology and the social sciences, is that a major hurdle >> to any coherent, consilient dual major or interdisciplinary view is that we >> have lacked the appropriate map of the whole. >> >> >> >> For example, at the institutional level, it is absolutely the case that >> psychology focuses its lens on human behavior at the individual level. >> However, virtually all its foundational concepts regarding learning and >> neuro-cognitive maps are at the level of the “mental” (i.e., animal >> behavior and the idea that the mind is what the brain does). In other >> words, to have linguistic clarity, we need to split basic/animal psychology >> from human psychology and then place human psychology as the base of the >> social sciences. >> >> >> >> We will achieve more effective multi/interdisciplinary perspectives if we >> map out the relationships between the disciplines in a more effective way. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 7:39 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> Dear Jason, Gregg and TOKers, the 'silo-ing' of intellectual pursuits is >> overwhelmingly apparent in this thread. I have been involved in the >> initiative for what is being termed Interdisciplinarity for a number of >> years, contributing to the *Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity,* for >> example. I assumed that that effort was pervasive, only to realize through >> this discussion that clearly it is not. If I may share my own life >> experience, I was a Biology/English double major in college. Through that >> interdisciplinary approach I learned how to 'dissect' both a frog and a >> poem, literally. But the contrast was palpable in the sense that my poetry >> Professor would read a piece of poetry, 'dissect' it over the course of the >> lecture, but would never let us out of the lecture hall until he had read >> it again in its entirety because it didn't exist other than as a whole. >> Conversely, the frog would remain on the lab bench in pieces, and many of >> my classmates are your physicians, I might add. My learning experience was >> that the frog, like the poem, did not exist without reassembling it, which >> I have done as a cellular biologist/physiologist over the course of the >> last 50 years. It's far more difficult to see things both as parts and >> wholes, let alone teach it, but as Gregg had alluded to, perhaps we'd be >> better off learning through dual disciplines that complement one another, >> like Psychology and Sociology, IMHO. >> >> >> >> And not to get too meta, but I think the reason that we need to use a >> 'double major' approach is because we are only approximating the 'truth' in >> David Bohm's Explicate Order (*Wholeness and the Implicate Order*), so >> to have an informed perspective, we must see things through more than one >> lens. I have, for example, come to the realization that the reason we must >> control a scientific experiment is because what we are examining is only >> relative, not absolute, so we need to provide a 'context' or framework in >> which to do so.....in Bohm's ideal or Implicate Order, for example, there >> is no need for controls, if you get my drift. I offer these thoughts with >> the best of intentions. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:40 PM nysa71 < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Gregg writes, " A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists >> and psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures..." >> >> It's funny you should mention that. Over a decade ago, I started thinking >> that it was strange that there were these institutional "walls" between >> psychology and the other social sciences, and that it seemed so "early 20th >> century". I remember thinking that they're all dealing with human behavior >> --- with psychology dealing with individual behaviors, but the other social >> sciences dealing with the context within which individuals behave, (and >> those social structures being both reinforced and changed due to behaviors >> at the level of psychology). >> >> All of these fields have developed to the point where I sometimes >> wondered if it would make more sense to start thinking of universities >> offering more "general" bachelor degrees along the lines of "Psychology & >> Social Science", and then focusing on a specific disciple, (e.g., >> psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc.), >> in post graduate studies. >> >> At the very least, psychology undergraduates should be required to take >> some social science classes. >> >> ~ Jason Bessey >> >> On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 10:35:01 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - >> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for sharing this, Jason. Neoliberalism and its critique is a major >> focus of a number of the major Div 24 scholars, with Jeff Sugarman leading >> the way. A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and >> psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures, values and >> processes that are operative. Rather they look at phenomena and clients and >> try to describe and explain what they see, with really appreciating the >> deep context. >> >> >> >> My favorite book on a related topic is Barry Schwartz’s The Battle for >> Human Nature >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Battle-2DHuman-2DNature-2DScience-2DMorality_dp_0393304450&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pXQ2SEX6BD7KGH3vPZgvrLZ7AAYVVT_vaq07aAJgoms&s=u3WdyySlG7vIl2KMErhZQBr88We_e0_390E8CwYOFEs&e=>. >> It reviews behavioral theory, evolutionary theory and economics and here is >> its summary: >> >> >> >> *Out of the investigations and speculations of contemporary science, a >> challenging view of human behavior and society has emerged and gained >> strength. It is a view that equates “human nature” utterly and unalterably >> with the pursuit of self-interest. Influenced by this view, people >> increasingly appeal to natural imperatives, instead of moral ones, to >> explain and justify their actions and those of others.* >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> G >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *nysa71 >> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:03 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of >> Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> Interesting paper on psychology and neoliberalism: >> >> ABSTRACT >> >> This article draws attention to the relationship between neoliberalism >> and psychology. Features of this relationship can be seen with reference to >> recent studies linking psychology to neoliberalism through the constitution >> of a kind of subjectivity susceptible to neoliberal governmentality. Three >> examples are presented that reveal the ways in which psychologists are >> implicated in the neoliberal agenda: psychologists’ conception and >> treatment of social anxiety disorder, positive psychology, and educational >> psychology. It is hoped that presenting and discussing these cases broadens >> the context of consideration in which psychological ethics might be >> examined and more richly informed. It is concluded that only by >> interrogating neoliberalism, psychologists’ relationship to it, how it >> affects what persons are and might become, and whether it is good for human >> well-being can we understand the ethics of psychological disciplinary and >> professional practices in the context of a neoliberal political order and >> if we are living up to our social responsibility. >> >> Sugarman, J. (2015). "Neolberalism and Psychological Ethics >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_profile_Jeff-5FSugarman_publication_276140354-5FNeoliberalism-5Fand-5FPsychological-5FEthics_links_555c08af08aec5ac2232aa06.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vwLIeIntBrX9PS9a_NIXhc5NSW7hFU5gGxWKr_V1S8g&s=52cspoZeSdor9CUOfJ1rN27wy_0SO4T-PYmkx9W7nv8&e=>". >> *Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35,* 103 - 116. >> >> ~ Jason Bessey >> >> ############################ >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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