P.S. Euglena has an 'eyespot', which is a photoreceptor, for example, and our pineal gland is the 'third eye'.... On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:01 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *But doesn’t this analysis suggest that subjective conscious awareness > (i.e., the experience of sight) comes “later” in the evolutionary process > (i.e., added on to the “end of a series of adaptations”)?* > > For me it's a continuum, like knowing that matter is composed of > atoms.....awareness is consciousness, and all organisms must be aware of > their surroundings or they'd be 'rocks'. > > But you are doing the same thing you accused me of, all due respect, in > not acknowledging my synthesis of the Singularity, Consciousness as > Cosmology, and consciousness as our 'innate sense' of the Cosmos as the > origin of all things. I find that preferable to The Big Chill of > probabilistic physics and Anthropic Principle. Even Einstein said that G_d > does not play dice with the Universe. j > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:51 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Great, thanks. >> >> >> >> But doesn’t this analysis suggest that subjective conscious awareness >> (i.e., the experience of sight) comes “later” in the evolutionary process >> (i.e., added on to the “end of a series of adaptations”)? >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 9:36 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> Gregg, I should apologize for inadvertently ignoring your 'blindsight' >> example of consciousness. I have actually addressed this in a paper on what >> is referred to in Biology as Terminal Addition (Torday JS, Miller WB Jr. >> Terminal addition in a cellular world. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2018 >> Jul;135:1-10.), the phenomenon in which newly acquired phenotypic traits >> appear to be added on to the 'end' of a series of evolved adaptations. I >> hypothesized that that's because the acquired trait, like all of those >> 'upstream' of it is mediated by cell-cell signaling mediated by soluble >> growth factors and their receptors on cells of different embryologic (germ >> line) origins. So if you lose eyesight due to damage to the optic nerve, >> which is distal to all of the intermediate neurons that connect the eye to >> the occipital lobe, the system still needs to maintain the upstream >> signaling pathways as best it can in order to fulfill the phenotype as >> agent mission (e.g. proprioception) because in order to remain as 'normal' >> as possible, the primary vision trait and all of the other interconnections >> with other neurologic properties need to be sustained in order for the >> person to effectively pass on his/her genes. So for someone to exhibit >> 'blindsight' makes perfect sense to me because they have developed all >> those interconnections between sight and all the other related behaviors. >> So I have provided an explanation for this phenomenon that is internally >> consistent with my theory of evolution based on cell-cell communications. >> Hope this makes 'sense' because I think it's correct. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:00 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> Let’s focus on some agreement. I agree that you offer a powerful, new >> reductive physiological line that offers a potential “180 degree” shift in >> key aspects of how we might think about physics into biophysiological >> causation. Although I can’t see and follow all that you can given your >> specialized language and knowledge background, I can see enough to be >> convinced it is fascinating and on to something. The way I think about it, >> the classic modern synthesis (i.e., natural selection operating on genetic >> combinations) is clearly incomplete and key insights regarding your first >> principles of physiology and epigenetics will be needed to obtain a truly >> “complete evolutionary synthesis”. I also “get” that your view is a >> foundational game changer in many ways, and sets the stage for a view that >> aligns us with the Implicate Order. All good. >> >> >> >> However, to be complete any new explanatory system needs to deal with the >> lower level of description. That is where we find our struggle. You are >> correct to note that I am working at the level of description and you are >> working at a more fundamental level of explanation. Great! And >> (potentially) hats off to you. BUT for your explanations to be complete >> (and for me to believe that they are), you MUST deal with my descriptions! >> Einstein’s theory of gravity dealt effectively with the phenomena of >> attraction as described by Newton. He did not just brush off descriptions >> that did not fit. >> >> >> >> I am offering blindsight as a description of a phenomena that, IMO, any >> model of consciousness would need to be able to frame. The argument that >> you are operating at a deeper level is a non sequitur if you don’t deal >> with the description that I am highlighting. If you can’t deal with it, >> then your deep explanation is missing key features and your rhetorical >> argument falls flat, at least to my ear. >> >> >> >> Best of intentions, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:43 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> Gregg, this kind of anecdotal example is akin to the difference between >> Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's. Newton generated an equation to >> describe the attraction of masses to one another whereas Einstein showed >> how and why gravity bends light. In doing so, Einstein interrelated gravity >> and Relativity Theory, providing a diachronic, mechanistic, across >> space/time perspective rather than just a synchronic, descriptive view. I >> would submit that this represents what I had referred to in my previous >> email, that the science leverages the transition from the Explicate to the >> Implicate Order. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Let me offer one quick follow up, based on a back channel question I >> received. >> >> >> >> To understand the difference between consciousness as functional >> awareness and response versus subjective phenomenology, consider the >> concept of “blindsight”. >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Blindsight&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=ODoz8QDgOR0Om95Z5PssETnj_wzdE2T6_zx-jjf5uAc&e=> >> Blindsight is the case where someone, usually do to damage to the occipital >> lobe, is blind (i.e., has no experience of vision). However, what Weiskranz >> and other neuropsychologists found was that such patients do have some >> functional visual awareness, even though they have no subjective experience >> of vision. For example, an individual can be asked to “look at a room” and >> point to which side a box is located. The person responds, “I have no idea, >> I can’t see anything.” And the experimenter says, “I know, but take a >> guess.” And the person points to the correct side with 90-95% accuracy. >> The reason is some visual information is being processed, it just is not >> manifesting itself in subjective awareness. >> >> >> >> This highlights the conceptual difference between behavioral functional >> awareness (i.e., the person can actually respond to objects in the >> environment) despite no subjective conscious awareness. >> >> >> Best, >> G >> >> >> >> *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 7:36 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* RE: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> John, >> >> If we have any hope in achieving clarity, we need to disentangle the >> meaning of the words we are using. First, though, let me be clear in that >> the question of whether humans are “good for the planet” is different than >> whether or not they have unique forms of consciousness. As I write in this >> blog, we “verbals” can obviously be viewed as a nightmare from the vantage >> point of other >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201203_verbals&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=2wiSy_NtUL4qWWua8EdrfHdmyUdt-kduW46aItfwHxA&e=> >> species. But, let’s face it, if an alien came and visited this planet, the >> behavior of one species would stand out as demonstrating radically >> different patterns than others, and it would not be the flies avoiding the >> fly swatters, but the people who constructed the tool and the way they talk >> about how annoying the flies are. >> >> >> >> The question on the table pertains to “consciousness”. I am taking a >> scientific view of the concept. That means I am going to try and >> “objectively” describe it. Depending on how consciousness is defined, that >> can present a foundational problem. First, though, it depends on how it is >> defined. If you define consciousness in terms of “functional awareness and >> response,” then you are defining consciousness in terms of objective >> behavior. This is how you conceive of the term. That is, you *know *organisms >> are conscious by the fact that you can observe (i.e., take a video of) that >> they are “aware of their specific environments” and they respond >> accordingly. Given that I am a “universal behaviorist,” I appreciate the >> value of this perspective. >> >> >> >> However, there are other meanings of the term consciousness. One >> crucial meaning is “subjective phenomenology” or “what it is like to ‘be’ >> something”. As I highlight in this blog on the conceptual problems of >> consciousness >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=9DN8D_kNWir1MN-LCc7lKZ5CBoNgoCOTGG9MDCzUVi4&e=>, >> subjective phenomenology carries the epistemological problem that we can >> never objectively observe another’s subjective experience (see problem 6). >> You can not take a video of my perceptual experience of being in the world. >> Except for the owner, everyone (or everything) else’s subjective >> phenomenology must be inferred. This relates to the philosophical problem of >> zombies >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plato.stanford.edu_entries_zombies_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=RXHssiFyk6albuVCjB-DtYjRV56RSzJnC_e9dXk-nT0&e=> >> (i.e., the possibility that no one or nothing else in the universe has a >> subjective phenomenology). >> >> >> >> So, there is a “language game” problem here (which, BTW, it what I >> describe as the first problem of consciousness, recognizing the many >> entangled definitions and confusing issues). You mean consciousness in >> terms of physiological functional awareness and response that can be >> observed via a third person. I was using the term to refer to subjective >> phenomenology (which all the scientific evidence suggests is found in >> animals with brains—not bacteria!—and then I build off of that into human >> self-conscious reflective awareness and explicit intersubjectivity). >> >> >> >> This has nothing to do with my being anthropomorphic. It just has to do >> with the concepts of science and observation and the unique epistemological >> and metaphysical problems associated consciousness as subjective >> phenomenology (which sets the stage for human intersubjectivity via >> language). IMO, your language system just glosses over these issues and >> then uses rhetoric about deck chairs, insanity, and the need to do things >> different, which are not exactly relevant. Bottom line, with all due >> respect, I don’t see how your First Principles of Physiology deals at all >> with the epistemological or metaphysical problems of subjective >> phenomenology. As such, it does not really deal with the heart of the >> problem of consciousness. That said, I do believe it help us conceptually >> understand the foundations of cellular functional awareness and response >> and thus is valuable in shifting and ultimately grounding our perspective >> (e.g., as you know, I have found the idea that the brain is the “skin >> inverted” to be a powerful conception of its origin and function). >> >> >> >> Best of intentions, >> >> G >> >> >> >> PS The ToK System, with its conception of energy as fundamental and >> depiction of the universe as an unfolding wave of behavior, completely >> agrees with Whitehead’s process philosophy as far as I can tell (although I >> am not an expert). >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Marquis, Andre >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:51 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> ############################ >> >> 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 >> > ############################ 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