Dear men of so many (shared) words, Is it only modern Western toddlers who separate their sense of self from their mother (and others)? Best, Lene On 14-10-2019 11:21, Alexander Bard wrote: > Dear Gregg > > Point taken. And America is also Pragmatism, both Peirce and Whitehead > are firmly rooted in community and intersubjectivity (inherited from > Hegel). > America would do really well with a huge Pragmatist revival as opposed > to today's one-fight-against-everybody vulgar Cartesianism. Isn't that > what both you and Zak Stein do already? > My opposition is therefore against your ORDER of things with > "Individual" first. Why even start with The Individual? Is that merely > because Psychologists's sales-pitches always start as self-help > manuals? Or why else? > As Wittgenstein says, we are 100% social, every word we use is > borrowed from somebody else. Priority must be given to "colaboration" > over "competition" because it is way more correct for humans. > > Best > Alexander > > Den sön 13 okt. 2019 kl 14:18 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > Bard, > > There is much to be said for understanding the human unit as the > Dunbar “socioont” and we in the US, with our history of embracing > hyper-individualistic objectivist philosophies like that of Ayn > Rand need to see that we are defined by intersubjective dialogue > and the movement of the herd in a way that Rand foolishly denies. > > However, I think we can go too far in our rejection of the > individual. I prefer the Bronfenbrenner socio-ecological lens of > concentric circles, from the individual to family to the > clan/tribe/community to the nation to the globe. > > But the (in)dividual or subjective agent is a fundamental unit. > Personality psychology lives in relation to social psych. > > > G > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard > *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:09 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: Basic interactions. > > Dear Waldemar > > Acually no. > > The "I" primacy is a typically European modernist starting point > and not at all universal. > > Still the predominant starting point among within American and > European middle class discourse. > > But again, not at all universal and not even historically relevant > outside of the Cartesian-Kantian paradigm that still dominates > Western academia but which the Internet Revolution is about to > explode. > > You see, the rest of the world starts with a tribal we. Usually > around the Dubar number of 157. Nothing is less than 157. > > So much for "higher perspectives". It rather seems it takes an > awful lot of effort for western middle class people to arrive > where the rest of humanity starts from. > > Wilber is a Cartesian. I would much prefer if we could leave that > religious conviction behind or at least not pretend it is a > universally valid norm. > > And what does behaviporism prove to us if not that we behave as > swarms and/or flocks 99,9% of the time? No "individuals" at all in > action. But swarms and flocks that at most contain dividuals. > > Tthe future belongs to social psychology (like Peterson and > Vervaeke) and not individual psychology at all. We are all already > social and nothing but social. > > Big love > > Alexander > > Den lör 12 okt. 2019 kl 05:46 skrev Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > Alexander (Bard): > > I am reading your works very carefully. > And I value the insights they invoke within me. > Slowly, to be sure, I am trained in medicine and science, not > philosophy. > But there are some truths that apply to Puerto Rican mothers > of 5, as well as grandfathers of 5, such as myself: > > There is an “I”. > There is a relationship of “I” with “I” within “I.” > There is an I-Thou relationship. > There is an I-It relationship. > > And we all struggle to keep a balance within those. > That balance requires looking at things such as paradigms. > It won’t put food on the table. > But, it might help to do so with elan. > > Nonetheless, keep poking, brother! > > > Best regards, > > Waldemar > > > > Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD > (Perseveret et Percipiunt) > Sent from my iPad > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: > write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <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] > <mailto: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] > <mailto: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] > <mailto: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