I think that anybody who is the parent of a toddler would have plenty of data, particularly during visits to super markets as they pass by the candy section (though that is not an experience widely shared by indigenous hunter-gatherers, of course...) / Lene On 14-10-2019 11:40, Alexander Bard wrote: > When do modern Western toddlers separate their sense of self from > their mothers? > Do you have any studies to refer to and how were they conducted? > Psychoanalysis has long put the self-sense-making at the so called > mirror stage, and as negation of mother. "Something exists that is not > mother". > Whether that really occurs at any sort of mirror or is just another > name for the phallic intrusion is a hotly debated topic. > Obviously hard to solve since the subconscious self-sense-making is > way deeper and therefore much earlier than any conscious self-sensing. > Phallic intrusion called so since phallus represents that which mother > is not in the outside world. Nota bene. > Best > Alexander > > Den mån 14 okt. 2019 kl 11:36 skrev Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic > Bildung / Fremvirke <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > 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] > <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