Fra: Alexander Bard
Sendt: Monday, October 14, 2019 14:00
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: Basic interactions.

Agreed. In addition, I firmly believe that "The Individual" was constructed for very straight forward legal purposes.

So that you can push out, lock up, abjectify and in general terrify a body with a mind by "individualizing it". For example is slavery impossible without "individuation" first.

Rites of passage are prior to that historically and instead respond with a much more humane "submission to tribal interests". Which comes with a responsibility toward archetype that contemporary society is lacking. But then such societies do not have slavery since slavery only arrives with large-scale farming and imperialism. And following slavery, individuation and its power opposite, the narcissism of the tyrant.

Therefore I use the term "dividual" which then correctly can also be applied on larger scales (clan, tribe, nation etc). It's just how humans function.

Where I have no desire to participate in the deceitful "game of individuation". I have no interest in being or supporting any slave owner.

Cheerio

Alexander Bard

I completely agree that the individual is very dividable. When we explore the psyche, we observe how the “ego” actually controls very little compared to the strings being pulled by a plethora of subconscious archetypes all with their own agendas. I also think the entire tribe exists in the psyche as symbolic representations, we then use to project our “world-image”  - so in a very real sense we are always divided inviduals.

 

However there is still something about the “individual” which is non-dividable as a unit, as the “house/body” of the psyche.  There are so many uses for that word which cannot just be replaced by dividual, that I think it would be a mistake to let it go entirely.
best

Elung

 

 

Fra: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> på vegne af Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
Sendt: Monday, October 14, 2019 12:54:32 PM
Til: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Emne: Re: Basic interactions.

 

We agree.

My suggestion is therefore that our models also reflect our convictions. As a counter-balance to prevalent public and academic opinion.

Why even use the term "individuate" and not just say "dividuate" into "dividuals"? "Individual" means "undividable", so why even use the term when it is blatantly incorrect? Why not piss of the Cartesians instead?

A great idea from Deleuze & Guattari that I have practised ove the past 30 years, for example by developing schizoanalysis as a highly successful analysis treatment.

Why be only one when you can be many? Many people who share the same house/body?

Cheerio

Alexander

 

Den mån 14 okt. 2019 kl 12:47 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>:

My view is that the prototype/ideal US/American identity is excessively focused on the individual, one that makes that makes decisions, independent of emotions and relations. In fact, as attachment theory makes clear we are born in relation. We then individuate from our mothers, as Lene points out.

Best,

G

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic Bildung / Fremvirke
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 6:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Basic interactions.

 

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]>:

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]>:

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]> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 8:09 AM
To: [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]>:

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]
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

############################

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