Hello everyone, I hesitate to jump into this discussion, as I doubt I can do justice to the 30+ messages included in this thread. But I'd like to return to the first observation made by Waldemar, *...[T]here 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.* As an ordinary language user, I believe I understand what he's saying, since* I do indeed experience* what Waldemar appears to be describing. So I might glibly declare that Waldemar is articulating a* raw experiential truth.* Now, suppose I'm talking to a* robot* well versed in the philosophy of mind. This robot could effectively dismantle (or deconsctruct) everything Waldemar and I are saying (about the "I", or whatever else). Gaslighted by this robot, the "two" of us may even come to doubt our *primal, subjective experience*. Indeed, I would be hesitant to put the matter this way (as "primal", "subjective", and "experience" are words with long histories). So what am I to do? Well, in the final analysis, I have just one retort: "You're a robot, and I'm not!" Or to put the matter another way: how do I describe a rainbow to a color-blind person? I can certainly explain color as a scientific concept (with references to the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.), but I could never help the color-blind actually *see *color. What if the same thing were true in philosophy? What if some of us are "I"s and others of us are not? What if *philosophy itself *ceases to be individuated and becomes instead: - "*the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography*" [Nietzsche] ~ Steve Q. Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D. Associate Provost and Dean of Arts and Sciences University of Maine, Farmington Farmington, ME 04938 (207) 778-7518 [log in to unmask] On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:11 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Gregg > > I believe it is better to move discussions on topics like "the death of > individualism" to the Intellectual Deep Web. > It is also a forum better prepared for heated discussions than the ToK > mailing list. > The Death of The Individual has been a central topic to European discourse > since the 1960s (Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Kristeva etc). > But the majority of members of this forum are Americans and psychologists > rather than philosophers so it makes better sense to move the topic > somewhere else. > I personally do not treat "individuals" in my method. I treat people of > multiplicity to engage in their own long-term agency as such. > In an increasingly digitalized world, this seems to work wonders. "Finding > one's true self" is a myth for airport bookshop self-help books. It is not > serious science. > And it is inceeasingly becoming a burdensome myth for an increasingly > bitter digital under class. We must do better and think fresh to get around > this question. > Those are my ten cents. > > Best intentions > Alexander Bard > > Den ons 16 okt. 2019 kl 13:47 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]>: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> I see this forum as a place for exchanging ideas and exploring “big >> picture” visions for the future. I also warn against dismissing and hand >> waving, as that too is a waste of time. >> >> >> >> As Joe M. will clearly note from a sociological point of view, there is a >> social systems view and a view of understanding (in)dividuals as being part >> of systemic social forces. From such a systems vantage point, I am a node >> and am typing out this reply in the web of social network exchanges that is >> unfolding. In other words, my behavior can only be fully understood as part >> of a larger complex adaptive systems landscape on the Culture-Person (and >> emerging digital) plane. To the extent we are plugged into each other, we >> all form a web of behavior that ripples through the universe. >> >> >> >> In addition, much of science has focused too much on individual isolated >> parts. The attached manuscript delineates the profound differences in >> developmental psychology from what they call a “Split Cartesian >> Mechanistic” view and a “Process Relational Paradigm”. My own view informed >> via the ToK/PTB perspective is that these are two different lenses to see >> the world…one part-into-whole, the other a holistic developmental systems >> view. It is a figure-ground dynamic. The ToK suggests that it makes sense >> to side with the Relational Process view in that *that view has been >> largely missing from the scientific discourse* and it can be now >> achieved with much greater relative clarity than in the past. However, it >> would not be wise to simply toss out the “part view” as if it did not carry >> any utility. An integrative pluralistic sensibility allows one to hold this >> dialectic with ease. >> >> >> >> Alexander, I think your rhetoric might be impeding some understanding in >> this forum. Those who have not read Syntheism will likely experience your >> blanket statements as boarding on the absurd. For example, what does it >> mean to say that I treat “individuals” in psychotherapy? The individualized >> treatment plan that I started to construct last night with a new >> client…what is that? Am I “delusional” when I analyze an individual’s >> pattern of development, their patterns of investment and influence and >> justification? Clearly, at that level of specificity, you are the one that >> needs to defend the claim. I know that you define “dividuals” and >> “subjective agents” such that the language games do line up much more than >> your rhetoric suggests. >> >> >> >> So, my recommendation is that we should be clear about our meaning to >> foster mutual understanding before making broad claims about “suitcase >> words” like individualism which mean a host of different things to >> different people in different contexts. >> >> >> >> Peace, >> >> G >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________ >> >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Graduate Psychology >> 216 Johnston Hall >> MSC 7401 >> James Madison University >> Harrisonburg, VA 22807 >> (540) 568-7857 (phone) >> (540) 568-4747 (fax) >> >> >> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.* >> >> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=C03PluLowL3I4-XppILpT2VBb_XExEf4W4oT6azjkZQ&s=UE630oezsPrsVpQQY_-lzdHRF1SYUSqft3ukW8-2uhA&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UaRgEZzTXtTzT0nJ_0nScVa8lkAp_FXAF057_fBdqy8&s=PVZVrJSa3su47OL8Hvx1iprUS4_8Guwv814WxMYeElc&e=> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:45 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Basic interactions. >> >> >> >> Dear Frank and Waldemar >> >> >> >> We can either sit and exchange niceties and make this forum a competition >> for who shows the most humility. Like a classical salon. Fine. >> >> Or we could try to move forward and challenge each other in a friendly, >> respectful but firm manner. I would definitely prefer the latter. Because I >> consider the first option a waste of valuable time. >> >> When I say that there is social and only social as in relational and only >> relational I mean exactly this. >> >> So where is this dear "Individual" actually located? Where does this >> continous undivided Individual reside? >> >> To me it's beginning to sound like old church ladies who insist that God >> must exist ontically because they are only comfortable with God existing >> and have never contemplated any alternatives. So they just raise the cloud >> where God resides higher and higher until there are no more clouds left to >> put him on. In what way is the insistant defense of "The Individual" any >> different? >> >> I see only systems called bodies and systems called brains within those >> bodies. And then systems called technologies around those bodies and >> brains. And then highly functional delusions of continuity and unity as >> "awarenesses" within these systems. But delusions nevertheless. >> >> Where I guess the burden of evidence lies with you and not with me, >> gentlemen! >> >> >> >> Best intentions >> >> Alexander Bard >> >> >> >> Den tis 15 okt. 2019 kl 22:01 skrev Frank Ambrosio < >> [log in to unmask]>: >> >> Dear Waldemar, >> >> >> >> I would not worry much about “entirely missing the point,” Bard’s or >> anyone else’s, because the truth you consistently enact in our >> discussions is intellectual and personal humility, and as far as I can >> tell, that pretty much IS the point. Bickering about the comparative merits >> of divergent conceptual schemas, whatever their pedigree, is usually unwise >> except in rarified cases, because it is to ignore one of the most basic >> truths humility imposes: every artifact of human culture, like its >> artificer, exists historically, which means its sustainable vitality is >> painfully limited and will shortly pass. The fact of death does not make >> human existence meaningless by any stretch, but memento mori, it’s a good >> idea to keep it in mind. >> >> >> >> All good wishes, >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:14 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Alexander (B): >> >> >> >> You could be correct about me - I may have entirely missed you point. >> >> It wouldn’t be the first time the obvious flew past me without making >> contact - unfortunately, it is probably not the last! >> >> >> >> You are correct, again, in suggesting that I should read Hegel - but >> first I have to learn to read German! >> >> Meanwhile, I’m studying Bard & Søderqvist - with whom I do not entirely >> agree or disagree, by the way but from whom I gain a much, much wider >> understanding. >> >> >> >> My argument is more along the lines of Alexander E. >> >> I favor neither individualism nor collectivism. >> >> Rather, I recognize that the human condition entails, for each person, >> their nature as a “social individual.” >> >> One whose social side requires an individual to interact with and being >> involved by other individuals and the social structure. >> >> Developing into an individual requires a social structure and involvement >> - in the absence of the social structure and function the “abandoned” >> orphanage infants did not thrive. >> >> The social structure and function in any setting requires the >> participation of separate (ie, individual) human beings within that social >> structure. >> >> There is no “one” without the “other." >> >> >> >> I think we are using different words and phrases to acknowledge >> essentially the same thing. >> >> >> >> I do thank you, again, for commenting. >> >> It’s our interpersonal interactions that allow me to expand and explore >> my horizons - little by little I come to apprehend the human condition. >> >> >> >> Best personal regards, >> >> >> >> Waldemar >> >> >> >> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD* >> (Perseveret et Percipiunt) >> 503.631.8044 >> >> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)* >> >> >> >> On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Waldemar >> >> >> >> You're entirely missing my point. >> >> The opposition of Individual versus Collective is Individualism. And it >> is that very OPPOSITION that is over. Your Collective is nothing but a >> Collective of Individuals. Like so many hardcore believers of the odl faith >> you simply refuse to see that the entire ideology is over. >> >> Physics killed Atomism. The Internet has killed Individualism. >> >> There is nothing but RELATIONAL left. And this relational is always >> plural so all that is left is a SOCIAL understanding of man and technology. >> >> Neuro science practically slaughters the idea of any solid consciousness >> PRIOR to the event. So get over it. >> >> Everything now is social as in man-machine social. But first and foremost >> we understand that we live in a relationalist world as reklationalist >> bodies with relationalist minds. >> >> Read Hegel! >> >> >> >> Best intentions >> >> Alexander Bard >> >> >> >> Den mån 14 okt. 2019 kl 23:29 skrev Waldemar Schmidt < >> [log in to unmask]>: >> >> Alexander B: >> >> >> >> Thank you for your response. >> >> I agree that things, such as the European modernist starting point to >> which you refer are not likely to be universal. >> >> My point is that we Homo sapiens sapiens are “social individuals.” >> >> That is, that one side of the “coin” is “social” and the other is >> “individual.” >> >> From my perspective, each of us is both - it seems un-necessary and >> inaccurate to argue that we are either one or the other. >> >> At the same time it seems correct to assert that American stress on >> individualism is as uninspired as a collectivist unitary stance. >> >> Perceiving humans as “social individuals” seems pretty close to universal >> to me. >> >> >> >> I understand that European Philosophy is different than American >> Philosophy. >> >> But, I enjoy the intellectual interaction of the two views. >> >> I have spent a considerable part of my formative years living in Europe >> and European country colonies - ie, I am a third-culture kid. >> >> Which means I really don’t fit well into either the culture from which I >> arose or the culture/s in which I developed. >> >> >> >> An holistic perception of the human condition seems more likely to foster >> progress. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Waldemar >> >> >> >> >> >> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD* >> (Perseveret et Percipiunt) >> 503.631.8044 >> >> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)* >> >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2019, at 5:08 AM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> >> Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD >> >> Associate Professor of Philosophy >> >> Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship >> >> Georgetown University >> >> 202-687-7441 >> >> ############################ >> >> 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