What I hear Alexander say is that digital overlords have the moral right to strip us of our individuality and thus our freedom. - Or did I hear something that wasn't there? / Lene On 16-10-2019 19:07, Alexander Bard 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] <mailto:[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=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sXY2F3BbQ_K6jvaGL2Krh7IBLnnH_RaDaYyTHljJokk&s=1SQ5ZY5-Ui-4MinlXWlVQereWMHKJ1f6EdfkqaB8Ids&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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:45 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] > <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 > > -- > > 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] > <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