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