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