Andrea,

As an American, I certainly like your view of Americans and think we sometimes sort of live up to it... 

A friend sent me this article from NYT today. My worry is that the American spirit of being able to engage and discuss and argue intellectually might be eroding in younger generations (those in college now). My students at CU Boulder are extremely uncomfortable in casual, meant to be fun debates in the classroom, tiptoe around or altogether avoid difficult subjects like race, and I've heard instructors say they too "shut down" uncomfortable discussions in the classroom so no one gets hurt. It's viscerally disturbing to me. 

I like your version of "the American way" much more and think it's ultimately more productive in getting ideas on the table for rejection or negotiation. 

Liz



LIZ SWAN, PHD


Psychology Today blogs: "The Philosopher is In" and "College Confidential"

Swan Real Estate LLC

200-Hour RYT Yoga Instructor



On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:24 AM Andrea Zagaria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Mmm. It`s sad when people are not interested in fostering a dialogue.

As a European myself, I have to acknowledge an important fact: we may have a great philosophical tradition, but often we are very narrow minded and we are not very able to connect theory with practice.
The "american way", in this regard, is very much better. Better communication, better connection between theory and practice, more clarity in explanations. Many europeans think, often unconsciously, the more obscure you are, the more profound. They also like idiosyncrasies and the ego_biased tendecy to the paternity of a theory, rather than its content. Such an idiocy. 
That is the reason why, in my opinion, Lacanian psychoanalysis has many followers in Europe, much less in America (at least as far as I know).


Andrea 


Il mar 23 giu 2020 16:18 Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> ha scritto:

Hi Andrea,

  Yes, I am familiar with her work. It is interesting and I tried to engage her in an exchange to see the overlap between our systems. She was a reviewer of the Periodic Table of Behavior paper. My take was that there were clear ways to line up our visions (although I did note to myself that there appeared to be a problematic dualism that you note). Anyway, she did not seem terribly interested in fostering a dialogue. She was not a fan of how I was connecting to behaviorism and she did not feel like I had done my homework on European theorists. At least that was my read. Joe M. was in on the exchange. He can pipe in if he sees it differently.

 

Anyway, I think she has developed a cool system. I just don’t think it quite goes deep enough into the descriptive metaphysical issues of mind and matter to get quite the right lay of the land.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Andrea Zagaria
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 9:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Transdisciplinary Philosophy of Science Paradigm

 

Hi TOK list, 

As my target article about evolutionary psychology as a meta-theory continues to be commented on, I bumped into a comment by Jana Uher. 

She developed a unifying framework named TPS-P (Transdisciplinary Philosophy of Science Paradigm for  Research on Individuals) Here a link for a summary: http://researchonindividuals.org/

I still have to study it properly, for now what I find not convincing is her characterization of psychical vs physical, with spatiality as a defining feature of physical and not of psychical. It seems, to my eyes, a classic dualistic cartesian distinction: RES COGITANS (mind) vs RES EXTENSA (matter). (http://researchonindividuals.org/tps-paradigm_metatheoretical.htm)

 

As Gregg points out, thinking about the ultimate unit of physics as matter is now out-dated;  it is better to think of Energy-Matter-Information.

 

Are you familiar with her work? Any thoughts about it? 

 

Andrea

 

P.S. I found out this morning that also Mike (Mascolo) published a commentary on my article. I just looked over it, and still have to read it properly, but thanks Mike….

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

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