Your query is valid. I hope this article of mine on difference
between success
& excellence published sometime ago, would shed more
light.
James,
Not only do I full support your view, I would add - this is the
difference between success & excellence.
TY
DL
[log in to unmask]"> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ok, so... I'll be the one to ask... what's wrong with intellectual masturbation?
Our Puritanical heritage can be so limiting.. :)
Seriously, though ... the idea that we must always show value of inquiry to society isa form of hubris.
We cannot always appreciate the value of scientific inquiry... if we truly understood the full value ofeach journey into the unknown, would we not already know what we propose to be exploring/
The shift from basic to applied is a justification of science. Inquiry needs no justification.
Knowledge is its own reward.
James Lyons-Weiler
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Beautiful Gregg. It's a powerful question I've wondered about a lot, "is it just intellectual mastrubation if I learn this amazing way to see the world yet don't seem to improve my own life or efficacy? How patient or impatient should one be about the practical use & changes in one's life from learning these frameworks?"
Lot's of food for thought in you response.
Also here is the youtube link to Gregg's dialogue with Alexander Bard, the above parallax discussion:
anjan
########################################################Hi ToK System-into-UTOKers 😊,
As I mentioned previously, Alexander Bard and I are going to be exchanging ideas about our “systems” of thought. He posed this question for a prompt to reflect on:
“The question to ask ourselves is why systems are so important to begin with. In other words: Without systems, there can be no sense-making to begin with, only fluffy and trendy opinions all over again.”
This was my reply:
Re the “system” question, my quick answer is that our shared systems of thought (i.e., the justification systems that coordinate us on the Person-Culture plane of existence) are central to our ontology. They propositionally frame what is and ought to be, and the process by which we intersubjectively negotiate that with each other. Crucially, we need to understand that they are not EVERYTHING. This is the foolish extreme of the Sapir-Whorf or twisted Derrida followers who would say the language systems simply are what is. Of course, that is not true. Propositional claims about reality are obviously not synonymous reality per se. But they are key.
And because we do and should have values, we can and do say that some systems are better than others. In terms of how we go about determining the justifiability of knowledge systems, here is a blog that offers a quick review of seven such frames.
My basic system is positioned as critique of modernist Enlightenment Philosophy/Science on its own terms of logic, rationality, empiricism, coherence and utility in fostering human progress. The Enlightenment embarked on the development of a rationalist philosophy that would include both a scientific understanding of the world and the promotion of human value. It succeed in some ways. On its own terms, the STEM world is an advance of human knowledge. However, STEM systematically breaks down at psychology. This is because of the first major Enlightenment problem of knowledge, which is getting the proper conceptual relationship between matter and mind. Or, put differently, there was no coherent scientific worldview that effectively placed the matter in motion mechanics of physics with human consciousness. Hence, the infamous and omnipresent “mind-body problem” that comes along with the Western Enlightenment science-philosophy.
It also fails as a system to clearly frame the relationship between social and scientific onto-epistemologies. This is why the postmodern critique of modernism emerges and sticks. That is why I now often refer to Modernist Empirical Natural Science as MENS knowledge. The intentional acronym highlights failed completely in its reflective capacities in how it feeds back on society and the complex iterative relations between knowledge and power, ala Foucault. In the 21st Century, we need Wisdom Oriented Modern Empirical Naturalist Science….
The problem of psychology is at the center of all of this. Defined in the academy as the science of behavior and mental process, it is a shitshow when it comes to being a coherent discipline. What it basically has become is a discipline that employs scientific/empirical epistemology to questions of “the mind”. But there is no coherent ontology of what people mean by science OR mind OR behavior. This is precisely because of the Enlightenment Gap, which fails on both the matter/mind and social/science knowledge problem.
Coherence in one’s knowledge system is valuable. Moreover, we can see, in the mental health and meaning crises that are rampant in our society, that there is massive pragmatic implications for the failure of a coherent knowledge system that includes both STEM and mental and meaningful ways of being in the world. So, that is what I am after. A system that fills in the Enlightenment Gap, solves the problem of psychology, and then allows for a consilient view of the natural-into-social sciences that can then orient humanity toward the proper humanistic/theological metaphysical vision of the future led by brilliant shamanistic artistic philosophers, such as yourself!
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
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 the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/
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
--
############################---
james lyons-weiler, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)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