LISTSERV - TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

Hi Gregg

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure whether our sense-making can line up or not, but as I think it is important to cooperatively try to make sense of the crazy world we live in, and the significance of our individual lives within that world, then I'll explain a little of where I am coming from. At the end of this email, I copy a short section from a paper I wrote, which contextualises some of the points made in the email.

Firstly, I think the implications of quantum physics for a new worldview are phenomenal - that is a worldview which fundamentally challenges the mechanistic, Newtonian one that dominates and influences an increasingly neoliberal politicised world. What quantum physics does is challenges the separatist, determinist, reductive ontological assumptions of classical science, and instead shows us that we live in an entangled, inter-relational universe, where the observer does not exist independently of the world s/he observes. I don't think we can separate out 'macro-science' and quantum physics, because they are both emergent from the same underlying reality, but their underlying assumptions are in fact mutually exclusive (separate v entangled, certainty v uncertainty, etc).

In the classical, Newtonian worldview, it is possible to believe that (inanimate) matter is primary, and that consciousness (life) is a late emergent property of matter. Am I understanding your model correctly, where you have 'matter' at the base, and 'life' as emerging from matter? You do not mention consciousness, but - and correct me if I am wrong - I am assuming that in your model, consciousness emerges with 'life' - and perhaps, in line with the Newtonian view, consciousness is a by-product of the brain?

Although there are many interpretations of quantum physics, a central one is that it questions the nature of Consciousness (written with a capital C to differentiate it from the individualised form of consciousness we all experience) - with some physicists suggesting that the only way to explain the double-slit experiment is if you accept that particles have Consciousness. In other words, it is possible that Consciousness is primary, fundamental, universal - which would change everything. Your timeline starts with the Big Bang - but what existed before then? Possibly Consciousness - and if Consciousness is a living dynamic energy, and we are all an expression of that fundamental Consciousness, then in fact Life would precede matter?

In other words, the theory is, that if the universe were destroyed by a nuclear bomb right now, the physical world might be destroyed, but Consciousness in its essential form, would not be. It is in that context that Max Planck's quote makes sense.

John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, develops this thinking when he states: "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’ ".

I'm interested in exploring what it means to live in a 'participatory universe' with an ontological assumption that we, as living beings, are essentially creative expressions of a 'participatory consciousness'. Which means that how we experience each present moment, the choices we make, right here, right now, influence the reality that is created. There are no inbuilt laws, no predetermined reality, the future is open to us, and will reflect the extent to which we are able to 'tune in' and resonate with the fundamental consciousness which is the source of our being. And in that sense, the quantum principles of entanglement, interconnectedness and interrelatedness become central. This becomes important when we think of problems like climate change, environmental degradation, terrorism, the many forms of abuse and oppression that epitomise our world - all stem from perceptions of separation and alienation, and a lack of connection to each other and the wider planet.

Where does this tie in with psychology, which I know is your main interest? Well, with the kind of ontological foundation that I am proposing, I see psychology, the different sciences, sociology, politics, economics, etc etc as all being interrelated, and it is important to see each discipline in the context of all the rest - again to follow any one of these without attention to their relationship to all the others, merely exacerbates the sense of separation which I think is core to all world problems.

If this is not really relevant to your interests, please do say! But it does worry me that there are so many intelligent people on this planet, many with great ideas about what needs to be done to make the world a better place (and listening to Trump in the last 24 hours, we definitely need more intelligent alternatives), and with theoretical frameworks (such as your own) which aim to enhance understanding and wisdom. However if we don't make some attempt to 'join up' these different approaches, and translate these into some form of cooperative (including political) action, then our individual voices will be drowned out by the tsunami of ignorance, selfishness and self-centredness etc, that threatens to overwhelm us.

Best wishes

Joan

Quantum physics has revealed that reality is much more complex, and far less easily comprehensible, than had appeared to be the case when it was believed that the Laws of Newtonian Science were applicable to all of reality.

Scientists have recognised the problems that are inherently challenging in this. Einstein (1879-1955) summed it up as follows:

We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do." (Einstein & Infeld 1938:262-263).

John Wheeler (1911-2008), a theoretical physicist and a colleague of Einstein’s, reflected on the very different worldview that emerged from quantum physics:

Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’. (1994: 126)

Wheeler suggests that, rather than being passive bystanders in the world, we are instead active participants, who create rather than discover the universe with which we are interacting.

In summary, quantum physics reveals that we live in a non-deterministic universe, where it is not possible to predict with certainty, but only in terms of probabilities; and where there is no independent observer, as the act of observing and measuring reality changes the nature of that reality. The phenomenon of entanglement identifies that the influence of one particle on another cannot be explained by cause and effect, but instead indicates a relational interconnectedness that can only be understood within the context of the whole in which both particles are located.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:15, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Joan,

Thanks for this note. I appreciate your question/point about ontology. I am somewhat familiar with Barad’s work, but did not dive deeply to see how much it aligns with my own. I will say that think there are many different issues here that need to be disentangled. For example, I was not sure if you were talking about scientific knowledge or other forms/domains/claims pertaining to knowledge. The issues are a bit different depending on the frame.

If we are talking about our scientific knowledge of the universe, the ToK System aligns quite well with Roy Bhaskar’s work in critical realism. He does good work separating epistemology from ontology. Note that most of his focus is on macro science and everyday knowledge. Things are a bit different if we move into the quantum domain, so I would need to know which domain you were focused on.

Here is the basic map of scientific knowledge and reality afforded by the ToK System. It characterizes Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture as planes of existence, which represents the ontic reality. It identifies science as a kind of justification system that generates ontological claims about the ontic reality via epistemological methods that justify those claims.

Given this map of the ontic reality and scientific onto-epistemology, I don’t know how to interpret Max Planck’s quote.

I would welcome your interpretation to see if our sensemaking lines up here or not.

Best,
Gregg

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Joan Walton
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Thanks to Steve

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.

Hi Gregg

I was interested in a sentence in the email below: "I am noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language)".

I would be interested in the ontological assumptions that you and others consider inform these epistemological positions? So often, ontology gets explicitly ignored (whilst implicitly influencing everything).

I'm very interested in the idea that separation of any kind is an illusion, and am exploring the idea of the 'inseparability of the knower and known'. I don't know if you are familiar with Karen Barad's Meeting the Universe Halfway - quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, and her concept of 'ethico-onto-epistemology' where ethics, ontology and epistemology are entangled. In exploring these ideas, my starting point is that everything starts with our experience (hence phenomenological); and we have no experience without consciousness - so consciousness is fundamental to all that we think, say and do. So our beliefs about the nature of consciousness become integral to all other ontological and epistemological issues. Max Planck's “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (1932: Where is Science Going).

But we need to start with our experiences of consciousness, and share those experiences, with any theories grounded in, and resonating with, those first person experiences.

Within this context, my sense is that selecting an epistemological position from the three you identify is in itself a form of separation, which we need to try to move beyond?

I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it there. Sorry, I do not have the space to read all the emails on this list, though I read a fair number, and I may be writing about stuff you've already covered, or is not particularly relevant to your main points of discussion, but just thought I would give a quick response to that section which caught my attention.

Best wishes

Joan

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 10:52, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Folks,

Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his story regarding the problem of value in psychology. It affirmed for me strongly how fraught the problems of simply applying the methodological language game of MENS is to human psychology, as it comes with many different “value parameters” that can quickly be overlooked and hidden, and extreme assumptions of “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the methods.

My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK System instead of empirical methodology as the language game of MENS. The reason is obviously, metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For example, it was clear that the exchange, as all the TOK Community exchanges have been, along with virtually all other zoom exchanges, take place on the Culture-Person plane of existence and involve justification, investment and influence dynamics. In the broad sense, Steve shared his justification narrative for his struggles with the justifications that empirical psychology, especially trait personality psychology, offer.

Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat. The problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the right metaphysical map of human psychology. The “traits” of the Big Five are, indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge over the course of development. There are genetic differences that track onto behavioral dispositional differences, although the road is complicated and filled with feedback loops, such that genes clearly don’t cause traits.

I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory of “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for talking about our entire subject matter. And, ala Mike’s arguments, that does need to be intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW, I am noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language).

The question I pose: What is the proper language game for human psychology? For me, the metapsychology provided by UTOK provides the best way forward. For starters, it shines the light on the Enlightenment Gap and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve found his “is-ought” problem. And the proper way forward is not via the empirical methods of science, but first, a language game that gets the field of inquiry clear. We were headed in that direction near the end: What are the needs we have as Primates? How do we justify our selves as Persons?

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

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