Thanks, Michael, for bringing up insights by Kenneth Burke. He was a favorite of two of my key intellectual and cultural influences, Ralph Ellison and Albert Murray. Here's a post-election essay in which I refer to Burke also: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.tuneintoleadership.com_blog_election-2Dreflections-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dblues-2Didiom&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QscKv3YjvxhGbrSz5LurOMaJrmEROKMKND9yQAlFo3Q&s=S9KxYbM6riQ0w4B1o0JJuKz510kDBH4L0rgFqNUlbKk&e= Greg Thomas On Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 12:56 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *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. > ------------------------------ > Nick and All: > > Nick: I read your Is-Ought Fallacy essay with interest. > > I will focus only on the central point as it relates to the is-ought > fallacy. You write: > > There only IS, there is no ought. There can’t be an ought outside of an > idea, which is a conclusion subjectively derived either mentally or > biologically to perpetuate a belief system or evolutionary process, > respectively and very generally speaking in a mind and matter dialectic. > > > In his famous "definition of man" [sic], Kenneth Burke, building on > Spinoza, remarked that “there is no negative in nature”. That is, there is > only “there” in nature — there is no “not there”. The “not there” is > provided by symbol using animals. With the capacity to build symbols, > humans (and some other animals) are capable of inventing the negative — the > “no — the “not there”. And with the “not there” — this wonderful invention > of symbol using (and mis-using) animals, comes the capacity for morality — > that is, the sense of what is “not there” but *should* or * ought *to be > there. > > In this way, I would suggest that Nick is right that there is no ought in > the natural world — no reason why the tiger ought not to eat the lamb. > However, there are oughts in the human world — in the human world of *shared > symbolically-mediated experience*. Oughts are forms of evaluation (what > the philosopher Charles Taylor calls “strong evaluations”) . They are > brought into existence through the human capacity for symbolization as it > occurs within *intersubjective* exchanges with others. That is to say > that the “ideas” of which “oughts” are a part are *not* simply subjective > constructions; ideas are not private experiences that are encased within > individual persons. Ideas have their basis in the human capacity for > symbolic and *intersubjective* (that is “inter-experiential) engagement > with each other. Oughts are created in the very process of our > intersubjective engagement with each other: I take the bread out of your > mouth; you resist, cry, strike out; I feel empathy, fear or the like. We > now have the task of figuring out how we ought coordinate our needs. This > brings us to the oughts of morality. > > And so, I suggest that oughts exist — not the the natural world, but in > the intersubjective world of human relations. Although the intersubjective > world is constructed, it is as real as the material world. It just exists > in our human experience. > > All my very best, > > Mike > > > > *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D. *Academic Director, Compass Program > Professor, Department of Psychology > Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845 > 978.837.3503 (office) > 978.979.8745 (cell) > > > Political and Interpersonal Conflict Website: Creating Common Ground > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=dgTa_pW0C9MTBqjmeOfFCBWMAgWLLxS5z7t9gDbZ0d0&e=> > Blog: Values Matter > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=LwOrxJ8xvwG1edjvJ2-uZQSdwDuU8bF_EDetto7rCtI&e=> > Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=hoRbCyL4HmDFe3bi-4iNDNl96g-XtkQSw9mTzO7XoBo&e=> > Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=gOFU3lvnXNjFnp7sJV-3BhanDrtg2wRVuQyQ7wmV_8I&e=> > Academia Home Page > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=j01BbHSTUCVYFR7RGPc9Zabc531p4JBJdkiWaDFturk&e=> > > Constructivist Meetup Series > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YA_ijQ3chmDdsJgj8iyaG_z8r13yb_amgEJH12PrC8Y&s=hC0cpAZOxmCox7_jGJJ0uqAYfvW9JbR9ahatrPDewlU&e=> > > *Things move, persons act.* -- Kenneth Burke > *If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well*. -- Donald Hebb > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > *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. > ------------------------------ > Well Gregg, that does appear to be the question doesn't it? I imagine the > 1st-person perspective equivalent to what you're describing as me being > able to see in all directions, and based on what is perceived make attempts > to look at itself by those same perceptual processes. Like the hole in a > donut trying to see itself as the donut and the hole simultaneously. > Although you may not be satisfied with my answer, which of course comes > from a nondual perspective, I hope you can see the value of the position I > take in finding an answer from the position you take, I believe therein > lies the key, a sort of nondual empiricism. > > But I think we'd agree that the situation you've described is our current > state of affairs (i.e, literally all of your work to systematize knowledge > and more). I think that this kind of barrier is in our definition of > ourselves. "We" can't get that view as individual human beings or forms of > life. The systems, ecological and otherwise, that allow life to exist also > can't get that view. They are two sides of the same coin, and we are that > coin. We are that unknown knower. I am this (a human, secondarily > identified as "Nik") so that I can know that (apparently external reality), > and I am that (the reality) so that I can know/be this (the apparently > separate individual human identified as "Nik"). To define my existence > according to only what I am conscious of or can be made conscious of (our > existing knowledge systems) doesn't appreciate the limitations of the human > organism, nor does it give credence to the omnipotence of existence itself. > > I was free writing about this earlier in thinking about Is-Ought, I figure > I'll format into an essay but I've attached it below. It may better address > your question if I am understanding it correctly. Quite a > thought-provoking discussion! > > > Regards, > > Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 9:54 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> >> Thanks, Nik. As you know, I am a big fan. >> >> Here is my question: >> >> What if the object you are looking at is an evolving 7 dimensional set of >> nested cones that we are both inside of but trying to get an outside view >> of? >> >> (To get seven plus the inside/out, there are three space, one time in >> Matter, which is four, then there the superimposed Life, Mind, and Culture >> dimensions, then there is the scientist that is from the inside trying to >> be on the outside, the there is the Imaginary Garden perspective that >> factors the scientific knower perspective in then out which then collapses >> into wisdom energy) >> >> Hope folks have a good break 😄✌️. >> >> G >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 28, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> *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. >> ------------------------------ >> Greetings all! >> >> I hope everyone was able to enjoy some sort of festivities with loved >> ones in recent days. >> >> Given the complex nature of the varied listserv discussions and community >> presentations over the past few months in particular, I thought I'd share >> this short (7min) bit of wisdom spoken by the brilliant Daniel >> Schmachtenberger. Enjoy!! >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_ZNcyc-5FsEtpU&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QscKv3YjvxhGbrSz5LurOMaJrmEROKMKND9yQAlFo3Q&s=Gp_lc_oVwmnNOY88QcXJO5mfQAbNsfHzlxqNBCUTUlU&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_ZNcyc-5FsEtpU&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zPCtsvHTO1_srLNBYxiLq3MphYKIqpWTRXplqU9H_fQ&s=vFydBqoN6IlVrdLwkI3llciIB4XYhpFzJYGOo2OUlDQ&e=> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. >> ############################ >> >> 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 > <The Is-Ought Fallacy_Free Writing1.pdf> > > > ############################ > > 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