Dear Joan, /Indeed within the existing scope of knowledge it has to be decided whether consciousness is either an entity, property/relationship./ /Truly yours Deepak Loomba/ // On 11/6/2020 4:48 PM, Joan Walton 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Joan Walton > *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=meyfxoGp13Dr61ajBU9icCoVaWoi7x-1EVnbsJSORMs&e=> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=DhghFF4CRqfk1Kv2vt-zYOQMUvFVU0sqDrpG7PSbFyY&s=dwJJpqFTdTnIUn4Kp5tqcdbq9vp3Rp79uJa9Sjmi7Mk&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=g0V3gh806uhoNKQyWv1SB_52tEzR45nG9MsiUdzIu2U&e=> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <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] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <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] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <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] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <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