From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cadell Last
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 6:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Episode [#2] Enlightenment Gap Series

It does not, however, address the problem of psychology. Modern psychology is defined by the language game of science. If you are not playing by the language game of science, you are not doing (modern) psychology.

According to you, the “problem of psychology” is the problem that:

1. Psychologists do not know what their subject matter is
2. Psychologists do not know what their words refer to or mean

• What is the relation between mind and body?
• What is the relation between science and society?

This is not a series that focuses on keeping “scientific realism”.  That doesn’t solve the problem of mind and body or science and society.  Actually approaching those problems will require a fundamental revolution in how we see these relations, not reinstantiating scientific realism.  If scientific realism solved these problems we wouldn’t even be having this series.

I agree with Bard…psychoanalysis is properly conceived of as an art…it offers a metaphysics this not anchored to exterior empirical epistemology.

Exactly.  So somehow including this as fundamental will revolutionise our entire understanding of both psyche/mind.  There is something about psyche/mind that has nothing to do with exterior empirical epistemology and the scientific real.  The scientific real is not the real.

That is all well and good. But there is no way, in my opinion as a scientist, to subsume science by psychoanalysis. 

No there isn’t.  Doing this destroys the scientists image of self (which is why they fight it ;-)).  But this is not a “sublation” in Wilber’s sense of include and transcend.  When you include and transcend what was (the scientific real) gets retroactively transformed into something totally different/other (just as the religious becomes something totally different after the emergence of science).  

For my money, natural science epistemology affords us the best, generalizable realist ontology for mapping the ontic reality.

Yes maybe, but it doesn’t help us understand the mind.  The mind is more fundamental then scientific epistemology.

As fascinating as psychoanalysis is, it is not great at generating a realist ontology that can be shown to empirically map the ontic reality.

It is not interested in empirical mapping the ontic reality.  What it is interested in is:

1. Subject matter is referring to the mind’s problematic relation to embodiment
2. Words are a reflection of traumatic embodiment and read in terms of symptoms

Which includes scientists: 

• All scientists are in bodies; and 
• All scientists are symptomatic identities

That is why Freud was jettisoned natural science and psychoanalysis spun off into its own island and found itself being mulled over by European philosophers.

Freud was jettisoned because natural scientists don’t understand him and don’t read him (natural scientists in general do not deeply or closely read great philosophers and get stuck in their naive de-subjectified ontologies).  It is absurdly arrogant for natural science epistemology to assume that 19th and 20th century philosophy totally transforms what we know about the real.

Furthermore, Freud may have been jettisoned from science but he was not jettisoned from the humanities (on the contrary).  Freud is a foundation stone of any attempt to return to real problems of psychology, i.e.:

1. Subject matter is referring to the mind’s problematic relation to embodiment
2. Words are a reflection of traumatic embodiment and read in terms of symptoms

That is why I am leading a “return to Freud”:

• Return to Freud

In just the first three sessions we cover:

• Psychical Treatment
• Hysterical Phenomena 
• Neuro-Psychoses 
• Obsessions, Phobias
• Heredity and Sexuality in Neuroses
• Mechanisms of Forgetfulness
• Screen memories

To me these appear to be real problems of psychology.

Another key point of difference that emerged…In contrast, to Cadell who characterizes human language as a “symptom” of pathos, I see language as structurally and functionally organized to address/solve/navigate the problem of justification, which has analytic (truth/accuracy), personal and social interest elements to it. 

Yes, for me logos cannot escape pathos.  Logos needs to be brought into direct contact with pathos for authentic sublimation (otherwise logos is disembodied).  Pathos is the real.  Logos disconnected from pathos is literally “untruthful” and lost in images.  What that means is that:

I see language as structurally and functionally organized to address/solve/navigate the problem of justification

The problems logos tries to solve are disconnected from its day-to-day life (something which you have already agreed with me about).  

Indeed, in my conversation with Cadell, it dawned on me that the three problems of justification align here (logos/analytic; mythos/social; and pathos/personal). I had never made that connection before.

In other words, logos cannot be disconnected from pathos.  And logos/analytical intelligence disconnected from pathos is untruthful and lost in images totally unrelated to its real day-to-day life.

I will repeat.  To me the solution to the problem of psychology is already resolved, and what happens when you resolve the problem of psychology, is you get an eternal problem, that is: psychoanalysis:

1. Subject matter is referring to the mind’s problematic relation to embodiment
2. Words are a reflection of traumatic embodiment and read in terms of symptoms

Looking forward to Episode #3!

On 20 Nov 2020, at 11:18, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Thanks for posting this, Cadell. Yes, cool to see our differences emerge.

 

For me, psychoanalysis is a fascinating lens to examine pathos, which is one’s unique subjective interior felt experience of being in the world. Psychoanalysis allows for interesting frames to examine that aspect of our experience and produce insights regarding the depth in the layering of our subjectivity. 

 

It does not, however, address the problem of psychology. Modern psychology is defined by the language game of science. If you are not playing by the language game of science, you are not doing (modern) psychology. This, of course, can be fine. Lots of cool things outside of doing science. Indeed, I agree with Bard…psychoanalysis is properly conceived of as an art…it offers a metaphysics this not anchored to exterior empirical epistemology. That is all well and good. But there is no way, in my opinion as a scientist, to subsume science by psychoanalysis. In my taxonomy of language games (see below), that is a category error, much asAndre Marquis argues that Wilber makes in Integral as he tries to subsume science into his spiritual ontology.

 

For my money, natural science epistemology affords us the best, generalizable realist ontology for mapping the ontic reality. As fascinating as psychoanalysis is, it is not great at generating a realist ontology that can be shown to empirically map the ontic reality. That is why Freud was jettisoned natural science and psychoanalysis spun off into its own island and found itself being mulled over by European philosophers.  The UTOK works to separate the baby and the bathwater…from the vantage point of a consilient natural-into-human scientific vantage point. See here for a more detailed map of human consciousness from a UTOK vantage point that offers an updated version of Freud that is consistent with modern human (scientific) psychology. As my journey in Untangling the World Knot of Consciousness with John Vervaeke shows, this map of human consciousness does sync up very nicely with his integrative approach to cognitive science (which splits off from psychology because the mentalist versus behaviorist divide never gets scientifically resolved). 

 

Another key point of difference that emerged…In contrast, to Cadell who characterizes human language as a “symptom” of pathos, I see language as structurally and functionally organized to address/solve/navigate the problem of justification, which has analytic (truth/accuracy), personal and social interest elements to it. Along these lines, I continue to be impressed by the idea that there are different language games/systems of justification that are concerned with logos exemplified by science and its capacity for intersubjective objectivity (and addressing the analytic problem of language truth value), mythos and its capacity for intersubjective meaning making, group identity, and shared sociopolitical direction, and pathos, connected to the phenomenological subjective experience of being (which both the Eastern traditions and psychoanalysis explore in different ways). Indeed, in my conversation with Cadell, it dawned on me that the three problems of justification align here (logos/analytic; mythos/social; and pathos/personal). I had never made that connection before.

 

Ultimately, from a UTOK vantage point, achieving clarity between these different epistemological frames and anchoring them to a wisdom ethos would be a wonderful 21^st Century accomplishment. Here is this in vision logic form based on the UTOK frame of understanding:

 

<image002.jpg>

 

Looking forward to Episode #3!

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cadell Last
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Episode [#2] Enlightenment Gap Series

 

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 everyone,

 

The second conversation of The Enlightenment Gap series is out now:

 

• Modern Philosophy of Psychology

 

I want to reiterate that the series focuses on the double problem of:

 

• Matter and Mind
• Science and Society

 

In this conversation Gregg and I were brought to a fundamental difference between our views, and in re-watching it the difference seems to be about the “problem of psychology”:

 

1. Psychologists don’t now what we mean by our subject matter
2. Psychologists have no consensus on what their words mean

 

For me I proposed in this conversation that the problem of psychology receives a very clear solution at the foundation of psychoanalysis:

 

1. Subject matter is referring to the mind’s problematic relation to embodiment
2. Words are a reflection of traumatic embodiment and read in terms of symptoms

 

What this means is that all mental activity (which in the scientific universe is disembodied) needs to be brought directly to embodied existence; and all words (spoken by the subject) are a reflection of an attempt to reconcile its embodiment (finitude-mortality, etc.).

 

I attempted to situate this within the larger claim that psychoanalysis as a rupture internal to the scientific universe, but not something that can be reduced to the scientific universe, has undergone so much tension with science because its fundamental presuppositions present a contradiction to science and especially naive scientific ontologies of reality.

 

<image004.jpg>

 

I guess what I would propose then is that once the “problem of psychology” is solved you would get the transformation into psychoanalysis… 

 

—

Cadell Last

“Die again, die better!”

 

On 18 Nov 2020, at 17:30, easalien <[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.

---

Gregg:  

 

Thanks for the clarification. It’s an important one. What I meant in referencing the Enlightenment Gap was the solution should complement—not contradict—what we already know. Facts are stubborn things, and ideas are ultimately limited by them in practice. With that said, our common sense ontology could use reorientation.

 

While the TOK’s posited as meta-framework, I believe it contains real solutions. As symbolic representations—like mathematics itself—the joint points correspond to actual events (broken symmetries), which are testable. In fact, scientists have already conducted a few; they just can’t explain the results. They require the broader framework.

 

Cadell:

 

Read your paper, and I believe there’s mutual fidelity in our ideas. While I’m not convinced the Technological Singularity provides solutions (Halting Problem), I’m onboard with the phase transition towards intersubjective objectivity. How we ultimately get there, time will tell.

 

I’m glad you mentioned Cantor’s Infinities, as they require their own explanation.  If incompleteness is fundamental to understanding, then solutions must incorporate indeterminacy. However, attempts to include the singularity lead to nonsensical results. That’s the beauty of the black hole analogy: it allows their inclusion by extending infinitely outward AND inward.

 

Ironically, accounting for reality requires us to acknowledge something unreal: Potential. It simultaneously exists infinitely into the past as well as into the future. It’s foundational to both subatomic particles and the universe-at-large, manifesting dualistically in QM (probability) and GR (center of gravity). Potential is the unrealized unification, fulfilling the incomplete.

 

If broken symmetries are driven by gravity, the separation of forces in QM are functions of Potential—the Graviton—as independent background. The model is its own theory of quantum gravity.

 

This is the TOE.

 

Eric

 

On Saturday, November 14, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for this summary, Cadell.

 

I completely agree. This last sentiment is key, in that there will never be a final solution to the problem; whatever ground solutions uncover, they also always expand the negative space of the horizon.

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cadell Last
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 7:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Episode #1 Enlightenment Gap Series

 

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.

---

Eric:

 

As demonstrated by the Measurement Problem in QM, interpretations of reality must include the observer, and accounting for them both simultaneously is the problem before us. However, the beauty of the hard sciences is they’ve already established their own limitations, e.g. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Geodesic Incompleteness in Penrose-Hawking Singularities.

Yes, exactly.  I would just add that in order to include the problem of the observer and the measurement problem we also have to remember the lessons of Cantor vis-a-vis the importance of including self-relating procedures (especially in mathematics) and the “infinity of infinities”.  When we combine self-relating procedures in mathematics and also the incompleteness theorem then we have the limitations to make progress without regressing into the trap of:

 

 Post-Modernist Theology, solipsism run amok.

 

There is a Real here that does not involve the traditional notion of a substantial eternal absolute; and there is a Real here that does not allow every subjective position to be true.  However, this Real also applies to scientists themselves and especially the risks and dangers of scientism, as Gregg notes and defends well:

 

 the problem of psychology IS a problem with science as it was birthed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment Gap means that science has failed, at least without a new approach

 

This new approach will indeed require that we not only understand physics but also physicists themselves.  For example, in Figure 11 on my paper of including subjectivity into singularity I attempt to map the historical-social real of the physics community itself and its search for the real-truth in-itself:

 

last-c-2018-cosmic-evolutionary-philosophy-and-a-dialectical-approach-to-technological-singularity.pdf

 

Eric:

The intractability of Mind-Body Problem suggests we lack even the terminology to discuss the topic appropriately.

Yes, or the problem literally brings us to the limits of scientific language (and especially the search for a “metalanguage”).  That is why psychoanalysis (which can find its origin in the very problem of the mind/body relation itself) has no time for “metalanguages” but instead lets the frustrated speech of the subject emerge as it is because the subject already has the knowledge, and we need only provide the set and settings for that truth to emerge about the body and its pathologies.  For me, the direction to point is in this frustrated emotional speech itself (with no metalanguage to stop it from expressing what needs to be expressed).  

Eric:

In keeping with the incompleteness of reality itself, maybe its insolubility is the solution.

This logic is where I would point as well, it is a brilliant demonstration of the inversion of positivist logic.  Positivist logic is always looking for a solution, whereas its inversion sees the problem as itself the solution.  Science is brought to its limits with the in-itself of the human mind (as Hegel already knew).  For Hegel, he say the “insolubility” as the key to the solution (which is the meaning of his axiom “the spirit is a bone”).  What he means by this is that it is the very work of the mind on the body (full of all the emotional tensions and pains that that includes) where the real of spirit is becoming actual.  This real cannot be conceived of as “complete” or “consistent” or “finished” in any way.  As you say: “its insolubility is the solution” (that we need to actively work with the logic of spirit itself).

 

—

Cadell Last

“Die again, die better!”

 

On 11 Nov 2020, at 13:35, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Hi Eric,

 

  Thanks for this note. I appreciate these connections, and I see some linkages here that are worth pursuing. I especially appreciated the link to Ethan Siegel’s article. I am a fan of his work.

 

Let me offer one point of clarity…the Enlightenment Gap (see here) refers to the fact that Enlightenment Science/philosophy PRODUCES the problem of psychology. That is, the failure of modernist science/philosophy to effectively reconcile science/society and mind/matter gives rise to the problem of generating a coherent science of mind/behavior. Thus, I don’t follow you when you say “progress with the Enlightenment Gap must conform to established science. Given its relative success compared to the persistent Problem(s) of Psychology, science has earned its authority.” The point of the Enlightenment Gap is traditional conceptions/frames/grammars of science have generated an eclectic empirical conglomerate of findings in psychology and the social sciences in general that do not cohere into intelligent sense making. Thus, the problem of psychology IS a problem with science as it was birthed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment Gap means that science has failed, at least without a new approach; that is, what is needed is an upgrade in how we conceive of scientific knowledge. 

 

  The ToK System is that upgrade. It advances our understanding of MENS knowledge so that we now have a descriptive metaphysical system that affords a natural scientific worldview that provides us the grammar to generate a science of mental behavior. That is, it solves the problem of psychology at the metaphysical and metatheoretical levels of analysis. 

 

  I do concur with you that the observer/knower is central to this analysis. Indeed, the whole point from a ToK-into-UTOK perspective is that we need a theory of both physics and physicists and does so in a way that also connects knowledge to wisdom. That is, we need a theory of the human knower that connects properly to ethics in anything that purports to be a “theory of everything”. That is what makes the ToK System unique. It is a theory of scientific knowledge that includes the human knower. And then placed in UTOK, it gives the proper relation between knowledge and wisdom.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Deepak Loomba
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 1:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Episode #1 Enlightenment Gap Series

 

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.

---

Gregg, 

 

This seems to be an interesting conversation (the one Eric is talking about). My challenge to participation is the time - you hold it on a working day at India time 0300+ hours. 

Would be awesome if you could consider delaying or preponing by a few.

 

TY

DL

 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:52 easalien, <[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.

---

Hey Guys, 

 

Wonderful conversation. It encompassed a broad swath of the field and the passion for it is evident. However, there were many questions and few answers so looking forward to future installments.

 

The distinction you brought up between common sense ontology and ontic reality is an important one. I think we get caught up proclaiming the “Wisdom of the Ancients” instead of seeing things as they are. Frankly, if they’d solved it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We obviously require a new paradigm.

 

With that said, I’ll make the case that progress with the Enlightenment Gap must conform to established science. Given its relative success compared to the persistent Problem(s) of Psychology, science has earned its authority. We need to couch the discussion in real terms or risk getting mired in Post-Modernist Theology, solipsism run amok.

 

As demonstrated by the Measurement Problem in QM, interpretations of reality must include the observer, and accounting for them both simultaneously is the problem before us. However, the beauty of the hard sciences is they’ve already established their own limitations, e.g. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Geodesic Incompleteness in Penrose-Hawking Singularities. This provides a hint how to proceed.

 

The intractability of Mind-Body Problem suggests we lack even the terminology to discuss the topic appropriately. In keeping with the incompleteness of reality itself, maybe its insolubility is the solution. If the separation acts as an event horizon, it implies the observer occupies a central position within a respective black hole, and this is exactly what’s observed (Schwarzschild-Hubble Equivalence):

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/03/did-a-black-hole-give-birth-to-our-universe/?sh=61d2fb450da8

 

This interpretation leads to other consequences, such that the CMB—leftover radiation from the Big Bang—is Hawking Radiation (both black body spectrums), and the Big Bang is black hole evaporation (inverse). This resolves the matter/antimatter discrepancy (Baryogenesis) while accounting for the Initial Singularity. It also addresses, as Cadell beautifully put it, a pathos for the Origin: Absolute Potential.

 

While advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, I suspect, have their version of science, the findings should be the same. Even in a relativistic universe, the laws themselves are identical for different observers, i.e. Lorentz Invariant. The fact we continue bashing our heads against the same problems suggests we simply need a new way of thinking. In the tradition of Einstein, the universe is subtle, not malicious.

 

Eric

 

 

P.S. The Schwarzschild-Hubble Equivalence is this mathematical identity:

 

Critical density (flat universe): p = 3H^2/8piG

H: Hubble’s Constant

G: Gravitational Constant

 

Age of Universe (uniform expansion): 1/H

R: Hubble Radius of Observable Universe: c/H

V: Volume (Sphere); 4piR^3/3

 

Mass: M = Vp = [4piR^3/3][3H^2/8piG] = c^3/2GH

 

Schwarzschild Radius (black hole): Rs = 2GM/c^2 = 2G[c^3/2GH]/c^2 = c/H

 

Rs = R

 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_present_equality_between_radius_and_Schwarzschild-radius_of_the_observable_universe_only_a_unique_most_unlikely_coincidence


On Friday, November 6, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi TOKers,

 

  I am pleased to announce that Cadell Last and I have started a podcast series on called The Enlightenment Gap.

 

Here is the first Episode:

Enlightenment Gap #1

 

For a blog on the term, see here. For me the problem of psychology is found in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap. I am very much looking forward to exploring this with Cadell and I found much positive “wisdom energy” emerging in our exchange. Please check it out if time/interest permits.

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

 

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

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

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

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