Hey Folks,
To continue on this thread, I happened to be reading through some cultural anthropology books because I am explicating how UTOK defines culture, Culture, and person. So, from Mark Sutton’s
A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology we get this definition of culture:
>>>
What is culture?
Simply put, culture is learned and shared behavior in humans. All animals, and even some plants, also have learned and shared behaviors but here we only consider humans. Humans have only minimal instincts, such as self-preservation, reproduction,
and being maternal. Thus, virtually all of human behavior is learned: what one likes, how one thinks, what language one speaks, one’s beliefs, one’s values, one’s biases, what is good to eat, how one views the world, and so on. All of these traits are socially
transmitted, learned from other members of one’s society. Everything one experiences is filtered through the lens of their cultural background. It forms the basis for the generation of appropriate behavior, which is defined by the society. In essence, then,
culture is integrated into all social systems and forms one’s view of reality.
>>>
OMG and we wonder why the social sciences are not real sciences. Indeed, with this definition coupled to this conversation, can there be any doubt that we needed a clearer descriptive metaphysical system for ontologically specifying the
behavior of living organisms, minded animals, and human persons?
Sorry you are now bald Waldemar. I should have warned you
😊.
Best,
Gregg
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Waldemar Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Frans de waal on Mindscape
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.
He’s correct, Rachel.
I am now virtually bald!
Ummm….yes, on frustration. Good to see your empathy 😊.
Consider this, what I think are currently the MOST
popular set of textbooks by Myers defines the field as the science of behavior and mental processes and argues that THE SINGLE GREATEST QUESTION is…wait for it…the question of whether our behavior and mental processes
are caused by nature or nurture or both. Sit on that for a second. Psychology is one of the most popular majors in the academy. Its most popular text frames the field in a COMPLETELY ERRANT way. That is, the metaphysics of Myers approach is essentially vacuous
and contradictory. It completely IMPLODES the Mind dimension of complexification via nature/bio and nurture/socio-cultural. It also confuses scientific epistemology (the exterior view of behaviors in the world) with the ontology of the field…the subject matter
of psychology.
It is a clusterf*ck. So, yeah, welcome to UTOK. Did I mention when I started this list that it will make you want to pull your hair out?
From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf
Of Rachel Hayden
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 3:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Frans de waal on Mindscape
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.
I am about 50 minutes in, and it's fascinating. The strongly cross-sex behavior he describes in some primate individuals adds to the research that Sapolsky describes, which indicates that the brains of some primate individuals, like humans,
are sexed opposite to their body. So you have cross-sex neural networks and cross-sex small "c" cultural learning both occurring in non-human primates. Mind 2 is a black box here, of course, but I find it highly improbable that these troop members would not
identify in some emotional/mental way with opposite sex members. It's funny that de Waal can't tell if he should call these individuals "gender non-conforming" or "transgender;" of course these are all justifications on the Cultural level and cannot apply
in the same way. He also talks about "nature" and "nurture," where of course you claim that a BPS framework is far more effective regarding these types of phenomena, and fits nicely in the ToK. The P, for me, is where any sense of individual gendered developmental
aspiration must be centered and realized in a human Person.
But I really appreciated his observation that these types of behaviors are widely tolerated by primates, similar to a fair amount of indigenous groups of humans. Contrary to the claims of the "sensemakers" who consider being transgender
to be a foolishly gnostic and postmodern invention, or the claims of pro-trans activists who want to detach identity from the physical completely, a look at the convergence of the actual scientific research, not to mention cross-cultural examination in humans,
paints a very prehistoric and embodied picture.
Thank you Gregg, I look forward to listening. I'm seeing the "two vector" view you describe showing up in the sensemaking community, along with an almost willful-seeming unawareness of the accumulating evidence for neurological underpinnings
of genetic gendered behavioral predispositions (referencing Sapolsky and Bevins). In other words, the neural network forming the "part" of the "mind-brain system whole" in the Periodic Table of Behavior, as I understand it. To be honest, it's kind of maddening
for me to witness the uncritical self-congratulation and one-sided dismissiveness occurring, in conjunction with massive cluelessness about what gender even is, due to a lack of proper fundamental framing. Despite being a non-scientist, I think I may have
a taste of the frustration you experience regarding such topics, although of course this one is highly personal for me. I would feel like I was being arrogant about this, except for the encouragement from you, Vervaeke, and Callard.
For folks interested in gender, culture, and related topics, I recommend this mindscape podcast:
Humans are related to all other species here on Earth, but some are closer relatives than others. Primates, a group that includes apes, monkeys,
lemurs, and others besides ourselves, are our closest relatives, and they exhibit a wide variety of behaviors that we can easily recognize. Frans de Waal is a leading primatologist and ethologist who has long studied cognition and collective behaviors in chimps,
bonobos, and other species. His work has established the presence of politics, morality, and empathy in primates. His new book is Different:
Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist.
I encourage you to listen to the episode via the UTOK lens if you are so inclined. If you do, you will hear quickly that, although de Waal is very sophisticated, he nonetheless still has a two vector view of nature versus nurture or biology
versus social learning/culture. Of course, as this blog on Life, Mind and Culture makes clear, via the ToK System, UTOK shows very clearly that this is the wrong ontology/metaphysics. Also please note that there is confusion or overlap as to whether his work
is animal psychology, ethology or biological behavioral science. Of course, on the ToK everything that he is talking about is in Mind. All the patterns are mental behavioral patterns of investment.
Also, notice the stuff about gender and culture. Clearly, in primates, at the level of minded patterns of investment, we see gendered patterns and culture. LITTLE ‘c” culture that is, which refers to behavioral repertories picked up and
transferred across the generations in specific populations. Many social animals have this. Yet, OF COURSE, there is no Culture-Person plane of operation.
Also note the gendered patterns in chimps and bonobos are clearly recognizable in humans (i.e., feminine being more cooperative and relational, masculine more competitive and hierarchical, less oriented toward care of young). And I thought
his report of Donna, the female chimp who behaved with lots of masculine energy, to be fascinating.
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
President of the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration (2022)
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:
############################
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