Re: Two Meta-Remarks and a question to the SemEco discussion

From: Alfred Lang (alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 06:26:48 PST


Eric wrote:

>Alfred;
>
>When you use the term ground theory are you referring to the
>movement in some philosophical circles towards a generic science
>[i.e., the theory of everything]? If this is the case then I am in
>agreement. In my view there is not much difference between studying
>the price of peaches at the store or determining whether smashed
>atoms have discreet particles, only the language used is different.
>
>eric

Eric, I have never used to my knowledge any term like "ground theory"
and a search in my out-mail- and xmca-in-boxes does only bring up
your own post. What I may or could have said is that my undertaking
is devoted to something like grounding theory building in concepts
that have a ground in reality rather than in a history of thinking
and researching that has been arisen and thoroughly shaped in times
when the very few who had started thinking the world as something in
change (such as Heraclitus) had been declared foolish and driven out
of the business of explaining the (natural, cultural, psychical)
world on the pretext that change was only appearance while in fact it
was (?) eternal order.

I don't know exactly what philosophical movement or circles you are
hinting at. In my understanding a "theory of everything" or an
unification or "unity of science" is impossible and all attempts in
such direction have failed and are futile. This said, however, I
think there is a need to bring the insights of the various scientific
and other approaches at understanding the human condition in grounded
relation rather than let them compete for dominance which, if
successful for some, includes the dwarfing of others, as is the case
today. In my judgment, the whole specter human sciences are failing
in that we have a lot of detail knowledge, right or wrong, but do not
understand ourselves and our place in the world the least.

So I have, in the course of a career as a psychology professor
started to invent and put on probation (if this can be said so) new
basic concepts. What may be interesting is that my concepts are not
defined each by itself or in pairs of opposition as is the case with
our stock concepts. They are construed as a set of conceptual tools
and are construed on the single basic assumption that ours is an
evolutive world and is resulting from nothing but interaction of
pre-existing structures. I try to probe the tool-set in various
fields and invite everybody interested to do so as critical as
benevolent, in order to comb out from or to improve upon every
doubtful ingredient. But I urge critics not to blow out any single
part without considering its place and role in the set in operation.

The whole thing has grown into a crazy undertaking, I know. It
started with my dissatisfaction with modern psychology, soon half a
century ago in my first semester, and with my scare with the possible
consequences of the insularization of the modern sciences. My
motivation is simple, though: I want to find out how far this single
assumption of the evolutive world and what follows therefrom can
replace a jungle of presuppositions can carry me and others towards a
more realistic understanding of ourselves and the rest. And I invite
to participate whoever is curious enough finds some pleasure in
taking the trouble of assisting me in finding out.

Alfred

-- 

Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland http://www.langpapers.net --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST