An epistemological error

Let me return to yesterday's post to pick up the thread from Laininen (2019) which somehow got derailed into a discussion of proving one's humanity on the increasingly artificial interwebz. The irony of constantly having to prove one is not a robot is not lost however.

There is an epistemological error in Western thought, said Erkko Laininen (2019), as he tried to paint the landscape of education and curricula from the perspective of shaping more sustainable futures for our planet. 

"Do we have a blindspot?" he asks. Well, perhaps "we" do - and this "we" in quotation marks is a discussion for another day. For now, consider what I wrote yesterday on those of us conditioned by the academy yet not of the culture of origin where the academy's paradigms and worldviews are firmly rooted. Chilisa (2019) - one of my favourite citations these days - points out that the academy itself is indigenous to its own society and culture. I'll stop here before I derail myself again because I want to point out the epistemological error that Laininen (2019) found. In short, its the Cartesian divide. The root of the world's problems. Again that is a post for another day. Here I will simply quote Laininen (2019). (Yes, that's his name Laininen 2019 rather than like Anthem).

The epistemological error, according to Laininen (2019) has:

...its roots in the modern, dualistic worldview that replaced the perception of man being an integral part of nature. Separateness as an operative way of knowing and thinking reflects itself all around in the Western culture. We see our relations as win-lose games instead of win-win possibilities. We focus on parts of the system instead of their relations. We separate social and economic systems from nature, and base our decisions on reasoning with a false assumption of separateness of emotions and values. We believe in objective truth instead of accepting the existence of several, subjective explanations for reality.

According to Sterling (2003), the tension between the parts and the whole—the dominant mechanistic and the alternative organistic worldview—lies in the heart of this epistemological battle. (Laininen 2019:170)

Its the replacement of the holistic worldview by the Cartesian divide that is the knowledge system's epistemological error, IMO, not the consequences as Laininen (2019) describes in further detail, and then shapes the remainder of his narrative. The consequences are of course substantial and have been found to be at the root of much unsustainable thought and action (Laininen 2019). However, if we do not pinpoint the fact that "something" got replaced we won't be able to unearth what it was that got replaced nor to be able to resurrect it. 

So, what was replaced? And, why? Is it possible to find it again? Can it be brought into the light?

Let me do some digging on this to be sure because this was one of the sparks that I had to tamp down while focusing on completing my thesis, and so I was unable to pursue it after quoting Laininen (2019) on the epistemological error.