I would say that all forms of knowledge are normative and even the Cartesian epistemology cannot capture reality completely, especially in complex systems. This does not imply we have to dismiss it, but that we have to acknowledge that there are other valuable forms of knowledge to adress sustainable development, like traditional ecological knowledge.

Following Gilbert Rist, forms of knowledge become delusional when they do not acknowledge their limits and pretend to be the panacea, like mainstream economics. Therefore, whether Cartesian epistemology is delusional depends on the scientist's attitude: closed positivism or openness to dialogue and co-production of knowledge with non-scientists.

Thank you for your reply Sebastien. I agree with you. What I am really trying to get at is whether we can apply a diagnosis of "psychotic" at the level of the social mind to contemporary conventional Western socio-epistemology. I do not have the resources to undertake a global comparative analysis of social epistemologies from palaeolithic to present times in order to define "psychosis" in terms of statistical deviation from a norm (although I suspect this could be done). So the other approach would be to identify characteristics that would be by definition psychotic - such as delusion or self destruction. You are quite right, I think, that the solution to getting out of psychotic ways of knowing and being is "openness to dialogue and co-production of knowledge" except that currently many artefacts act as receptacles of meaning, anchoring psychotic (and non-psychotic) aspects of social epistemology making them difficult if not impossible to dislodge, especially when they are internalized as cultural cognitive tools. These artefacts may include theoretical frameworks (supply-demand models) or even language. What I am trying to do is to introduce a new artefact: a theoretical framework for treating psychosis in the social mind.

I have not answers for your questions, but definitively to tackle them we may have to recur to a different approach to that of the Cartesian thinking. Michel Foucault or Jacques Lacan may be good references for perception, cognition and its relationship with culture - the social wisdom. According to Lacan, the human being (the subject) is not a single entity, but is divided (scindĕre) by the language. Assuming this position, I am in favor that most of our perceptions are delusional.

Dear Sébastien and Peter,

You are very courageous to asking and answering such an ambiguous question. “Direct” experience and sensation is totally uncertain mainly if the perceiver is alone and is not able to confirm his/her sensations. Certainly, if the perceiver is part of a community or society the culture, experience and traditional sensations of the big group influence hugely the actual sensation which may lead to knowledge fragments. Sébastien has right recognition and cognition of elementary things like matter can be delusional not to speak on complex phenomenon or abstract theories. Regarding mainstream economics the situation is overcomplicated, totally man made thus it is worth asking whether the experienced delusion is a product of a willingly prepared “product” or only a consequence of mistaken sensation or cognition. Cartesian epistemology depends on subjective perceivers (researchers or scientists) who depend on their cultural, religious, philosophical, social and experimental backgrounds. Thus, delusion is build into the subjects but also the community of subjects.

Another trouble: our everyday world became more and more virtual which is full with all kinds of artefacts where it is very difficult to receive the true signals of the environment. Not to speak about that our reflexion deforms the multiple deformed and incorrect signals.

I note to Cartesian epistemology: it occurred that Descartes contradicted himself.

Peter,

I do not understand how you can treat psychosis in the social mind?