TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

July 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:10:42 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (867 lines)
Gregg:

This is where Merlin Donald -- now retired (and a friend of the  
Center), previously a well-regarded evolutionary neuro-psychologist --  
comes in.  We'll discuss his book when you get back (and others have  
had a chance to read it, if they are so inclined).

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=m4nF8ExbJHWaGt0Kemv1SCcFuZeUPo20fIrTN7HA8is&e=

As it turns out, when I first met him 20+ years ago in the back of a  
campus bus at Rutgers, Merlin's life's-work began when he was in High  
School, where he was taught Marshall McLuhan about how technologies  
*change* our mentalities.  He later read Julian Jaynes (for whom I was  
his last student) and then built his career on the combination of the  
two.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origin-2DConsciousness-2DBreakdown-2DBicameral-2DMind_dp_0618057072&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=Yb44r1mRWTlqn3qmJrMdwOYcyivyJzspAc84XN4jow4&e=

Mark

P.S. Perhaps the best way to grok what I'm up to is to take a look at  
the online library for my Center.  Donald, Jaynes and McLuhan (along  
with some others, including my two "godfathers") are on the "Basic  
Texts" list.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center_index.php_research_library&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=W3FvXnFpuRTDRTLk3GKdItxQsS179RRNFWcKUlU3fmU&e=



Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Cool conversations.
>
> One point about the ToK definitions of Life and Mind. Life, the  
> dimension of biological complexity, forms between 4.5 billion and  
> 700,000,000 years ago, probably starting on planet earth around 4  
> bil yrs ago (see John’s comments about lipids and SR/SO).  
> Multicelled plants emerged by 700 mil yrs.
>
>  Mind, in the ToK language game, is defined as ‘the set of mental  
> behavior’ corresponds to the behavior of an animal as a whole  
> mediated by the brain/nervous system. It begins to emerge 650 mil y  
> ago, and the whole of the nonhuman animal mental complexity is on  
> planet earth 5 mil yrs ago.
>
> It is important to note that my definition of Mind is different from  
> human self-consciousness. The primate Mind serves as a base out of  
> which human self consciousness, human language, remain giving and  
> Culture emerges. Culture is clearly in swing by 50,000 years ago. It  
> has been accelerating since, especially since agriculture, writing  
> and more modern developments.
>
> My last day at the beach. Tomorrow is travel, and then back in full  
> swing attempting to advance the project of promoting wisdom.
>
> Best,
> G
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Nancy:
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by MIND . . . !!
>>
>> Many would like to say that a paramecium has "cognition" (which is  
>> then equated, in some sense, with MIND) -- but is that really  
>> something useful to say?
>>
>> You might like to read Merlin Donald's "The Origin of the Modern  
>> Mind" (only $6 in hardback, with shipping).  In it he traces the  
>> changes in human "mentality' from our origins and, while, in some  
>> sense, it is all "mind," what we do with our own minds today would  
>> not have been possible before literacy -- which is only 2500 years  
>> old.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZNrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=mS0oag2BV_xZMUu5htW2Edjad1fuqR9qCv7vNnz7BZQ&e=
>>
>> The "evolution" in the subtitle isn't *biological* (in either the  
>> Darwinian or Larmarckian sense).  Instead, it depends on what many  
>> call "neuro-plasticity" and the fact that out of perhaps  
>> 200,000,000 neurons in our neo-cortex, each with perhaps 20,000  
>> possible "connections" (making around 2 *trillion* possible links),  
>> we should note that some neurologists think only 100,000 or so  
>> actually matter in our lives.  Accordingly, we aren't all the  
>> "same" -- going back a long ways.
>>
>> My guess is that it is the "endogenization" of our environment --  
>> particularly before puberty -- that largely "decides" what sort of  
>> a MIND we will have.
>>
>> Gregg generously starts his MIND at roughly 5.8 *million* years  
>> ago.  Our species is typically thought to be roughly 200,000 years  
>> old, so, for Gregg, MIND isn't strictly "human" (let alone  
>> "modern") but it also isn't as old as LIFE (which he pegs at 700  
>> *million* years ago).  That said, if Psychology is the study of  
>> "souls" (aka *psyche* in Greek), as per Aristotle -- not just the  
>> "modern mind" -- then it looks like we have some terminology to  
>> straighten out . . . <g>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_File-3AToK-5FSimple.jpg&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZNrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=j6AYMod7CzZXsWl3-JWfaqURfNGnNysouCiySPFL4YE&e=
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Quoting Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Dear fellow TOKers,
>>>
>>> From my vantage point on my iPhone at the cottage on Georgian Bay  
>>> amidst my son’s wedding and the arrival of my daughter’s first  
>>> child, I have been reading the current discussion, especially  
>>> between John and Mark, with considerable interest and some dismay.
>>>
>>> Interest because I think that the principles that govern biology  
>>> are the foundational to the principles will govern the material  
>>> that we social scientists work with. Dismay because I realize that  
>>> many of the concepts that John and Mark raise are simply beyond  
>>> me. They stem from my knowledge base that will never be mine. I  
>>> would retire from the field altogether were it not for the  
>>> suspicion that the way we are trying to build knowledge will not  
>>> work. We (and here I am speaking about the whole academic  
>>> enterprise) are focusing too narrowly on domain specific concepts  
>>> and missing the overview.
>>>
>>> We must find a way through this. I think that one of the things  
>>> that draws us together is the notion of Gregg’s joint points. It  
>>> gives us a way of thinking about what we’re doing at a more  
>>> general level. It is certainly the thing that draws me to his  
>>> system.
>>>
>>> As I understand causality, it is fairly clear in the hard sciences  
>>> like chemistry and physics use causality to explain their  
>>> findings.  It also seems to me that causality can be used in  
>>> biology because evolutionary theory creates an explanatory  
>>> framework. Causality really falls apart though at the Life-Mind  
>>> joint point and the Mind-Culture joint point. Here we get into  
>>> what I call list thinking. We can articulate a bunch of factors  
>>> that are contributing to the change but we can’t describe how  
>>> these factors systematically interrelate. Biology has the  
>>> potential to offer insights into the way that complexity develops  
>>> because it looks at less complex species and examines how they  
>>> become more complex. Many of us are interested in looking at that  
>>> very complex species, humans. Can biology help us social  
>>> scientists better comprehend the transition at the Life-Mind joint  
>>> point?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Nancy
>>>
>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on  
>>> behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion  
>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM
>>> To:  
>>> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"  
>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Subject: Re: New Paradigms
>>>
>>> Mark, thanks for the replies......I'd like to respond again by  
>>> interjecting into your words in brackets for efficiency and  
>>> fluidity....
>>>
>>> I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our  
>>> "environment" and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al  
>>> since I started to study them in the 1960s -- so thanks for  
>>> repeating your understanding of these approaches (and reminding us  
>>> how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis) . . . !!
>>>
>>> [Again, my lab is funded by the NIH to study the Lamarckian  
>>> inheritance of asthma, so I have 'first hand' knowledge of the  
>>> reality of that process]
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e=
>>>
>>> That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium  
>>> and a human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same --  
>>> at the "level" of MIND and CULTURE.  In fact, the environment that  
>>> we are "endogenizing" isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but  
>>> also includes much more.  In particular it includes various  
>>> technologies, such as human language (for which has no clear  
>>> "evolutionary" origin) &c.
>>>
>>> [But that's exactly the point.......the paramecia 'ingests' what  
>>> is pertinent to its reality, and we do the same. In a paper of  
>>> mine on 'Phenotype as Agent' I have made the observation that what  
>>> we think of as phenotype descriptively is actually the offspring  
>>> expressing epigenetically inherited traits that foster the  
>>> environmentally relevant behaviors that will a) allow the organism  
>>> to adapt to its current environment, and b) foster further  
>>> 'knowledge' of the ever-changing environment in an on-going  
>>> manner, iteratively. And by the way, the effect of cigarette smoke  
>>> on the asthma phenotype (our research) is of interest in this vein  
>>> because the molecular effect of nicotine, the proxy for smoke,  
>>> which is composed of 3,000 substances, is to stimulate the  
>>> Nicotinic Receptors in the smooth muscle of the upper airway,  
>>> causing increased calcium flux in response to stimuli such as cold  
>>> air and particulates, making the muscle more 'twitchy'.  
>>> Importantly, the same effect is seen in the brain, where increased  
>>> calcium flux increases short-term memory. This is what is referred  
>>> to as epistasis, or balancing selection. It would explain why  
>>> people continue to smoke, despite all of the attendant pathologies]
>>>
>>> My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also  
>>> "environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them  
>>> but at a different level in the "ToK Stack."  Aristotle had one  
>>> environment to "endogenize."  Newton had another.  So, did  
>>> Einstein &c.  What interests me is how the "internalizations" of  
>>> their own environments (alas something we can't do, pointing to  
>>> the core problem with our accounts of history) affected the  
>>> problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed.
>>>
>>> [Agreed. I think of the emerging data showing that identical twins  
>>> are not epigenetically identical, for example, and I had mentioned  
>>> my take on Piaget's way of thinking about the stages of childhood  
>>> development in service to our big brains. In actuality, the stages  
>>> facilitate the acquisition of epigenetic marks in a way that is  
>>> opportune for the individual. And the stages of the life cycle are  
>>> similarly different in length and depth as a function of the  
>>> endocrine system of the individual since it is now known to be  
>>> under the influence of epigenetics too. Lewis Wolpert, the  
>>> developmental biologist has famously said that gastrulation is the  
>>> most important thing you'll do during the course of your life.  
>>> That was based on the fact that it is at that phase of embryologic  
>>> development that the mesoderm, the germ layer between the endoderm  
>>> and ectoderm is introduced, and is critically important for more  
>>> complex physiologic traits. We now know that the mechanism of  
>>> gastrulation is affected by epigenetics, so Wolpert was prescient  
>>> in identifying the significance of gastrulation!]
>>>
>>> I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite  
>>> relevant -- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what  
>>> happens in CULTURE.  This raises the question of how to describe  
>>> that environment for *culture* in a way that yields useful  
>>> "explanations" (even if they aren't sufficiently "mechanistic" for  
>>> your taste) about how they are "endogenized."
>>>
>>> [With all due respect, if in fact culture is the net result of our  
>>> endogenization of our environment as Niche Construction, then it  
>>> is homologous, i.e. coming from the same origin. That would allow  
>>> for much more in depth understanding of the mechanisms involved in  
>>> the 'web of life' at every scope and scale. Culture, like all of  
>>> life, is not an 'add on', it is what Andy Clark the psychologist  
>>> refers to as the extended mind]
>>>
>>> That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in.  His 1964 "Understanding  
>>> Media" attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of  
>>> its first chapter, "The Medium is the Message."  When Gregg gets  
>>> back, we'll launch into a discussion of McLuhan's contribution to  
>>> see if it is useful for understanding what we are up to today.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e=
>>>
>>> Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of  
>>> the stack -- even though I've spent many years studying the  
>>> "lower" ones -- I have built a Center that is attempting to expand  
>>> McLuhan's 1950s/60s insights into the 21st century.  We are also  
>>> here to help Gregg accomplish his goals for the ToK Society (yes,  
>>> for which, this is the mailing-list).
>>>
>>> www.digitallife.center
>>>
>>> [I would like to delve into McLuhan based on my vertical  
>>> integration if you see value added? Do you think that connecting  
>>> the dots between physiology, environment and culture would be  
>>> helpful? Instructive? Illuminate aspects of McCluhan that are  
>>> 'novel'? 'McCluhan, Lamarck and Stahlman walk into a bar'???]
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating  
>>> how biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as  
>>> "social evolution."  Many have tried but they all seem to have  
>>> failed.  Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely  
>>> didn't get into that topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11  
>>> conspiracy).  Instead, what seems to have been adopted by many are  
>>> various schemes typically called "co-evolution," in which society  
>>> (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our biological species  
>>> (which, in practical terms, just means "social evolution.")  Kevin  
>>> Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a particularly  
>>> notable person in that field.  Perhaps some of this work would  
>>> also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ??
>>>
>>> [Well if my homology between Nick Christakis's networking model of  
>>> human society and Niche Construction is correct, that would be the  
>>> basis for biologic and social evolution being one and the same,  
>>> wouldn't it? In Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' he shows how  
>>> successful societies have lived with their environments, which  
>>> exemplifies the advantage of being in sync with ones evolutionary  
>>> arc. But there's not much else out there...yet]
>>>
>>> Thanks for the dialog....John
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Mark Stahlman  
>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> John:
>>>
>>> I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our  
>>> "environment" and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al  
>>> since I started to study them in the 1960s -- so thanks for  
>>> repeating your understanding of these approaches (and reminding us  
>>> how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis) . . . !!
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e=
>>>
>>> That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium  
>>> and a human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same --  
>>> at the "level" of MIND and CULTURE.  In fact, the environment that  
>>> we are "endogenizing" isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but  
>>> also includes much more.  In particular it includes various  
>>> technologies, such as human language (for which has no clear  
>>> "evolutionary" origin) &c.
>>>
>>> My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also  
>>> "environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them  
>>> but at a different level in the "ToK Stack."  Aristotle had one  
>>> environment to "endogenize."  Newton had another.  So, did  
>>> Einstein &c.  What interests me is how the "internalizations" of  
>>> their own environments (alas something we can't do, pointing to  
>>> the core problem with our accounts of history) affected the  
>>> problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed.
>>>
>>> I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite  
>>> relevant -- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what  
>>> happens in CULTURE.  This raises the question of how to describe  
>>> that environment for *culture* in a way that yields useful  
>>> "explanations" (even if they aren't sufficiently "mechanistic" for  
>>> your taste) about how they are "endogenized."
>>>
>>> That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in.  His 1964 "Understanding  
>>> Media" attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of  
>>> its first chapter, "The Medium is the Message."  When Gregg gets  
>>> back, we'll launch into a discussion of McLuhan's contribution to  
>>> see if it is useful for understanding what we are up to today.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e=
>>>
>>> Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of  
>>> the stack -- even though I've spent many years studying the  
>>> "lower" ones -- I have built a Center that is attempting to expand  
>>> McLuhan's 1950s/60s insights into the 21st century.  We are also  
>>> here to help Gregg accomplish his goals for the ToK Society (yes,  
>>> for which, this is the mailing-list).
>>>
>>> www.digitallife.center
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating  
>>> how biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as  
>>> "social evolution."  Many have tried but they all seem to have  
>>> failed.  Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely  
>>> didn't get into that topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11  
>>> conspiracy).  Instead, what seems to have been adopted by many are  
>>> various schemes typically called "co-evolution," in which society  
>>> (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our biological species  
>>> (which, in practical terms, just means "social evolution.")  Kevin  
>>> Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a particularly  
>>> notable person in that field.  Perhaps some of this work would  
>>> also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ??
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_CoEvolution-5FQuarterly&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=Ry24gsV5__DzdGAibX51Oms8CNBP5pW4hg82V-ObIQA&e=
>>>
>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>>
>>> Dear Waldemar & TOKers, thank you for asking me to define the paradigm I am
>>> referencing in my comments. Suffice it to say that my body of work on
>>> cell-cell signaling and evolutionary biology (80ish papers and counting) is
>>> all in the peer-reviewed literature, based largely on my research career of
>>> 50 year's duration as a working scientist funded continunously to the
>>> present day by the NIH and other agencies. About ten years ago it dawned on
>>> me that I had enough information to put together a cellular-molecular model
>>> of the lung alveolus, which I published; in so doing I became aware of the
>>> fact that the model allowed me to trace the process of gas exchange
>>> backwards in space and time phylogenetically because the alveolar cellular
>>> pathways are highly conserved, though the phenotype of the alveolus changes
>>> in a well documented pattern by which the size of the alveolus decreases in
>>> order to increase the surface area-to-blood volume ratio, thus increasing
>>> the exchange of oxygen for metabolic demand as vertebrates evolved (hope
>>> that was clear). In tandem, the surfactant that is necessary to reduce the
>>> surface tension of the alveoli had to evolve or the alveoli would collapse
>>> due to the diminishing size of the alveoli, so there is a biochemical
>>> process that can be traced backwards in order to determine the evolutionary
>>> changes at the molecular level...... Tracing that process backwards, I
>>> arrived at the point where cholesterol, the most primitive surfactant, was
>>> 'inserted' into the cell membrane of unicellular eukaryotes, our ancestors.
>>> Since cholesterol is a ubiquitous component of the surfactant system I had
>>> a way to tie the biochemical and structural changes in the alveolus over
>>> the course of evolution, enabling me to 'see' the process of evolution in
>>> the forward direction mechanistically for the first time, aided by the
>>> process of lung development, which recapitulates the phylogenetic changes
>>> (Haeckle's 'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny'). And because the molecular
>>> mechanisms of lung evolution are common to other tissues and organs, I was
>>> able to assemble a model of vertebrate physiologic evolution, beginning
>>> with the organelles of unicellular organisms, all of which derive from the
>>> cell membrane (Torday and Rehan. Evolution, the Logic of Biology. Wiley,
>>> 2012). More importantly, Lynn Margulis's Endogenization Theory, that
>>> evolution is a consequence of the internalization of the external
>>> environment, could be demonstrated based on the cellular molecular approach
>>> I have described, merging the two concepts in a novel way to explain the
>>> process of evolution mechanistically from its unicellular origins
>>> *forward *.The
>>>
>>> commonalities within and between all organisms evolutionarily ultimately
>>> led me to conclude that consciousness is actually the aggregate of the
>>> endogenization of the external environment, nominally to form the
>>> physiologic system, but taken together, is how and why we are aware of
>>> ourselves and our surroundings, i.e. consciousness is integral to our
>>> physiologic being, not a thing apart from us, either all being in our heads
>>> (Freud, Jung), or a manifestation of the external world (Plato), or some
>>> combination thereof (James, Chalmers, Clark) but one and the same as the
>>> Cosmos. So the process by which a paramecium knows there's a sugar source
>>> in its environment, mediated by calcium flow within its cytoplasm is no
>>> different from putting sugar on my tongue tasting sweet to my brain, which
>>> is admittedly a more complex process, but still reduces to calcium flows.
>>> Ultimately, the reason that the first cell formed as lipids in water
>>> derived from the snowball-like asteroids that pelted the primitive Earth is
>>> because it was Self-referential and Self-organizing, the template for which
>>> was the Singularity of the Big Bang, offering a continuum from the
>>> Singularity to the evolution of life on Earth. That homology between matter
>>> and organic life is the first 'joint' in Gregg's ToK, and each subsequent
>>> joint can be understood mechanistically in my opinion by using the
>>> cell-molecular approach I have described. The advantage of this mechanistic
>>> understanding of the ToK is that is scientifically testable/refutable,
>>> predictive, and offers the opportunity to connect various 'traits' both
>>> within and between levels of the ToK that would otherwise remain
>>> descriptive. So for example, because it has been hypothesized that the
>>> unicell was the first so-called Niche Construction, i.e. the endogenization
>>> of the environment , it telescopes from the origins of life to
>>> multi-leveled ecologies, beginning with small communities, towns, cities,
>>> States, Nations, Gaia based on the same principle of Niche Construction,
>>> the ability of organisms to form their own immediate environments- 'First
>>> there were bacteria, now there is New York!' (Simon Conway Morris).
>>>
>>> I hope that was helpful in explaining my position vis a vis the ToK. I see
>>> value added in this way of thinking about the ToK that is untenable based
>>> on conventional descriptive biology. I welcome your comments, criticisms
>>> and questions. I am here to serve as best I can.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD <
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A suggestion:
>>>
>>>        Perhaps, it would help if we had a brief definition, statement, or
>>> synopsis, of what:
>>>
>>>                1.  John considers to be the central nature of the
>>> paradigm he is proposing.
>>>                2.  Mark considers to be the central nature of: a. The new
>>> paradigm in which we find ourselves and b.  The previous/old paradigm which
>>> was replaced by the new paradigm.
>>>
>>> That way we could be reassured that we are reading, thinking, talking, and
>>> writing about the same things.
>>>
>>> Best regards to all,
>>>
>>> Waldemar
>>>
>>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Thanks much for the stimulating contributions. I will offer some
>>> thoughts soon, so that perhaps we can sort out where it is where we are
>>> standing, both as a group and as individuals who have all been on long and
>>> intense journeys trying to figure out some of the most complex problems in
>>> philosophy. I think we all have interesting things to say.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards to all!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj <
>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you-- and thank you also for the correction! Cantor has emerged
>>> again in a small body of work I am doing on people named Georg(e/es), so I
>>> will be sure to look into this intrigue before exhibiting/writing about it
>>> again! (The others are Braque, Gurdjieff and Sand...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Corinne
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
>>> edu] on behalf of Mark Stahlman  
>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:04 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: New Paradigms
>>>>>
>>>>> Corrine:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks -- fascinating and beautifully done . . . !!
>>>>>
>>>>> Small correction, if you don't mind.  Galileo's astronomy didn't
>>>>> really "threaten" anything and his problems with the Church were quite
>>>>> different from the usual accounts, having more to with his anti-Rome
>>>>> Venetian backers (btw, my "godfather" Giorgio Desantillana wrote the
>>>>> one-time "definitive" work on the topic and my father helped to design
>>>>> what is now the Galileo Museum in Florence) and it was Cantor who
>>>>> approached Franzelin, who pretty much blew him off (i.e. the Church
>>>>> really didn't care what he was doing).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Crime-2DGalileo-2DGiorgio-2DSantillana_dp_
>>> 0226734811&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Bfq1ppMS3XgQnnQpYnIZ8wC_
>>> 97XYRZJRxUuB1rAMdwc&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. The usual reports about G. Bruno's troubles are also mistaken.
>>>>> It had little to do with his "heresy."  In fact, as best as I can
>>>>> tell, he was an "agent" of the English spymaster Walsingham and was
>>>>> caught organizing against the Vatican.  We often forget how much
>>>>> "intrigue" was going on in those days and how often Rome was on the
>>>>> receiving end (as well as dishing it out) -- plus how they were
>>>>> finally defeated in the mid-19th century after many centuries of
>>>>> declining influence.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Francis-5FWalsingham&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> IYy1BIydW2s5dWUnNTYIYOmAhcjKtdkXhsxHKkAcdVo&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting "Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj"  
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just sharing some of my artwork that relates a bit :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sizing the Infinite, Seeking Eternity," about Georg Cantor was
>>>>>> done in collaboration with E. Theta Brown, Associate Professor of Math
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cover and pp. 11 – 16. (Photographs and essay.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__
>>> kapsula.ca_releases_KAPSULA-5FGOODMEASURE-5F3of3.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> BwEKKzPLdUHIfojBBcw4PN3O97YYW0fasOi23LN38O0&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corinne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS I have artwork about Gregg's ideas from some years ago that got
>>>>>> buried somewhere in my studio after a move-- when I unearth it I
>>>>>> will share!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corinne Diop
>>>>>> Professor of Art
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> facebook.com_corinne.diop.studio_&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=KwQnikKeu_aL_
>>> IJaCKzcXiouQheSnbFsIVXtYmyKCZg&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Photography Area Head
>>>>>> http://www.jmu.edu/artandarthistory/programs/Photography.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> School of Art, Design, and Art History
>>>>>> MSC 7101/ 820 S. Main St
>>>>>> James Madison University
>>>>>> Harrisonburg, VA  22807
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> (540) 568-6485
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *************
>>>>>> JMU Safe Zone Member
>>>>>> http://www.jmu.edu/safezone
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]  
>>>>>> on behalf of Mark Stahlman
>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:13 AM
>>>>>> To:  
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: New Paradigms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John/Joe/Gregg &al:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What Gregg has done here may be the *first* time this has ever been
>>>>>> accomplished (or perhaps even attempted).  While many have
>>>>>> "philosophized" over all this, Gregg has actually assembled a group
>>>>>> of experts (which decades of detailed knowledge as well as
>>>>>> experience arguing with their domain-expert colleagues.)  Hurray . .
>>>>>> . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tree of Knowledge Stack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Culture :: Sociology (Joe)
>>>>>> Mind :: Psychology (Gregg)
>>>>>> Life :: Biology (John)
>>>>>> Matter :: Physics (???)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the "lower" define the "upper" or are there new *principles*
>>>>>> that must be added at each level (or what Gregg calls "dimensions of
>>>>>> complexity") . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 19th-century, during what was a very different paradigm from
>>>>>> the one in which we live Bernhard Reimann suggested what some call
>>>>>> the "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis" and Georg Cantor generated
>>>>>> his Transfinite schema in attempts to *rigorously* tackle this
>>>>>> conundrum.  Both of them have largely been forgotten today and this
>>>>>> was replaced with the notion of a "Theory of Everything" (ToE) and
>>>>>> "Unity of Science" (as per Carnap &al) in the 20th-century -- as a
>>>>>> result of the new paradigm in which those scientists lived (but not
>>>>>> the same one as ours).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Quantum" physics caught many people's attention and, for a while,
>>>>>> seemed to be the answer -- but then it failed to produce a ToE and
>>>>>> dissolved into a group of rival splinters until it was revived by
>>>>>> some "hippies" who were living under yet-another paradigm (yes, as
>>>>>> it turns out, I know Jack Sarfatti and he is an entertaining sorta
>>>>>> guy, whose ideas were enhanced by both some LSD and some
>>>>>> "conspiracies" that he imagines he was a part of) . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_How-2DHippies-2DSaved-2DPhysics-2DCounterculture_dp_
>>> 039334231X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> z21gNwg3Phhb8zDjPEWwYZZnnuOW0Vep1M486cPwhDQ&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for physics -- but wait there is more!  The US *military*
>>>>>> decided it wanted to take some Los Alamos bomb-desingers and shuffle
>>>>>> them across-the-street to a new place that was called the Santa Fe
>>>>>> Institute, to see if the physics of nuclear weapons (i.e.
>>>>>> mini-stars) could be applied to society.  The Department of Energy
>>>>>> (which owns the US arsenal, not the service branches) initially
>>>>>> funded them 100% (and now it's 30% with another 30% coming from
>>>>>> Pierre Omidyar).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> santafe.edu_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=AWiCJq0W3SGK9QXs99_
>>> ukwq3kcCNbrSUTQmPezjvzTE&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result was "complexity science" -- re-branding "chaos," since
>>>>>> that frightens the children -- and its elaborate models of
>>>>>> "emergence."  Some of us from the Center spent last Spring with
>>>>>> these folks (in particular, Jim Rutt, long-time chairman and now
>>>>>> trustee at Santa Fe) and I can tell you they don't have a clue (and
>>>>>> are unlikely to ever get one.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Physics as failed (multiple times).  How about Biology or
>>>>>> Psychology or Sociology?  As John tells us, biology is broken.  As,
>>>>>> Gregg tells us, psychology is broken.  As Joe tells us, sociology is
>>>>>> broken.  So, what are we going to do . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion is that we take a look at *paradigms* behind these
>>>>>> approaches and their causes/effects.  This is the study of the
>>>>>> "structure of scientific revolutions" (as per Thomas Kuhn, although
>>>>>> he never explained either the causes or effects) and, to accomplish
>>>>>> that task, we will need Marshall McLuhan -- which we will do when
>>>>>> Gregg returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Structure-2DScientific-2DRevolutions-2D50th-2DAnniversary_dp_
>>> 0226458121&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Wjt2pfZZFEZZ8hHd1Gi8N-
>>> e6L0fJp0jNpkVaXTqhbOw&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To do this, we will have to do something that has been "forgotten"
>>>>>> for 400+ years -- understand *formal* cause.  Fortunately, Aristotle
>>>>>> is there to help us (since he's the one who came up with this idea
>>>>>> in the first place, 2500 years ago) and, even more fortuitously, we
>>>>>> are now in a new paradigm (otherwise, we wouldn't be having this
>>>>>> conversation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. The previous paradigm was characterized by "globalism" and what
>>>>>> was called the "new world order" (i.e. the one that Kuhn was
>>>>>> plumping for, as funded by the Ford Foundation) and it has now
>>>>>> collapsed.  Yes, this is what keeps Henry Kissinger awake at night.
>>>>>> This is why Trump was elected, Briexit occured and the 5 Star
>>>>>> Movement now runs Italy &c.  This is also why we are now in another
>>>>>> "counter-culture" (parallel to the 60s), since that's what happens
>>>>>> to *culture* when paradigms shift (over-and-over, making its
>>>>>> explanation a top priority for a "pure" sociology).  This is the
>>>>>> focus of my Center (and,, yes, I also know John Ralston Saul).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Collapse-2DGlobalism-2DJ-2DR-2DSaul_dp_1786494485&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> 4kvjg0j27G60OZOmJLQm4GmRSyKFwNZpRY6JwkeZ9WY&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S.  The "cheerio conspiracy" in all this is that the *center* of
>>>>>> maintaining that now obsolete paradigm was the Government
>>>>>> Communications Head-Quarters (GCHQ) which is the foundation of what
>>>>>> some now call the "Deep State."  Edward Snowden had a lot to say
>>>>>> about them in terms of their acronym, "Five Eyes," making Trump's
>>>>>> upcoming meeting with the Queen very interesting -- since the "Deep
>>>>>> State" actually reports to her (yes, making Canada an actual
>>>>>> national security threat) . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Five-5FEyes&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSj
>>> Odn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> s3ScNTD00fGwqUNtQsPGQEQcsbcSOwQaTNEYyxaajZA&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. Since our confusion about all this has been going on for a
>>>>>> long-time, we will have to "drop back" and try to recover what
>>>>>> previous paradigms -- such as the "Enlightenment" &c -- have
>>>>>> destroyed.  That is the origin of the "motto" on the Center website
>>>>>> that "Digital *retrieves* the Medieval" and, from ISIS reviving
>>>>>> *medieval* Jihad, to the Chinese reviving the *medieval* "Silk
>>>>>> Road," it is already the world in which we live.  As Marty McKly put
>>>>>> it, "Doc, it's time to go back to the future" . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Back-5Fto-5Fthe-5FFuture&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=B4o24kuAh19SX2ks1cGJ_
>>> arOZDTP30QffE62ZH6ORwI&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.P.S. What we have to try to avoid, as difficult as it may be,
>>>>>> is to not behave "like a drunk looking for our carkeys underneath
>>>>>> the streetlamp, because that's where the light is."  The recently
>>>>>> past paradigms have seriously screwed us up.  This is why we are in
>>>>>> such terrible condition -- which, btw, is not the situation in
>>>>>> China, where its historic civilization is now the focus of study at
>>>>>> the Central Party School (where CPC cadre are trained in Beijing) --
>>>>>> and *all* of our attempts at "coherence" have failed.  But, we're in
>>>>>> luck, Aristotle is there to help us (which is why Summer School at
>>>>>> the Center is teaching his 4th-century BC "On the Soul".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Soul-2DMemory-2DRecollection-2DAristotle_dp_
>>> 1888009179&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=tcrM699HyAbsXoXcHy52dE-
>>> oXdz66F8YcxXYBoZt4iY&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:mailto<mailto:mailto>:
>>> [log in to unmask]<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]<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]<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]<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]<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]<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]<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]<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]<mailto: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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2