You are jumping from psychology to knowledge now, right?
On 30-01-2022 06:21, Cory David Barker wrote:
> *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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pedagogues, teachers and andragogues are beyond what? Measuring?
>
> If you mean that there needs to be education reform, I’m with you. But
> we will always need measurements in education. Do you really want
> airplane pilots flying you, drivers on the road near you, and doctors
> prescribing or operating on you whom haven’t passed their exams that
> prove their knowledge and abilities?
>
> C.
>
>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 10:40 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> *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.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So, you operate from an order of complexity where measuring is
>> meaningful to you; generally, pedagogues, teachers, and andragogues
>> are beyond that.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Lene
>>
>> On 29-01-2022 21:14, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>> *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.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ah okay. Yeah, there are different reasons why people make
>>> measurement tools, and different reasons for why people measure
>>> others. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad.
>>>
>>> It often comes down to making a distinction between hierarchy of
>>> power vs hierarchy of complexity, which are two different things.
>>> But if someone can coordinate with a higher order of complexity than
>>> someone else, then it is the natural result that there is power
>>> involved. No way around it. Thing is though, higher order of
>>> complexity of ethics general dissolve exploitation around
>>> paradigmatic stage, though I’m pretty sure you know this already,
>>> having written a post with Gregg about Kohlberg. Tolbert showed that
>>> people who coordinate cognitive and ethics paradigmatically don’t
>>> abuse their coordinative power (alchemist and ironist stages). The
>>> issue is high cognitive and low ethics, that’s when there are problems.
>>>
>>> I worked as a k-12 tutor for a couple years, tutoring across
>>> learning domains. I think people should use what models they find
>>> useful in teaching. If kids are happy and learning, what difference
>>> does it make. I used MHC all the time, and it worked as advertised.
>>> But I am not a hard empiricist, I prefer methodological pluralism.
>>> I’ve read some of Bloom’s work in years past. I thought it was okay.
>>> I did a full correspondence between it and my own model at one point.
>>>
>>> C.
>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 1:41 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *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.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Hi Cory,
>>>>
>>>> There is already a profession that works in this area and knows how
>>>> to deal with this; rarely anybody pays attention to them:
>>>> pedagogues, teachers, and andragogues.
>>>>
>>>> They don't measure people (unless politicians and economists insist
>>>> on it); they interact with people around the shared third and they
>>>> have different professional educations for pedagogues working with
>>>> toddlers, teachers educating children, and teachers and andragogues
>>>> educating and working with adults.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of non-measuring ways of estimating how each
>>>> individual is operating and what kind of education is meaningful to
>>>> them. The most famous and widely used is probably Bloom's Taxonomy:
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bloomstaxonomy.net_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=LimzkTb_VYLyEcYBTFJkXz1h7GALdLTwnKLOleKc5Kg&e=
>>>>
>>>> / Lene
>>>>
>>>> On 29-01-2022 20:21, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>> *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.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> @ Lene
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don’t want general definition of the purpose of
>>>>> measurement, you want my personal take?
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, the purpose is for fostering the natural evolutionary
>>>>> processes of individuals and societies. The purpose of the
>>>>> creation of MHC was to get clear about the natural sequential
>>>>> order of increasing behavioral complexity, what the
>>>>> characteristics of behavior are at those orders, and how
>>>>> transitions from one order to another actually works. The purpose
>>>>> of measuring behavior with MHC is to get clear about where
>>>>> individuals and societies are at in their complexity development,
>>>>> to get really precise where some orders of complexity and their
>>>>> corresponding behavioral forms can solve tasks where others
>>>>> cannot. If an individual or any scale of social interaction has
>>>>> the inability to solve a task, we have a reliable means to
>>>>> contextualize it, empirically. It is a model of universal patterns
>>>>> of behavior that help inform us how to move development along.
>>>>>
>>>>> C.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, what would be the purpose?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29-01-2022 19:37, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Measurement&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=ENvZ9LSpH5zh-3ou4k9-_R7qUnGhYZ2MNDfFU7GBLkI&e=
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Measurement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j7pOiE9nG6NGduaXB-rvV2AzspKiVO0L5Ldi75JXx2w&s=ZbaYPx500rQykKSx8YG5KjdfiFwkui1YBVpm1pKr0lQ&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:26 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would be the purpose of measuring?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29-01-2022 18:46, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I worked on several papers with him, including one on
>>>>>>>>> it’s axioms and fundamental mathematics. MHC measures
>>>>>>>>> behavior, it is not mentalistic, which is to say MHC measures
>>>>>>>>> actions, and does not make assumptions about interior action
>>>>>>>>> that cannot be directly observed. Anywhere there are
>>>>>>>>> organisms, social interactions, or machines, MHC is
>>>>>>>>> universally applicable across domains. MHC is domain-free, and
>>>>>>>>> would therefore measure the observable behavioral performance
>>>>>>>>> of the construction and application of things like investment
>>>>>>>>> theory, justification systems, and the Chomsky hierarchy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael Commons did write on stage and value. Sara Ross and
>>>>>>>>> Michael Commons wrote some papers on hierarchical complexity
>>>>>>>>> of politics too. I carried these kinds of things over when
>>>>>>>>> Saranya Ramakrishna, myself, and others wrote the paper on
>>>>>>>>> behavioral complexity of immigrant and native behaviors
>>>>>>>>> towards each other. Saranya and I scored the complexity of
>>>>>>>>> spiral dynamics, but we ran out of space and didn’t include
>>>>>>>>> it. It turns out that spiral dynamics does line up with MHC
>>>>>>>>> stages, more than less. But again, MHC is domain-free, so
>>>>>>>>> values themselves are contents of behaviors, what behaviors
>>>>>>>>> operate on and with, and therefore value motivated behavior
>>>>>>>>> only has association with an MHC stage where it is observable.
>>>>>>>>> So we wouldn’t say a value is a specific stage per se, but
>>>>>>>>> just say a value is observed to be enacted at this or these
>>>>>>>>> stages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2022, at 11:29 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Cory. That’s pretty deep stuff. Much of this I
>>>>>>>>>> imagine comes from your mentor Commons and some of it you
>>>>>>>>>> have formulated yourself?
>>>>>>>>>> I was figuring, and I think this is what Brendan meant with
>>>>>>>>>> his original post, that MHC is not really the metric you
>>>>>>>>>> would use for measuring the complexity of the mind, or for
>>>>>>>>>> comparing the complexity of the behavioral capability of
>>>>>>>>>> organism within the mind plane of ToK. I figure that MHC is
>>>>>>>>>> related, but the implementation of behavioral investment
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics provides unique phenomena wherein there is more
>>>>>>>>>> going on than can be explained through task complexity alone.
>>>>>>>>>> Integrated information Φ would also be related, but I imagine
>>>>>>>>>> there could be some sort of metric that somehow combines
>>>>>>>>>> these. This would level of meaning making capability within
>>>>>>>>>> the organism. The other side of this would be the
>>>>>>>>>> justification systems, which I figure would correspond more
>>>>>>>>>> to the “code” inner dimension identified within the Hanzi
>>>>>>>>>> books. Again, MHC is related, but there is probably more to
>>>>>>>>>> it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have to figure that
>>>>>>>>>> the Chomsky hierarchy has something to do with that, since
>>>>>>>>>> that is a system wherein grammar systems can be
>>>>>>>>>> hierarchically ranked in terms of complexity of the language
>>>>>>>>>> games that they are capable of. I’m only aware of the
>>>>>>>>>> original version, which would have all human cultural code
>>>>>>>>>> systems ranked at the top, but perhaps there is an enhanced
>>>>>>>>>> hierarchy of language games / symbol systems that would offer
>>>>>>>>>> a more formal metric for measuring the complexity of
>>>>>>>>>> different cultural code systems.
>>>>>>>>>> Brandon//
>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*Cory David Barker
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, January 28, 2022 1:34 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> @ Brandon
>>>>>>>>>> In order to do measure correctly with MHC, one has to be very
>>>>>>>>>> specific with no black boxes. There are a couple of
>>>>>>>>>> architectural levels that would have to get measured – first
>>>>>>>>>> is the interpersonal level with the individual, interpersonal
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics between individuals, and overall interpersonal
>>>>>>>>>> systems consisting of all individuals in the culture. The
>>>>>>>>>> culture operating as a whole begins a new architectural level
>>>>>>>>>> (carrying forward interpersonal sub-behaviors), it’s
>>>>>>>>>> relationship to other cultures, and how that culture
>>>>>>>>>> interacts in the larger system of cultures in general.
>>>>>>>>>> One needs to measure all three, not just by matching stage
>>>>>>>>>> definitions with behavior, but actually counting the actual
>>>>>>>>>> complexity stacks and being clear about the transition
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics at play, because usually people exhibit different
>>>>>>>>>> stages for different things, and are usually not at
>>>>>>>>>> equilibrium at a particular stage but are in transition
>>>>>>>>>> between them.
>>>>>>>>>> People’s behaviors are going to score all over the place, but
>>>>>>>>>> there will be a highest ordering behavior coordinating lower
>>>>>>>>>> order behaviors, both individually, and as a group. The
>>>>>>>>>> highest ordering behavior shared by all group members would
>>>>>>>>>> be its maximum stage of performance, but you wouldn’t end up
>>>>>>>>>> with a single number for an individual, interpersonal
>>>>>>>>>> dynamic, or culture, you’d end up with a chart of behavioral
>>>>>>>>>> complexity distribution.
>>>>>>>>>> While there may be some culture members who operate at a
>>>>>>>>>> higher order of complexity in a given culture, there will
>>>>>>>>>> typically be others who operate at less complex orders of
>>>>>>>>>> complexity, whom may downward assimilate the higher order
>>>>>>>>>> task performance of others in their culture, resulting in
>>>>>>>>>> complexity loss, because those who have not developed out of
>>>>>>>>>> latency the higher stage behavioral forms lack the ordering
>>>>>>>>>> type of complexity required to symmetrically represent what
>>>>>>>>>> they copy. It can also go in reverse, where people with
>>>>>>>>>> higher orders of complexity can allow lower, less complex
>>>>>>>>>> ordering direct the higher order behaviors. This downward and
>>>>>>>>>> upward thing I’ve been calling diagonal complexity, to go
>>>>>>>>>> along with horizontal and vertical complexity.
>>>>>>>>>> There are more variables to account for of course, but this
>>>>>>>>>> is the starting point. It’s not impossible to measure, in
>>>>>>>>>> fact one can eye-ball it in real time if one practices.
>>>>>>>>>> However, eye-balling it does not produce empirical evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> No matter how accurate one is, it is still anecdotal in
>>>>>>>>>> practice, so to get that empirical evidence require
>>>>>>>>>> considerable effort. Anecdotal eye-balling is okay, just need
>>>>>>>>>> to be clear about it so it isn’t presented as empirical when
>>>>>>>>>> it isn’t. Empirical evidence is so important because it can
>>>>>>>>>> get verified through replication of the instrument that
>>>>>>>>>> generated the data.
>>>>>>>>>> MHC has plenty of math for measuring this sort of thing.
>>>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Nicholas. I’m interested to hear what Gregg might
>>>>>>>>>>> think of this whenever he might have time to comment. I’m
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of thinking that being able to approximately measure
>>>>>>>>>>> the complexity level of the cultural code / justification
>>>>>>>>>>> system and the behavioral investment complexity could help
>>>>>>>>>>> therapists and community leaders diagnose shadow issues and
>>>>>>>>>>> formulate and implement remediation interventions. I can
>>>>>>>>>>> anticipate multiple possible objections to this line of
>>>>>>>>>>> thinking. One would be that this would be just pretty much
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible and it would be a wasted effort at measuring a
>>>>>>>>>>> granularity where there are already many well-established
>>>>>>>>>>> practices that have demonstrated effectiveness in achieving
>>>>>>>>>>> these sorts of positive results and they don’t require
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to measure these phenomena as such. Also some might
>>>>>>>>>>> object that attempting this sort of thing would simply be
>>>>>>>>>>> counterproductive, either because you’d end up creating some
>>>>>>>>>>> sort of social hierarchy wherein some people are more
>>>>>>>>>>> developed in their cultural code and/or some people have
>>>>>>>>>>> their behavioral investment sorted out better than others.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how these metrics could be problematic and
>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to implement. I don’t mean to open Pandora’s box
>>>>>>>>>>> by following this line of inquiry. I have to figure that
>>>>>>>>>>> any psycho-technology or tools for knowledge development
>>>>>>>>>>> could be used in good or bad ways.
>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*Nicholas Lattanzio
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, January 27, 2022 12:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon,
>>>>>>>>>>> I am certain there is pragmatic use for measurement, I am
>>>>>>>>>>> not trying to say that we shouldn't measure or try to
>>>>>>>>>>> predict. What I am saying is that there are already laws of
>>>>>>>>>>> nature which we are under the influence of in such a way
>>>>>>>>>>> that we cannot account for their effect on our measurements.
>>>>>>>>>>> Essentially we need to stay in our lane as much as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>> As with all of us, my entire life I've seen attempt after
>>>>>>>>>>> attempt after attempt to find new ways to model the universe
>>>>>>>>>>> and none of them end up being more than a satisficing
>>>>>>>>>>> proposal. I can accept that there is a model that would
>>>>>>>>>>> work. Again like all of us I live as part and witness to
>>>>>>>>>>> that model all day every day, it's not total chaos. The one
>>>>>>>>>>> thing I have yet to see is what we're actually trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> measure at this point. If we were talking just the physical
>>>>>>>>>>> universe, really most of where we're at now and down the
>>>>>>>>>>> ToK, I could buy into that. But when you say culture is the
>>>>>>>>>>> current metric, what the heck does that mean? What is that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Ostensibly there is some form of mental (mind) existence to
>>>>>>>>>>> culture as ideas and perhaps those ideas have a physical
>>>>>>>>>>> representation that could be measured on the level of
>>>>>>>>>>> biology or physico-chemical, but that doesn't do much other
>>>>>>>>>>> than to deconstruct, it does not shape the approaching
>>>>>>>>>>> critical point in our development other than taking a ruler
>>>>>>>>>>> and beating ourselves over the head with it. Until someone
>>>>>>>>>>> can show me experientially what we're attempting to put into
>>>>>>>>>>> terms/frames of thermodynamics and cybernetics and all sorts
>>>>>>>>>>> of fancy modernist epistemological advances/insights, then
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced it is meant to be done in that way (e..g.,
>>>>>>>>>>> show me an objective unit of culture). Maybe that's the
>>>>>>>>>>> point though, maybe we persist in this until free energy
>>>>>>>>>>> inevitably breaks through or finds the way 'to the next
>>>>>>>>>>> level' by sheer probability. I know I don't know. But I also
>>>>>>>>>>> know it'll happen either way, regardless of what "we" do
>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:18 AM Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Very cool, Brandon, thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards to information transfer in culture, there are
>>>>>>>>>>>> two kinds:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Vertically from one generation to the next (Darwinian)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Horizontally from one person to the next (Lamarckian),
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is WAY faster than the vertical transfer of genes
>>>>>>>>>>>> and information, which is why our brains can no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep up with the cultural transformation (and just a
>>>>>>>>>>>> curious fact: my next book is about this) :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lene
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25-01-2022 08:10, Brandon Norgaard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 added some content to the enhanced PTB table. At first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just copied over what Brendan had offered regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> metric for the evolutionary development at each plane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gregg said he disagreed with Integrated information, Φ for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind, since that exists within all planes to some extent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also MHC within culture, since that is another metric
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be applied to a wide range of life forms. I’m not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure how to sort this out, but I added an amendment to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of those cells to indicate that the mind metric
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also take into account behavioral investment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and the culture metric should take into account
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complexity of the cultural code. Also I added two new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rows based on what Daniel Schmachtenberger was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about on several podcast appearances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=AH-b3Feu5nyOnicXOt71FRqfwD7bt_DQG1g0HBtQdR0&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rDCebvfYF7wMiWfFnDrDixheoDOqRGIJhhtAS0caZ3E&s=ckAi1c0Qb-_t8H0YT1kXJelKeJ1jQeyu7wrKFyG3bAA&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also Nicholas, you bring up some very good points, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do think that this is likely going to have some utility at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some point. People could have similarly wondered back in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 19^th century what was the utility of measuring things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like electrical current. It probably wasn’t immediately
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent to everyone what these people were up to. I’ll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit that I can’t right now think of a practical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of having some sort of metric that is applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the planes of existence within TOK/PTB or to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary process in general, but I figure this could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove useful eventually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of*Nicholas Lattanzio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, January 21, 2022 7:06 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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'd like to expand on Gregg's last point there and see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what others think. As I strongly agree that we are at that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> precarious point in evolution and human development where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that window into direct/indirect but intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> influencing of our own evolutionary process can be done. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dont think I've seen anyone arguing explicitly against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that on this listserv.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree by extension with the dire importance of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking action during this time (enact the future from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to the actual).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where my metaphysics, Nondual Empiricism, differs from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTOK in this area is a small but crucial distinction. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes we are in this position, can, and should do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, and can reasonably agree what to do based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or less 'objectively' moral and ethical principles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that bring us into a oneness with our innate wisdom -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could only be accessed as a feedback loop operating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the person/culture plane of complexity on the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental orders of our and the universes nature through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an absolute mess of interactions and emergences across and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> within orders of nature (what I purport here, RE the OP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not worth measuring for the sake of some ephemeral
>>>>>>>>>>>>> window of utility we'd otherwise miss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned to several of those I have sought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice and insight from, I don't believe in free will as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such, I have a sense of agency, it has intelligence, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's ontogical root of awareness is the same root of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence (not panpsychism, see Ruper Spira's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness/model, it's more like panenpsychism).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We see this play out in terms of organization at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture/person plane as justification systems, i.e., it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the organization of our justifications (internal working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> model, schemas, etc) that inform our decision-making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond the biophysical processes that enable such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher-order thoguth (Mind3). If you went down a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity, BIT represents the nervous systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization as a manner of sensitively avoiding pain and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> se see king satiety (love at that level is survival).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going down to the biological level we see retention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> selection, and variation as literally evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decison-making. I haven't fully worked out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process/relational ontology for the lower levels quite yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the feedback loops become exponential (I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argue that is where the room for something like MHC may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still provide utility).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zak and others mentioned what I call the Golden thread or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cosmic golden thread, the ONE epistemic ontically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed at each order, or however you want to say it. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel that even though we have this agency and at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeling of decision-making, it is that intelligent cosmic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden thread that is enacting through our agency the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things we call conscious behaviors, and to be experiential
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in touch with that process is nondual knowing, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating yourself from the natural intelligent processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe whose context owns your relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. It is the same thing as selection, retention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one except a deeply misleaded panpsychist would argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that genes themselves consciously or intellectually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to retain themselves or vary, or be pruned away,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which leaves the case for an evolutionary intelligence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity quite compelling. So I while I think we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enact these necessary changes to bring about the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order of complexity (which let me remind us all has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already happened because time is not only linear, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vertical progression), I don't think we are actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing what we're doing, with that we being us as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual agents of choice. I think it is still that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive intelligence doing the work, that is the real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "us" after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But because of the incredible allure and beauty of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious experience combined with the unique aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-referential qualities that mind 3 enables of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenogical experience which literally creates the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as proprioceptive identification ("I am this body and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical limits are mine") and identification with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content/foreground over context/background, if there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any enactment for us to do it is to realize these levels
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of identification as phenomenological structures
>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing the filters of our lower levels of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity, which we just lump into 1 bit called "I."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real I is consciousness itself, the rest is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> misidentification with our own natural processes as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruments of our humanness, and they will never be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actualized from purely within the person/culture plane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Measurement is the result of JUST, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information organizing and sense-making process of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution at the person/culture plane. To enact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement is to then reduce humanness, it's a negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback loop. We must transcend measurement if we are to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly enact the actualized human, and that process, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argue, cannot itself be measured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rant over. Thank you for endulging me. Please point out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any errors you see in my thinking. I think it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysics like mine and many others that Gregg would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classify as scientific worldview D which UTOK needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> align with versus more of the same in other 3rd person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> empricisms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:13 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great discussions, folks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slammed right now, so I need to be brief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brendan, I am a fan of Chaisson’s cosmic evolution in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it gives a nice picture of the evolution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity from a natural science/physics perspective. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corresponded with him quite a bit. He gives a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crucial epistemological vantage point for our ontology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not a holistic one. The free energy rate density flow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle is a great physical-material metric for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and, if you know the book cosmic evolution, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligns very closely. Indeed, here is an alignment between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a graphic in his 2001 book Cosmic Evolution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something I drew a few years earlier (in either 1999 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000) as I was playing around with the ToK lens on Big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chaisson’s frame is naturalistic-material and although it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligns with the complexity sciences, it does not bring in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the complex adaptive systems thinking necessary for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full bridge. Put another way, because it gives a somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reductive physicalist causation picture of behavior writ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large, it fails to effectively frame I have recently been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling “epistemic functions.” These are the processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that emerge that generate fundamentally new behavioral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns of self-organization. In the vision logic of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tree of Knowledge System, Chaisson’s system fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “see” why/that Life, Mind, and Culture are different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions of complexification (or planes of existence).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He was involved in Big History and that is a standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blind spot in that frame. Chaisson also fails to see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animal-Mental dimension as a clearly identifiable plane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of complexification. Thus, the system is blind to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of psychology and fails to address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment Gap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon, I like your connections to genetics, integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information theory, and MHC. That said, I would not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned those exactly in the way you did. The reason is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that integrated information theory and aspects of MHC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be present in all complex adaptive systems. I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate on why, but will punt on this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bottom line is that the free energy rate density
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle is a great metric for complexity in the Matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimension.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have bio-epistemic complexification processes as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a function of genes, cells, and organisms, giving rise to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living behavior patterns or Life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have psyche-epistemic complexification processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a function of neuronal nets, animals, and animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups, giving rise to animal-mental behavioral patterns,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or Mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have human social-epistemic complexification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes as a function of propositions, persons, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultures giving rise to the human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification-investment-influence patterns, or Culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where I am sitting on the bridge of the UTOK System,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are now getting to a place where we can have unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psyche epistemic frames to hold the human subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective on the world (i.e., the iQuad Coin) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generalized scientific behavioral frames that provide a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third person onto-epistemological grounding (ToK System).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can bridge the Enlightenment epistemic Gap between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psyche and physics and achieve a much more unified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach to knowledge that can then orient toward wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the back half of the 21^st century. That is, with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right frame, we can consciously evolve in ways that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not available to us historically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Last, on Mon 1/31, I will be releasing a UTOKing with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Mascolo, where he offers is rich view of psychology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human experience and meaning making, and vision for how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we might correct the structure of the academy and move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toward a healthier co-active co-construction of reality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toward the good. His fundamental frame is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships are key and they are key all the way down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all the way up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*T.R. Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:25 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmm, measurement and proof, I relate this to someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can only read sheet music vs a Free Jazz improvisation;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you stop counting you listen to and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships, and play, fall, and create.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "All you have are your relationships." Tim Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timothy Rollin Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=UgDpCpis-eN8cP1mksXMal15WIz7wOUx08jG390qcDY&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=WsAAJ-w-anFnLRIPkI-CrooYxKbftZ12CPL-X-fIp1I&e=>/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Photography -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=lBsHT0xlSXM0eRh1nB-PE0RTuFf_vthS0Mtjy9AEJB8&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=E5gaKBkyi1hHAc8LlYTCnDBtdjuUt_6IiDRKFC2MLD0&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=N-edT6rFvB6t1StPz_ZYcWZ8ZexI1T56W5tszXE00aY&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=7dt55OEDu-EMNqhkZhNCYnNJJM4FmI99K2asaIdlQqo&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 646-299-4173 (cell)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:12 PM michael kazanjian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you take this as a compliment or similar remark,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not criticism. Your notion that the people are too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in measurement, sounds like Feynman, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criticized math people as too concerned with "proof."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting insight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael M. Kazanjian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022, 10:03:12 PM CST, Nicholas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yall are too concerned with measuring things IMO. I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it I do from an inquisitive naturalistic perspective, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't see what the utility actually is (I mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very literally, not pejoratively or flippantly).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, by definition of MHC (thanks for making it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear what we were even talking about here, took me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few times through the thread to notice the links Zak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared), a higher level of order can only be defined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of the next lowest order. With increasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary sensitivity these orders are only going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become more varied, stratified, and virtually useless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent of each other. They only have use in context
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of each other, so in that sense I totally see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enactment aspect of this regarding our unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positioning in the evolutionary scale of things (things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have come before us). It very much falls in line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with UTOK and probably the metaphysics of most everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this listserv, but it doesn't serve a purpose as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement. That thing, that onto-epistemogical golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cosmic thread is not adequately reduced to binary (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bimodal) actualizations. If we are to learn anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from this age of measurement it's that we need a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to be in touch with potential, the unactualized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enactment does that as the operating ontological process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that transcends the being-becoming dialectic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now if we are looking at efficiency, sure, let's figure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out how many bits we need to acheive this or that and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strive to encourage that, though that has never not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case for evolution or reality. We can certainly say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that anything could have been done more simply or less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply, but if it's done then it was done exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way it needed to be done and that is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information we use to judge the necessary bits in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place. An electron is an electron is an electron,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's call it one bit. Now it's entangled and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superposition, how many bits is that? Well it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depend on what order of complexity you're talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and of course the meaning or implications differ across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and within orders, MHC appears to contend that as well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are we going to do with that information? The we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could do something with that information IS that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information as an expression itself of the cosmic golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread or whatever you want to call it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean I guess this is what people do so maybe that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole point, but we can't answer Lee's questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about free energy with it since we would need to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of the order of nature/complexity just below free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy. Any attempt to do that is abstraction at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of mind and further at culture. Which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mosquito and which is the iron bull?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:05 PM leesimplyquality.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c-FOqQjjXV0Q_DM0rvb23rf2afV92WcqQIfecZF3b1I&s=QZ7sxChQwiWJjj1Yazke_iTKmRQxo8WQgBbOTndCUPI&e=><[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At 32,000 genes, the carrot genome is a good deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer than that of humans (somewhere between 20,000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 25,000 genes).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I am curious about the Life complexity metric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genomic complexity, C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the complexity different from the number of genes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how is it measured?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I think of entropy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entropy&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SS4gTnrBxuAodN_nyCCz7E2sRQbF8iI9-mg5W9dhKaw&s=5rHzMMo1Z5f9gPabLuE6C0Uektqi5dFogSpzvHLUUtg&e=> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the typically used measure of “disorder”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (often interpreted as complexity).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does entropy compare to free energy as a measure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee Beaumont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 7:41 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Brendan. A few months ago, I gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation at one of your book club events of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table I put together starting from Gregg’s Periodic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table of Behavior (PTB) and added content from his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion with Jordan Hall and also from some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources such as the Conscious Evolution podcast. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just added the content from your first message and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now have the table publicly available for everyone to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view and add comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=AH-b3Feu5nyOnicXOt71FRqfwD7bt_DQG1g0HBtQdR0&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-forJDYnYeVU85bHhkk-3r02ASBpSuwROcJ0o2Zxxko&s=n5iYDOFT77sWXeSzXluvxffU58e3h9i_ZLxgujX3Tbw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I figure something like this could be published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially somewhere, after it’s cleaned up as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, giving credit to the parties who created
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the content. All I did was put it together into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single table.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the metric of socio-cultural evolution, I’m
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure if MHC is the right one, or at least it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only part of the picture. I remember the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chomsky Hierarchy also gives a nested hierarchy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbolic meaning in languages. Some animals can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicate only at the regular expression level, some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the context-free grammar level, and we humans have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursively enumerable communicative capability. Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within this we have many levels of complexity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural codes, which has some relation to MHC, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is more to it. A person can be at a moderate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of MHC with regard to their mental capability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while also operating within a highly complex cultural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. Centuries ago, some people had high MHC while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating within a simpler cultural code than we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. I have to figure that it is the complexity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural code that is the real metric here. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given cultural code would seem to have some level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MHC baked into it, but I’m thinking that there should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be some metric that would be an enhancement of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chomsky Hierarchy that would measure the complexity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural code itself. Essentially, this would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure the complexity of language games within a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given culture and symbol set (spoken, written, facial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions, gestures, etc.) The Chomsky Hierarchy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only has recursively enumerable as the top level, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to figure there are many subdivisions within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Does anyone know who has done work on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alderman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:27 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same year Wilber published SES, Henryk Skolimowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> published a book arguing that we are at a time between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldviews -- represented as a 'dip' and 'chaotic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tangle' between plateaus of dominant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldviews/paradigms -- and proposed the next emergent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view will be holistic, participatory, and evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (whatever we name it; some of his prior worldview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names are 'Theos' and 'Mechanos'). One of his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments in the book is that evolution reveals a long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trajectory of gradually increasing sensitivity -- of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolving modes, degrees, etc, of prehension,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awareness, and 'participation' that entities use to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface with the rest of reality. And a key idea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhat anticipating Wilber's "W-5" turn, is that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to view this evolution of sensitivity in enactive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms, that evolution demonstrates a wandering but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directionless unfolding of greater, more complex ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that entities participatorily 'enact' their worlds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:05 PM Nicholas Lattanzio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 think Major Histocompatability Complex, which from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my understanding are proteins that help the immune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system adapt. I believe they measure it in making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vaccines, and use a great deal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical information to generate probabilistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcomes. But that's all self-education from articles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read like 2 years ago. I could be totally wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amd/or they could be talking about something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 1:56 PM Zachary Stein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Rutt Show: On Hierarchical Complexity:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=qk4xszA6TP51kMGuq3DBwDm4IiONjhLU6EPWpJOTJtk&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=So2Gj7XP4B3GguSgm4qBYOvUcuunJSnScYrLptGDVRA&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gapP9CFxXYvHhYPi7aSmNkI4N57rFpEzXVpzawMvVrM&s=xhNs13TlwiII58bb8-eZUUazcQU42tiKKXK6OGDbN5Q&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=e6QCTgwuwT3HO9mehFDk5SQQ_cciahi9xJWQYVvMEP0&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:27 PM Waldemar Schmidt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone, please clarify (for me) what MHC means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 9:42 AM, Zachary Stein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're on you something Brendan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thinkers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been on the same scent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aside from e.g., Wilber's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of Laszlo et al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in *Sex, Ecology Spirtuality;*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also, for example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less well known works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Elliot Jaques'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The Life and Behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Living Organisms.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has been asking:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the whole of evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be placed along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single objective axis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of directionality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiple, level-specific "measures,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, ok, *and*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are deep structural isomorphisms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across/between levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Piaget & Co.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be read as suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that what we call MHC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Fischer's Skill Levels)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a local manifestation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a cosmic evolutionary process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occuring at all levels:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, life, and mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite a claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problematic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but also illuminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insightful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is to say,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside from space, time, etc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is another universally measurable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimension involving (forgive the jargon)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *non-abirtary iterations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of complex emergence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hierarchical integration*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The many become one,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are increased by one."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Whitehead would say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the many stepped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stairway" of evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving a sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that things are "going somewhere"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than just meandering and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrarily enduring through time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if we accept all that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what does it buy us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it buy us what we want?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it buys a great deal,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of it we want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (some of it we don't know what to do with);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this second step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "who cares/so what?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not trivial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brendan Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dempsey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have been considering the ToK through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexification lens and wondering what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific quantitative metrics might be in each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of complexification. Each new information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system would complexify along its own trajectory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning the specific metric used to measure it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be different than the one before. Moreover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each metric would be dependent upon and relate to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ones on which it rests. Here's what I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *MATTER*: Cosmic evolution – energy (metric: free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy rate density, Øm)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *LIFE*: Biological evolution – genetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (metric: “physical [genomic]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity”, C)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *MIND*: Consciousness evolution – nervous system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration (metric: integrated information, Ø)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CULTURE*: Cultural evolution – linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification systems (metric: hierarchical task
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity, MHC)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the level of *matter*, I think the work of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Chaisson on cosmic evolution is helpful, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he uses the free energy rate density (Øm) as his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metric.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the level of *life*, some preliminary searches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yielded genomic complexity (C) as a potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metric, as according to the work of Adami, Ofria,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Collier (2003), but I suspect there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better/more recent work on measuring biological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the level of *mind*, I was wondering whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIT would be the best fit, which uses the metric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ø of increasing sentience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, at the level of *culture*, I'm intrigued
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the potential for the Model of Hierarchical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Complexity to measure justification systems and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other cultural phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, each new metric would map onto the other,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that Øm would increase as C increased as Ø
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increased as MHC increased. That's a hypothesis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I'm re-inventing the wheel here, so let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me know if there's already work that's done this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wanted to hear people's perspectives on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prospect of identifying different complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics for each unique level of the stack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brendan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.zakstein.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YdRLNMaydS8BjgIdh3dHs8piU-A007PURV8gr6ghKCg&s=-RgOZ82hnT70JsA8h7l5kS4HpqFxbNXeDHQcBLt2VNc&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.zakstein.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=hrMDanBRLvtThATSswHjSE9xtL_v4JVvLwLNuvNfXD0&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Lene Rachel Andersen*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
>>>>>>>>>>>> President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bildung Network
>>>>>>>>>>>> Full member of the Club of Rome
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Nordic Bildung*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.nordicbildung.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nordicbildung.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=Ae4Nue7SPrrny5QstXIF3VfKhzlpaHhdYUJloXplGeI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +45 28 96 42 40
>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Lene Rachel Andersen*
>>>>>>>> Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
>>>>>>>> President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European
>>>>>>>> Bildung Network
>>>>>>>> Full member of the Club of Rome
>>>>>>>> *Nordic Bildung*
>>>>>>>> Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
>>>>>>>> www.nordicbildung.org
>>>>>>>> +45 28 96 42 40
>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Lene Rachel Andersen*
>>>>>> Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
>>>>>> President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European
>>>>>> Bildung Network
>>>>>> Full member of the Club of Rome
>>>>>> *Nordic Bildung*
>>>>>> Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
>>>>>> www.nordicbildung.org
>>>>>> +45 28 96 42 40
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <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
>>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Lene Rachel Andersen*
>>>> Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
>>>> President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung
>>>> Network
>>>> Full member of the Club of Rome
>>>> *Nordic Bildung*
>>>> Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
>>>> www.nordicbildung.org
>>>> +45 28 96 42 40
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> <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
>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>
>> --
>> *Lene Rachel Andersen*
>> Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
>> President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung
>> Network
>> Full member of the Club of Rome
>> *Nordic Bildung*
>> Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
>> www.nordicbildung.org
>> +45 28 96 42 40
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
>> <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
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>
--
*Lene Rachel Andersen*
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
*Nordic Bildung*
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40
############################
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
|
