Gregg:

Excellent -- that's *very* much what is needed . . . !!

"Formal cause" requires an understanding of Aristotle's "forms" and  
how they are *fundamentally* different from Plato's "Forms."  This  
vital difference has been largely buried over the millennia and now is  
being "retrieved."

However, I suspect that using the same language as the "Platonists"  
will only lead to endless trouble for you.  My advice is to find other  
words to describe what has been severely confused by others -- who  
are, in fact, your opponents (as you have discovered re:  
"justification.")

"Information" is a theme they have ridden for a long time.  James  
Gleick (also rep'ed by Brockman, as I recall) has a book with that  
title, as well as one named "Chaos" (aka "complexity" and "emergence")  
that have largely claimed those *memes* and will defy attempts by you  
or others to redefine them.  Their gang will stomp on yours.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_INFORMATION-2DHISTORY-2DPantheon-2Dpublisher-2DHardcover_dp_B004Q9OYEY&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ErzQLHxhRbcEZYXkT2lTG8E7Gla_Oj4fLc6aJYtdunc&s=zpGnE_myeGBo_q_InuZLB03fGLN6FYSzMjmv-snJS8I&e=

For these "Platonists," CHAOS is the *primordial* "Form" of nature.   
This is, as it turns out, their "religion" and, quite clearly, it  
isn't Western (or Christian/Judaic/Islamic.)  The "self-organizing  
void" is their *pantheism* and "justifies" their belief in the  
omnipresence of their "gods."  Spinoza would have been very pleased.

This is precisely the Pythagoran/pre-Socratic "paganism" that  
stimulated Nietzsche when he took that "organic" LSD in Leipzig  
(reenacting the Eleusinian Mysteries), resulting his his "Birth of  
Tragedy" (promoting Dionysus) and his fascination with "Zarathustra."   
There is *none* of this in Aristotle -- which is why he has been  
largely excluded (or deliberately mis-characterized) for so long.  Now  
that he is being brought back, you should take advantage of this  
crucial retrieval.

To embrace Aristotle's *forms* requires breaking with the Platonists.   
This is not something that can be "integrated," since it opposes  
everything you are doing and embracing it will mean your defeat.  As  
Yogi Berra famously said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take  
it . . . " <g>

Mark

P.S. Over this summer, Jeff Martineau has been teaching the first  
Center class called the "Life and Death Seminar" (LADS) based on  
Aristotle's "On the Soul."  When we designed the course, I wanted to  
have a "counter-point" so I selected Steven Johnson's "Emergence,"  
thinking that I could at least invite him to give a guest lecture  
since I know him (yes, he's also rep'ed by Brockman.)  To grasp  
Aristotle's "forms," however, what is needed is his "Metaphysics" (as  
translated by Joe Sachs) -- which I nominate as a key text for your  
own "Metaphysical Empiricism" (since that is *not* what Plato was  
doing at all and, by publicly acknowledging it, you will put the  
Platonists on notice.)

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Aristotles-2DMetaphysics-2DAristotle_dp_1888009039&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ErzQLHxhRbcEZYXkT2lTG8E7Gla_Oj4fLc6aJYtdunc&s=RGaV6F112Zjs0fQ1s--8LZKmq60YoJ0JJ1jQTdjg5_k&e=

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

> Mark,
>   I will back channel you a paper Joe M. and I have under review  
> that describes the Periodic Table of Behavior. It shows very clearly  
> that essentially all other approaches to complexity/chaos operate on  
> the assumption of a single dimension/levels that go from subatomic  
> particles to atoms to molecules to cells to multi-cells to animals  
> to humans to societies. For example, this is what the Big History  
> folks do and has been the basic arrangement of the hierarchy in  
> nature in the sciences since Comte. The ToK System advocates for a  
> two axes model, of levels (parts, wholes, groups in systems) and  
> dimensions (Matter, Life, Mind and Culture) (sorry to be so  
> repetitive on this point, but it is CENTRAL to grasp).
>
>   A dimension of complexity has an empirical aspect. That is we can  
> look at the behaviors (the changes in object-field relationships)  
> and document that different entities behave differently. Every known  
> culture examined by anthropologists divides the world into  
> "rocks/inanimate" objects; "plants" living organisms; "animals"  
> sensing-moving organisms; "people". So, one point is that it is an  
> empirical fact that we can create a taxonomy along these lines. Of  
> course, as the ToK System points out, we can also see the major  
> divisions in science along these lines.
>
>   More to your explicit point. I see  
> "information-computation-communication" very much along the lines of  
> formal cause. The informational systems that mediate this behavioral  
> complexity do so by informational interface. Here is a blog I did on  
> the human mind as four domains of informational interface.  
> Informational interface happens as a system with an input capacity,  
> a decision making and memory capacity, and an output capacity  
> engages in the environment and regulates behavioral responses  
> accordingly. This, BTW, also has "final cause" elements to it, in  
> that organisms and animals and people all have teleological behavior  
> patterns in ways that inanimate matter does not.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: draft blog of what makes us different
>
> Gregg:
>
>> They are qualitatively different kinds of behavioral complexity
>> because they operate via different informational mediums.
>
> Great -- now we're getting someplace.  Interesting that it is  
> "mediums" that *cause* (e.g. your use of "because") these  
> "qualitative" differences in "complexity" (aka what you call  
> "dimensions," I presume) . . . !!
>
> Might you like to expand on this?  What is an "informational medium"
> and how does it "cause" these differences?  Which sort of causality  
> is involved -- efficient, material, final or formal (or some other  
> notion of cause)?
>
> I'm pretty familiar with "information theory" and "complexity science"
> but I don't recall them making these distinctions.  Since using  
> their language while meaning something different can cause some  
> problems, perhaps a "glossary" that highlights how you are using  
> these words -- contrasted with how others use them -- might be very  
> helpful.
>
> As you might recall, Georg Cantor attempted to make a sort of  
> "qualitative hierarchy" of this sort in the 19th century with his  
> notions of "transfinites."  Is that the sort of thing you have in  
> mind . . . ??
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Transfinite-5Fnumber&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=FkAKAG1fpdsxCprPiMVCGd0Tl0CZ4D6tFz19FLCrawc&e=
>
> The literature on civilizations is significant.  They rise and fall.
> When they "forget" what got them going, they simply don't survive.
> Christianity is that initiating force for the West.  Without it,  
> there is no West anymore and something else will take its place --  
> with something else as that force.
>
> In 1953, the Dutch futurist Fred Polak published his "Image of the
> Future: Enlightening the Past, Orienting the Present, Forecasting  
> the Future," which got him invited to the first year of the CASBS,  
> where he "roomed" with Elise and Kenneth Boulding (who organized the  
> event) at Stanford. Elise then learned Dutch and translated it  
> *twice* into English -- once in full (1961) and then again as an  
> "abridgement"
> (1973).
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_image-2Dfuture-2DJossey-2DBass-2DElsevier-2Dinternational_dp_0875891527&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=_BmAuxrX2vYql-gFecAjY-rrKuQ0ep6zdIF4DMFSOUo&e=
>
> Elise was also engaged with Willis Harman's *infamous* "Changing  
> Images of Man" exercise in this period -- along with many other  
> interesting people -- and, when it was finally published in 1982  
> (after circulating for a decade among the insiders), she penned a  
> note included as an appendix titled "An alternative view of history,  
> the spiritual dimension of the human person, and a third alternative  
> image of humanness."  Both Elise and her husband, the famous  
> Oxford-trained economist, considered themselves to be Quaker  
> "mystics."
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.global-2Dvision.org_papers_changing-2Dimages-2Dof-2Dman.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=UkgFVmAbnDi5BqFD1SdDHfZjc_10mKkJ87sIm49NfO0&e=
>
> As Jamie has detailed, Teilhard de Chardin also had an "image of the  
> future" as a Jesuit priest.  So does Kevin Kelly as a born-again  
> Christian.  So did the Bouldings.  Without what Aristotle would call  
> a "final cause" civilization breaks down and simply doesn't function.
>
> The point that Polak made was that without Christianity something else
> would need to be substituted -- or else the West would be finished.
> In his own work, he concluded that we were in for a "futureless  
> future."  Elise summarized every chapter in the original 2-volume  
> book except that one.  Polak was an "atheist" and Elise wasn't.  For  
> her there was a "New Age" of spirituality that would take over from  
> Christianity.  I've been told that Marilyn Ferguson's 1980 "The  
> Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in Our Time"
> was supposed to be the "public" version of this promotional effort.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Aquarian-2DConspiracy-2DPersonal-2DSocial-2DTransformation_dp_0874774586&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=7cQAmTvfSHAIFJnzua5bidNrTAGEWh7F_KmoQdmRoDs&e=
>
> Under *electric* conditions, the "New Age" was always the "plan," or  
> so it seems.  A.R. Orage published his "The New Age" from 1907-22  
> and many influential authors of the time wrote for it.  Are you also  
> planning for some sort of a spiritual "New Age" to replace West  
> civilization (like Kevin, Teilhard, Elise and so many others) and,  
> if not, then what . . . ??
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=l9HeAmqEsVjkldyx4paoMZHPsjh6uJB5L7gMX9CY528&e=
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. For those enamored of Tolkien's "Middle Earth" or perhaps his  
> fellow "Scribbler," C.S. Lewis, and his Narnia, these were people  
> also trying to provide an "image of the future."  Lewis, once a  
> publicly declared atheist, in particular, thought that  
> Christ-as-myth would be the answer.  As a result, he is widely cited  
> today as an "apologist"
> for Christianity -- while actually holding turning it into what  
> McLuhan called "Christianity for the non-Christians."  Yes, he  
> wasn't alone in that attempt.
>
> P.P.S. It was Ken Boulding's hope to use what he called "Eiconics"  
> to promote this new spirituality.  This was, as best I can tell, the  
> first attempt (of many) to describe what has become known as "memes."
> If culture is to "reproduce" -- which in this case means something  
> to take-over in the West -- it needs a "medium" in which to do that.  
>  He detailed this in his 1956 book, "The Image: Knowledge in Life  
> and Society," which then became a term used by many others in their  
> treatments of parallel efforts.  What interests us, btw, isn't  
> "images" (which belong to the perceptual domain of Imagination) but  
> rather "memories" (which belong to the other domain of Memory, that  
> is now being emphasized by our *digital* environment -- or what  
> McLuhan called a "medium.")
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Image-2DKnowledge-2DSociety-2DArbor-2DPaperbacks_dp_0472060473&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=bBXDYmclFEfJEolDMGvznYWLueqZJxsT5bQgiPmRleM&e=
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Mere-2DChristianity-2DC-2DS-2DLewis_dp_0060652926&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=s7ANMETRr_Bqc2CNbZx_JgtSJ0MrpRLTgVlfDmewBk0&s=oBSu6eEz7lJRa9Ifs-VrUHveTJ2y4VK7xlZlj3pa_RM&e=
>
> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> It is good to get your Digital Life version of reality Mark.
>>
>> It is not the ToK/UTUA version in several respects. But it is
>> interesting and I look forward to continuing to see overlap and
>> connections.
>>
>> I will say that, as an agnostic atheist married to a "heritage" Jew, I
>> find the first comment about non Christians perhaps not being able to
>> "relate" to Western civilization odd. How Christian does one need to
>> be to relate to the civilization?
>>
>>  Also, in the language of the ToK/UTUA we are absolutely information
>> processors, and are that at the level of Life, Mind and Culture.
>> Indeed, the nervous system IS an information processing system. Now,
>> we are not electron computers (we are sentient, we are self-aware, we
>> are self-determined and we know we will die---in short we are human
>> persons). But there is a very important difference between strong AI
>> claims (we are computers) and the complete excision of input output.
>> What are afferent and efferent nerves, but nerves that translate
>> information into the language of the nervous system and interface with
>> things external to it. Certainly it is not serial digital logic
>> processing via silicon chips. But information flow is what makes Life
>> different from Matter, Mind different from Life, and Culture different
>> from Mind. They are qualitatively different kinds of behavioral
>> complexity because they operate via different informational mediums.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
>> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 6:15 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: draft blog of what makes us different
>>
>> Tokers:
>>
>> Reading Gregg's "draft blog" a couple of points jump out at me . . .
>>
>> 1) We are the West -- not the East (or anything else.)  Gregg is
>> correct that the crucial "frame" for the West is Christianity.  Yes, I
>> say "is" not "was." Before Christianity, as in pagan Rome and Greece
>> &c, it was a different civilization.  Without Christianity (for which
>> Talmudic Judaism and Islam are offshoots -- all being "people of the
>> Book"), it is no longer the West.  I am a Catholic and will be going
>> to church a few hours from now.  For those reading this who are not
>> Christian all of this presents a problem.  Perhaps a serious one.  Can
>> you even relate to your own civilization?
>>
>> 2) Science (in the West) set itself up -- from its "modern" 17th
>> century beginnings -- against the Catholic Church (but not
>> Christianity.)  It was intended to "reform all of the world," as the
>> title of the 1612 Rosicrucian "Fama Fraternitatis" manifesto tells us.
>>   This implied the need to eliminate Aristotle, since his work had
>> been incorporated by the Church starting in the 13th century.  This
>> development of a *new* techno-paradigm in the West was the product of
>> the Printing Press in the 15th century.
>>
>> 3) In the 20th century, under the influence of the *electric*
>> paradigm, science declared victory (in the West) -- at precisely the
>> moment that Oswald Spengler wrote his "Decline of the West."  This
>> meant not just victory over Catholicism -- which had been "defeated"
>> by PRINT as a techno-paradigm centuries earlier -- but also of
>> Protestant Christianity.  Max Weber called this the "disenchantment of
>> the world" in his 1917 lecture "Science as a Vocation."  The "New Age"
>> is, of course, what came next.  Yes, drugs were involved.  Pagan drugs.
>>
>> 4) Among the many outcomes of this situation of deep civilizational
>> confusion/collapse was the push for "one world" (i.e. the elimination
>> of civilizations.)  It surfaced after WW I as the League of Nations
>> and then morphed into the United Nations and World Federalism &c after
>> WW II.  It relied on the Rockefellers to fund it
>> -- the UN headquarters was actually first meant to be built next to
>> their homestead in Pocantico Hills -- whose progenitor, John D.
>> Rockefeller Sr. (the world's first "billionaire") was such a devout
>> Baptist that he build his house (now a must-see museum called
>> "Kykuit") around a church organ (that his grandson, Nelson, tore out
>> to replace with "modern" art.)
>>
>> 5) One of the other things funded by the Rockefellers was "systems
>> theory" -- which has now morphed into "complexity" and "emergence."
>>  From the beginning, this was meant to be the "glue" that would hold
>> everything (that was falling apart) together.  It was the theory
>> behind "one-world."  The Society for General Systems Theory (now
>> IIGS) was initially organized at the initial 1954 meeting of the
>> Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Science (CASBS, as
>> Stanford) -- which, in some ways, was an early version of what Gregg
>> is trying to do.  Yes, we've been down this road before.
>>
>> 6) In the 1950s, it looked like there was a *new* "synthesis" that was
>> coming together.  The World Council of Churches had religion taken
>> care of (with the Catholics, who refused to join, disabled by Vatican
>> II.)  Henry Kissinger (a creature of Nelson Rockefeller, who was
>> supposed to become President in 1964 but his girlfriend, Happy,
>> refused to get an abortion) had pulled together the outline of the
>> "New World Order" (through what was called the "Special Studies
>> Project," which then became the staff of JFK's "Camelot.")  He even
>> got China to sign-up (or so he thought) when he and Nixon met with Mao
>> and company.  They "owned" Japan and Germany.  Venezuela was their
>> plantation.  They had deeply penetrated the Soviet Union (which is why
>> the Wall came down, against which the Russians are now fighting back.)
>>   They had the CFR and the Brits (now called "Five Eyes," aka the
>> "Deep State.")  No one could get in their way -- or so they thought.
>>
>> 7) In the 1980s, Samuel Huntington (with whom my Center's co-founder
>> studied at Harvard), came up with a "rival" theory to the dominant
>> one-world, new-world-order scheme.  Instead, he proposed that there
>> are multiple civilizations on earth and that they are inherently
>> "clashing." He presented all this to the Council on Foreign Relations
>> (with the help of Center Fellow, Tom Lipscomb, who had become a member
>> via Herman Kahn, after whose Hudson Institute the Center is modeled)
>> and was tossed out on his head.  Kablam! Instead, F. Fukujama
>> presented his acclaimed "End of History," reflecting the mood of
>> victory following the fall of the Berlin wall.  George H.W.
>> Bush celebrated the millennium at the pyramids in a ceremony that was
>> supposed to symbolize humanity coming full-circle.  Alas, he was
>> wrong.  They were all wrong.
>>
>> 8) Sam was right.  The West is *not* the whole world.  There was not
>> going to be a "new world order" run by the West.  It is only one among
>> many civilizations and, since it had jettisoned its own Christian
>> principles, it wasn't even a civilization "on the rise"
>> (if it could survive at all.) It was in decline and due to be
>> overtaken by other civilizations -- most importantly China (where I've
>> been engaging now for 20+ years.) Arnold Toynbee, who had spent his
>> life writing his "A Study of History" (explicitly responding to
>> Spengler) had made it
>> clear: Without a "great religion" at its core, there can't be a
>> civilization.  Far from taking over the world, the West was on its
>> last legs.  Kaput.
>>
>> 9) Of course, that didn't stop those who were still on a "mission."
>> The Department of Energy funded the Santa Fe Institute (and still
>> does), in the hopes that "complexity" would become the ultimate
>> "theory of everything."  Bomb designers -- hearkening back to how Leo
>> Szilard had provoked the atom bomb in the hopes that it would end all
>> wars (following a suggestion by H.G. Wells in his 1914 "A World Set
>> Free") -- would now design a *new* civilization to replace the old one
>> (and it would no longer be based on Christianity.)  But today,
>> with $300M+ spent on this bold plan, they have utterly failed.
>> "Chaos theory" (as "Complexity theory" was originally called) has
>> failed to explain anything.  And it never will.  Aristotle could have
>> told you that.
>>
>> 10) In the face of this collapse, two other civilizations have stepped
>> in to pick up where the West left off.  China is now on the rise and
>> we call it the "East Sphere."  So is what we call the "Digital
>> Sphere," which wants to scrap humanity and replace it with "perfect"
>> and "immortal" machines (yes, that's where Kevin Kelly and Ray
>> Kurzweil &al fit in.) As a result, we now live in a world composed of
>> Three Spheres: East, West and Digital.  The Center for the Study of
>> Digital Life is the *only* organization in the world focused on
>> understanding this dynamic.  Yes, it's exciting out there on the edge.
>>
>> 11) Naturally, this new "three-body problem" (btw, the name of an
>> excellent Chinese science-fiction trilogy by Cixin Liu) causes a great
>> deal of "anxiety."  For those living in the West, it seems like
>> everything is going down the toilet and, in superficial "historic"
>> terms, that is correct.  All the dials point towards a fiery crash.
>> Danger Will Robinson! The current homosexual scandal in the Catholic
>> Church (itself caused by the same collapse of confidence in the West
>> 50+ years ago, aka Vatian II) only adds to the sense to impending
>> doom.  Is the 2nd coming immanent (as Teilhard de Chardin believed)?
>> Are we living in the times of the Anti-Christ?
>>
>> 12) All this calls for a *new* psychology.  We are already in a period
>> of massive psychological disturbance -- for which all the previous
>> "treatments" are woefully inadequate.  As Talking Heads put it, the
>> world has turned into "Stop Making Sense."  None of the "brands" out
>> there can deal with this situation -- not Humanistic (which came out
>> of the last counter-culture), not Behavioral (which was born out of
>> early psychological warfare), not psychoanalysis (also an "electric"
>> anti-Christian approach), not Cognitive (which equates humans with
>> computers so they can be "programmed.")  None of them even attempts to
>> pull all this together.  Clearly, something new is needed.
>>
>> 13) Whatever new psychology develops to deal with the "depression"
>> that results from living in a dying civilization -- including the
>> hopes for colonies on Mars &c, so we can start over again -- it will
>> need to deal with the following reality: the robots are taking over
>> "work" and the humans will be left with a lot of time on their hands.
>> H.G. Wells wrote about this in 1895 with his "The Time Machine."  In
>> it he predicted that humanity would "evolve" into two "species": the
>> Morlocks (i.e. today's robots) and the Eloi (i.e. today's "whatever"
>> humans.)  Wells was a protege of T.H Huxley (which is how he became
>> "godfather" to his grandsons, Aldous and Julian) who, in turn, was a
>> protege of Darwin (actually, known as "Darwin's Bulldog.)  As things
>> are currently "trending," humanity looks like it is heading towards
>> becoming the "energy" that feeds the robots.  Giving the machines
>> their "maintenance" back massages.  "Machines with Loving Grace,"
>> indeed.
>>
>> 14) Dealing with a humanity (in the West) which has comprehended its
>> own demise -- while watching the rise of other humans, living in other
>> *spheres* (aka "civilizations") -- has now become our challenge.
>> What is to be done (as V.I. Lenin once asked)?  What is happening
>> today is, in cultural terms for the West, an 8.0 on the Richter Scale.
>> This is the "big one" (as they refer to California falling into the
>> ocean.) The West has been dominant on earth since PRINT launched its
>> collapse
>> 400+ years ago.  That collapse was accelerated by ELECTRICITY 100+
>> years ago.  Now we are DIGITAL -- what prospects for the West does
>> that imply . . . ??
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. The entire point of "What Makes Us Different?" is to distinguish
>> us from the robots -- not other animals.  To the extent that we allow
>> "systems theory," "complexity," "emergence" &c to shape our "language
>> games" about humans, we have already lost that battle.  Humans have
>> nothing in common with computers.  I was a professional computer
>> architect for a decade and I know what makes them tick.  Humans do
>> *not* "process information."  We do not have precision in our
>> memories.  We do not have "inputs" and "outputs."  Phooey on all that
>> -- if we want humanity to survive (which, to be sure, some clearly do
>> not want to happen, thus CRISPR.)
>>
>> P.P.S.  In the East, the "equivalents" to Plato and Aristotle in the
>> pre-West (later expressed as Augustine and Aquinas as the Christian
>> West took over from pagan Rome) are Confucius and Laozi (i.e.
>> "Daoism.")  The Central Party School in Beijing -- which had taken up
>> the "Sinicization" of Marxism from 2004-11, which led to the 2nd World
>> Congress on Marxism I attended this past May at Peking University --
>> is now teaching these foundational Eastern sages to the next
>> generation of cadre taking over the Communist Party of China (CPC.)
>> Along with the Eastern "equivalent" of the Bible, the Yijing (i.e.
>> "I Ching")!  Just imagine St. Thomas Aquinas being mandatory for all
>> undergraduates at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, plus Oxford, Cambridge,
>> the Sorbonne and University of Berlin.  Heaven help us.
>>
>> Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Excellent Gregg and Chance. Note in editing the blog before final
>>> posting that the special issue is "Humans: Why we're unlike any other
>>> species on the plant". For me, the 'answer' to that question links
>>> back to the "emergent" aspect of the Mind-Culture joint point.
>>> It's not merely that there increasing information complexity
>>> associated with the development of "behavior", but rather that there
>>> are fundamentally different types of behavior associated with the ToK.
>>> I am not persuaded either by any specific theories or the body of
>>> scientific evidence currently available that the answer lies in
>>> reductionism. I'm not ruling out that general hypothesis, but rather
>>> simply more inclined to follow the logic of emergence at this point
>>> until convinced otherwise. Best regards, -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>
>>> Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
>>>
>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>
>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>
>>> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>>>
>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>>
>>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>>
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> ______________________
>>> eiπ + 1 = 0
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg -
>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 11:02 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: draft blog of what makes us different
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> I spent some time this morning crafting a draft of a blog on What
>>> Makes Us Different. It ended up being a bit more expanded than I
>>> originally anticipated. My original focus was to paint the ToK/JH
>>> picture. But what emerged was a five page summary of the “puzzle
>>> pieces” of our uniqueness, drawn from the Sept 2018 Scientific
>>> American special issue that Joe shared. In reading through it, I
>>> decided it was good way to summarize the current state of knowledge
>>> of the puzzle pieces that make us different.
>>>
>>> I am sharing it here because I think it is a great topic for our
>>> list. I would welcome any suggestions or recommendations or additions.
>>>
>>> If we as a group have a sense of these puzzle pieces, then I think
>>> discussion about the central missing piece, the Justification
>>> Hypothesis (framed by the ToK metaphysical definitional system and
>>> the BIT formulation of the evolution of the animal mind) can be
>>> productively had.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:T
>>> [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
>
> ############################
>
> 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