Gregg,
Yes, thanks for clarifying "purposeful behavior". I was referring specifically to human purposeful behavior. The "deliberative person" captures that nicely, as well.
I would say that there are two different different types of justification for the statements, "humans can behave purposefully" and "(non-human) animals can behave purposefully".
The former can be justified a priori, since any counterargument to that statement is itself a purposeful behavior. That is, the attempt to disprove that statement is itself implicitly "an end" and the counterargument itself constitutes a means to that end.
The same approach, of course, can't be applied to non-linguistic animals. It can only be justified a posteriori, and thus requires empirical evidence that can't sufficiently be explained as mere operant behavior.
~ Jason B. On Saturday, February 10, 2018, 1:32:53 PM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
#yiv1590907966 #yiv1590907966 -- _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1590907966 #yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966MsoNormal, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966MsoNormal, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 a:link, #yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1590907966 a:visited, #yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msonormal0, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msonormal0, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msonormal0, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msonormal0, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal5, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal5, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal5 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal31, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal31, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal31 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msonormal, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msonormal, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msochpdefault, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msochpdefault, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966msohyperlink {}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966emailstyle23 {}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msonormal1, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msonormal1, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msonormal01, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msonormal01, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msonormal01 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal1, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal1, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal51, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal51, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal51 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal311, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal311, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966m-1596648779004276311yiv6612062169msonormal311 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966emailstyle231 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1590907966 p.yiv1590907966msochpdefault1, #yiv1590907966 li.yiv1590907966msochpdefault1, #yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1590907966 span.yiv1590907966EmailStyle38 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1590907966 .yiv1590907966MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1590907966 div.yiv1590907966WordSection1 {}#yiv1590907966 _filtered #yiv1590907966 {} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv1590907966 {font-family:Symbol;}#yiv1590907966 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1590907966 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1590907966
Hi Jason,
Many thanks for this analysis. It is very consistent with how I see things, although I am still digesting.
Let me make a comment about purposeful behavior. I would like to add the word “deliberative” in front of the term. The reason is that animals are guided by an “investment value system” and I would argue that they act with purpose. Indeed, the primary model I offer for the experiential consciousness, Perception – Motivation => Emotion aligns with William Power’s perceptual control theory analysis, which attempts to account for the purposeful nature of animal behavior. I think the case can even be made that a cell is purposeful. John Torday will argue that the cell is self-referential and self-organizing. So, I would want to place a qualification on the kind of “purposefulness” we are talking about.
The word deliberative, for me, gets at the essence of persons (which is the term I use to refer to the thing that makes humans such unique animals). By deliberative I mean the self-conscious, self-reflective way of being. For example, engaging in this email exchange. I have an identity with explicit values and I am choosing to engage in this email exchange because such investments align with my explicit, verbal, private and public justifications for the good life. There is a little known psychologist, Peter Ossorio, who examined the conceptual idea of being a person and a behavior of persons, and argued that the essence or exemplar of behaving as persons was engaged in deliberative action on a social stage, with a history of owning a set of actions. So, it is deliberative personhood that is the top of the ToK and it is the capacity to take self-conscious ownership of one’s actions and values.Here is a blog I did on addiction that goes into these ideas some.
I will offer another connection here. I have been reading up onJordan Peterson, who remains very visible. Yesterday I read the beginning of his book Maps of Meaning.It can be found here on line. He divides the world into the world of objective things delineated by science and the world of actions, which involved how people perceive and react to (and have emotions and values about) situations and act in the world. Basically, the fact/is versus value/ought distinction, and he discusses the huge divide between them. I will be speaking more to this issue, but figured I would mention it here.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Hello ToK Society,
Some thoughts on Pepper's "World Hypotheses", the ToK, and the problem of value...putting it together:
(1). When I look at the four World Hypotheses in relation to each other, I like to look at them in terms of a dialectical tension. For example, I see Formism, (analytic & dispersive) vs Organicism (synthetic & integrative) astotal opposites. When Formism has a root metaphor of similarity, I would expect to seedissimilarity as being integral, in some way, to Organicism. And sure enough, "contradictions" is a fundamentally important element of organicism --- and you're not going to get much more "dissimilar" than contradictions, (i.e.,opposing tendencies)!
(2). By the same token, I would conceptualize Mechanism (analytic & integrative) vs. Contextualism (synthetic & dispersive) as "total" opposites, as well. I've made my case (in the past few threads) that the ToK appears to be mechanistic from "the bottom-up". But if so, then this suggests to me the possibility that the ToK can be conceived of as being contextualistic, in some way, from "the top-down". Furthermore, if the ToK is mechanistic from the bottom-up, then we're dealing with cause-and-effect from the bottom-up, as well. But this would also suggest that, from the top-down, we're dealing with, (in some way), somethingteleological, it would seem...
(3). "Selection" and "behavior" are important concepts in the ToK --- such as natural selection and behavioral selection. However, we're not dealing withliteral selection here in the sense that "nature" or "the environment" are literal "intentional agents" that literally "select" various biological traits or operants, etc. "Selection" isa metaphor. In keeping with a bottom-up, cause-and-effect mechanistic perspective, it would be more precise to conceptualize these processes ascontingencies. That is, when dealing with operant behavior, we're literally referring toontogenetic contingencies, and with natural "selection", phylogenetic contingencies.
(4). We've also discussed how knowledge is a function of the knower and the known, and that the knower could be placed at the very top of the ToK. By the same token, value could be thought of as a function of the valuer and the valued. So the valuer could be placed right alongside the knower at the top of the ToK. Or better yet, the "knower" and the "valuer" can be synthesized asone who engages in purposeful behavior.
(5). Purposeful behavior implies both "ends" and "means". "Ends" implies value, and "means" --- insofar that one's means to one's end iseffective --- implies knowledge. That is, when one engages in purposeful behavior, one isliterally selecting both ends and means to that end. That is, it is teleological behavior. To select an end necessarily implies that such an end is valued in some way by the one engaging in purposeful behavior. Purposeful behavior also implies anintuitive awareness of mechanistic cause-and-effect, for the one engaging in purposeful behavior is implicitly assuming that their behavior willcause the valued end that they desire to come about, and that the better their knowledge of cause-and-effect relations, then the moreeffective their selected means will be in bringing about their selected ends.
(6). If purposeful behavior can be placed at the top of the ToK, then moving from the top-down, justification can be conceived of as a particular subset of purposeful behavior. Or to be more specific --- and borrowing Skinnerian terminology ---purposeful verbal behavior. That is, when one engages in justification, one is acting purposefully. Justification can be thought of as both an "end" (i.e., an acceptable justification to others or even oneself) and a "means", (i.e., a justificatory process to that end).
(7). Indeed, so much of culture can be thought of as both emerging from purposeful behavior and providing the context within which purposeful behavior occurs, including not just the non-material culture that justification implies, but material culture, as well, (e.g., technology, agriculture, etc.). Perhaps with purposeful behavior at the top, both purposeful behavior and justification (at the fourth joint-point) can be conceptualized as being in a sort-of selective feedback loop ofcultural selection.
(8). And going back to point # (2), isn't purposeful behavior central for the contextualist....thepragmatist? Would not the contextualist's first concern --- when looking at the ToK and it's bottom-up mechanistic, cause-and-effect approach be, "That's neat, butwhat am I supposed to do with it?" That is, "How is this knowledge a means to my (valued) ends?"
(9). So to sum up, my suggestion is to conceive of purposeful behavior as being at the top of the ToK, for I think that would create a space in which these various issues can be synthesized. It implies both the knower and the valuer, it is a behavior that is a literal selective process, and just as the ToK can be interpreted as mechanism from the bottom-up, it could equally be conceived as the starting point for it's opposite --- contextualism --- from the top-down.
~ Jason Bessey
On Friday, February 9, 2018, 9:12:59 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Excellent questions. The “knower” resides on the top of the Culture portion, just as you suggest. Here are some diagrams that capture that.
The entire iQuad path, which is what was the spark for this list, is deeply related to the problem of the knower. [I am attaching the pdf. At some point on this list, I will walk folks though the path. I thought I found a fully functional transcendental path into the Garden via deductive logic. I have since realized that this path does have a “wobble” in it, meaning that there is a linkage in the argument that requires some asterisks and clarifications and thus I backed off. I have been working on stabilizing the “wobble” and am comfortable in how I am currently framing what this does.]
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 8:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Steve writes: "Pepper has relatively little to say about the problem of value, an issue that is probably more closely tied to a metaphysics of the "knower" than of the "known"."
---
(1). If "knowledge" can be conceived of as a function of the "knower" and the "known", then it would seem equally conceivable that "value" would be a function of the "valuer" and the "valued". Perhaps that would be a fruitful way to frame the issue.
(2). When asking myself, "Where is the "knower" (and perhaps the "valuer", as well) in the ToK?", the only appropriate place I can think of is the same place at the top of the ToK where the "Institution of Science" is located. Perhaps thinking of the "knower" (and the "valuer") symbolically in relation to the ToK in such a manner would be helpful, as well.
~ Jason Bessey
On Thursday, February 8, 2018, 1:50:00 PM EST, Steven Quackenbush <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello ToK Community,
I have compiled "The Complete Season 1" into a single document (attached). I read through it and fixed a few typos, but I have not made any significant revisions.
As I am still in the process of assimilating Pepper's arguments, I am not yet prepared to offer definitive interpretations. But I will make a few quick comments here:
- While I acknowledge the temptation to consider the ToK framework as "consolidated mechanism with successively emerging secondary qualities" (see Episode 3), this is not my considered point of view.
- Gregg suggests that "the beauty of the ToK" is that it incorporates a theory of themetaphysician rather than simply a theory of the "known" (or of "knower-known" relations).
- I'm inclined to agree with Gregg that this is something missing from Pepper's account. It would certainly bepossible to assimilate the knower into one of the various world hypotheses considered by Pepper (e.g., a mechanistic knower somehow "in tune" with a mechanistic universe). But I wonder whether the postrational eclectic knower (see Episode #5, final scene) is obliged to submit to the epistemic rules established by any of the four "relatively adequate" world hypotheses.
- Or, to develop the same point in a different way, I wonder whether the root metaphor of the ToK/UTUA framework might not be the notion of metaphor itself. This would serve to ground the free play of metaphors that allow for the emergence and refinement of the formist, mechanistic, contextual, and organismic worldviews.
I still have much to learn about mathematics, science, and metaphysics, so my views on these matters may change by the end of next week. Still, I really do think that Gregg is right to see that there is something missing in Pepper's account. For all his insights regarding the development of science, Pepper has relatively little to say about the problem of value,an issue that is probably more closely tied to a metaphysics of the "knower" than of the "known".
I look forward to a continued discussion of these issues...
~ Steve Q.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:00 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Gregg,
I think it's safe to say that, over the course of history, physicists themselves, were typically approaching their subject matter from a mechanistic perspective (and still do). However, that doesn't mean that contextualists can't examine the history of physics from their own perspective after the fact.
Hence why the ToK appears to be grounded in a consolidated mechanism view from the "bottom-up".Quantum mechanics, general relativity, the modern synthesis, operant conditioning, information-processing views on cognition, etc., are all mechanistically-based and "consolidated" in the ToK. That includes the JH itself being grounded in mechanism. That, in turn, creates a space for "non-mechanistic" justification systems to emerge, but they're implicitly derived from a mechanistic perspective on how an why justification systems emerged in the first place.
Not saying that's a bad thing. It's quite impressive, actually.
~ Jason
On Thursday, February 8, 2018, 11:51:50 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
But, according to the ToK, physics is an epistemological/justification system that maps the material dimension of complexity.
As such, it is a justification system that emerges out of a historical context of human knowers justifying knowledge about things. That feels contextual to me.
But the justification for physics is math, which is a transcendent formist formulation…
Hmmm…are we going round and round?
This reminds me a bit of a parallel analysis I did pertaining to Karl Popper’s“three world” analysis and explaining how the ToK could tie together the three worlds that Popper claimed were isolated…I have a full paper on this that is under review if folks want it.
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Gregg: "The ToK System lays out a cosmological map, that starts with big bang and evolves to the present."
Yes. Which suggests to me that the ToK is ultimately grounded in Consolidated Mechanism since that's what the sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology, (and arguably, both Skinner's behaviorism and the information-processing view of cognitive psychology), are grounded in, as well. Even Freud's tripartite model of the mind would seem to be mechanistic, as well, which the JH is significantly influenced by.
Now once we get to level of justification --- and consequently the Cultural Dimension --- all four of Pepper's World hypotheses can be thought of as "justification systems". But that would only mean --- in the context of the ToK --- that formism, contextualism, and organism are, in a sense, derived from and secondary to, the world hypothesis of mechanism which would be primary. That is, the ToK is a theory grounded in consolidated mechanism thatcreates a space for formism, contextualism, and organicism, but that space is (so to speak) constrained by --- and perhaps even governed by --- mechanism.
~ Jason Bessey
On Thursday, February 8, 2018, 9:31:38 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Jason,
I don’t think we are thinking about the ToK in the same way. From where I sit, the ToK is absolutely a “metaphysical theory.” (I prefer calling it a metaphysical system). It is a metaphysical theory that solves the problem of psychology. The unified theory of psychology emerges because it is placed in the proper metaphysical theory.
As I wrote in the paper that Anchin critiques, it is a system forintegrating human knowledge; it is akin to E O Wilson’s Consilience (attached).
According to Koons and Pickavance (2014), metaphysics is about understanding:
the fundamental structure of reality as a whole. How do things fit together in the world? Plato describes this task of philosophy as “carving nature at the joints,” comparing metaphysics to a skillful and knowledgeable act of dissection. Here are four relations that seem to be among the fundamental relations of this worldly structure: the relation between things and their properties, between wholes and parts, between causes and effects, and things related to each other in space and in time.
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines metaphysics as: 1) a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being that includes ontology, cosmology, and epistemology;
The ToK System lays out a cosmological map, that starts with big bang and evolves to the present. It makes a claim about ontology, namely that the universe is an unfolding wave of behavior that consists of different dimensions of behavioral complexity, and it includes a clear framework for epistemology (i.e., the emergence of scientific justification).
So, yes, the ToK is much more than a psychological theory. It is a theory about knowledge and human knowers.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Gregg writes: "Jason, do you get the sense that Pepper incorporates a theory of the metaphysician into his analysis?"
Sure. The metaphysician has to select a root metaphor, if only implicitly. An interesting psychological question --- or perhapspsycho-epistemological question --- is why would someone select one metaphor over another, even if only unconsciously? What makes one root metaphor more preferable than the other?
The ToK isn't a metaphysical theory. It's a psychology theory. And any psychology theory (or any scientific theory) is necessarily grounded in a set of metaphysical assumptions whether the theorist recognizes that or not.. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.
Associating each World Hypothesis with each of the four dimensions in the ToK is simply a Formistic approach, (i.e., it's metaphor of similarity).
~ Jason
On Thursday, February 8, 2018, 6:16:52 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Jason writes: ~~ I don't think it's a question of whether or not "the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK". I think it's more along the line of "Which world hypothesis is the ToK-as-a-whole grounded in, if only implicitly?"
~ Jason, do you get the sense that Pepper incorporates a theory of the metaphysician into his analysis? I don’t. Although he recognizes that such knowledge is about knower-known relations, he does not have a theory of both knower and known that he is operating from. That is the beauty of the ToK.
So, I think it is a good question to ask. And, I see the various metaphors as reflective of human cognition, which in turn are a function of the different dimensions of complexity.
The ToK is bigger than the separate world hypotheses…
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 7:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Gregg writes: "I kept asking myself whether the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK or not."
~~ I don't think it's a question of whether or not "the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK". I think it's more along the line of "Which world hypothesis is the ToK-as-a-whole grounded in, if only implicitly?"
Gregg: "First, it absolutely is clear to me that impulse that drove the construction of the ToK was an organismic impulse."
~~ Interesting. Steve, as I recall, thought of it as consolidated mechanism. Should make for an interesting discussion! (Though Hayes, in a paper from years ago, saw the ToK as Organicist, as well.) From an Organicist perspective, my first thought is that I wonder if the joint points could be conceptualized as the "integration of conflicting fragments", which 'leads inevitably into conflict and contradictions with other fragments", only to have those conflicting fragments be integrated at the next joint point. Jack C. Anchin's, "The Critical Role of the Dialectic in Viable Metatheory: A Commentary on Henriques' Tree of Knowledge System for Integrating Human Knowledge" might be particularly relevant here.
~ Jason Bessey
On Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 2:12:58 PM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear TOK list,
I want to begin by again thanking Steve for his tour of world hypotheses. It was very well done and extremely informative. And very useful for considerations regarding moving toward a “Big” Theory of Knowledge.
Here I will offer some general thoughts.
I believe the taxonomy that Pepper provides us regarding the 8 world hypotheses and common and refined knowledge is very useful. Fundamentalism and radical skepticism are, IMO, clearly inadequate knowledge systems. My inclination is to “punt” on animism and mysticism, meaning that I consider these “insufficient” rather than inadequate. What I mean is by this is that I feel one could have hope for the universe being revealed to operate in such ways, but we do not have sufficient knowledge to justify such hopes.
I found much resonance with how Pepper talked about knowledge systems in general with the argument I make that knowledge systems consist of metaphysical frameworks that organize empirical facts. The discussion of world hypotheses was a discussion of fundamentally different metaphysical frameworks.
The ongoing thoughts I kept having throughout the season was the relationship between the ToK/UTUA framework and the various world hypotheses. I kept asking myself whether the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK or not. And what Pepper would have thought of the ToK.
Here are some preliminary thoughts.
First, it absolutely is clear to me that impulse that drove the construction of the ToK was an organismic impulse. That is, logical coherence, integration of fragments into a whole that could account for the absolute is an excellent description of the project that was guiding my impulse to construct the system.
Second, I saw some very direct linkages between the various world hypotheses and the way the ToK carved up the world. The language and frames of mechanism very clearly line up with the Matter dimension of complexity. I would argue that physicists would, by and large, adopt a mechanistic view of the universe. That is how they model parts, wholes and the causal change process. I was listening to the book, The Future of the Mind, by theoretical physicist, and it was just obvious to him that the mind was a machine—there was just no other way to think about it.
Contextualism, on the other hand, lines up very clearly in my mind with the dimension of Culture. The importance of history, who is justifying what is needed in a pragmatic sense is very much akin to this view. I think that most post modern positions are contextual, and that truths are framed by knowers with goals.
Formism, for me, corresponds primarily to mathematics. At least, mathematics is a form of transcendant formism. Recall that there was also “categorical formism.” For me, this corresponds to perceptual categories, which I see as Kantian like categories, which corresponds to Mind.
Organism clearly aligns some with the dimension of Life. It is important, as Steve appropriately notes, to be careful in exactly how one interprets each root metaphor and to not do so too literally. But none the less, I see a clear correspondence along the lines of the following:
Mechanism…. Dimension of Matter
Organism Dimension of Life
(Categorical) Formism Dimension of Mind
Contextualism Dimension of Culture
Transcendent Form Mathematics
Interestingly, Jason Bessey also saw this line up. Although I think care must be taken in not jumping to conclusions, I do believe that there is fruit to be gained from considering the notion that there are different world hypothesis because there are different dimensions of complexity in nature that behave in different ways.
A final consideration I will share is one that Steve and I had some exchanges about. I see the Garden of UTUA as a larger system than the ToK. The work that spurred the generation of this list was the “iQuad Proof.” One of the things that I was very struck by in doing that work was that my frame had shifted from an organic/coherence way of thinking to one that was more deductive and linked to mathematics (transcendtal forms). In the opening on the iQuad proof ppt, I argued that there were a number of different conceptions of the truth that were embraced by the Garden.
I have attached the slide. I am struck by the idea that the world hypotheses have different notions of truth and that these might relate to different “entrances” into the Garden.
Thanks again for this tour, Steve,
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Quackenbush
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 3:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
The season finale of Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses is attached.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [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] 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
|
