Awesome!

Thanks I will,

My favorite image of yours, of the Tok,  is similar to this one below, (I
can't find it right now) but it's from an angle the shows the *presence *of
the self (some call it 'geist'..and I sometimes use the term 'causality'
itself, or the 'now')  as involved in every dimension of complexity at
once, moving through time as the universe goes with you wherever you go (my
words)...it's like this but with a time dimension:
[image: image.png]

 The ToK is just so huge, and gets bigger and bigger the more I study it.
Sometimes it takes my breath away, and I can't wait to see how culture is
impacted by its self-realization.

The new grammer you say we need seems necessarily paradoxical, though.
Because even though the TOK system itself can remain constant, being such a
thorough map, the context of life is always changing, changing the meaning
of words, and the ToK is part of the strange loop that we are, and while
that loop isn't fixed, it is lawful, if paradoxical. *(It helps me to
remember that the completed thing negates itself in its completion, which
is always now)*

And I believe this changing context is why people are misled so often.
A nice thing about the ToK is that once you memorize it, you can easily
switch context with confidence.

This is why the ToK is perfect for Self Inquiry (for finding out how the
strange loop and the ToK's ontology lawfully relate....or possibility-space
remains congruent with actuality):

Your description of the various systems involved is an example of how
someone practicing spirituality, or self-inquiry, can maintain their grip
on reality as they expand beyond their limited view of self and nature.
Spirituality can fool people into losing touch with what the ToK's
onotology maps...yet somehow, the paradoxical logic of the Strange Loop
must add up to the ToK as well.

.it's like the ToK is the map of the Self, and the whole body, not just our
imagined 3D bodies, but the whole *possibility-space of the body - and how
possibility-space and actuality must remain lawfully congruent, how we can
learn this congruence and do anything.*

When I self-inquire aloud *"Who am I? And from whence are these thoughts
spoken and to whom are they heard?" *and I realize a momentary infinite
loop that dissolves the limited questioner, I can reference the ToK and see
how the strange loop must involve every level of complexity.

Jamie

PS: I'm reminded of this quote by Matt Ridley:
"Below the surface of every banality and cliche there lies *irony*,
cynicism, and profundity.”





On Fri, May 28, 2021, 9:51 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi James,
>
>   As I have mentioned, you are welcome to share anything I say on this
> list as I consider my posts here public access.
>
>
>
> You might want to include some reference to the blog on Map of Mind, as
> folks outside of TOK land wont know the domains of mind reference.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Dmap-2Dmind-2D1-2D2-2D3&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xBiFXk7uhpNGcgP1aeXWYZwWreAf2fz3MmsW1n9aCug&s=dReBE81i4NX5Fprza6tqyTkoy4sLUbCthzpR6svsfXg&e= 
>
>
>
> Also, here is one on informational interface
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_za_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201804_the-2Dhuman-2Dmind-2Dinformational-2Dinterface-2Dapproach&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xBiFXk7uhpNGcgP1aeXWYZwWreAf2fz3MmsW1n9aCug&s=PO_700ltGZYBLMWr6v5QyWmu3kSm0xzb6Q-olTZPRoE&e= 
>
>
>
>
>
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *James Tyler Carpenter
> *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 12:27 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> This is a marvelous post and synchronistical - is of one mind with another
> post and thread on a psychoanalytic list.
>
>
>
> Can I share this with them..... us
>
>
>
> Warmly,
>
> Tyler
>
>
>
> James Tyler Carpenter, Ph.D., FAACP
>
> Metis Psychological Associates LLC
>
> 490 North Main Street
>
> Suite 2
>
> Randolph, MA  02368
>
> Ph. 781-963-1800, FAX 781-963-1818
>
> Email: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_metisexperts&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xBiFXk7uhpNGcgP1aeXWYZwWreAf2fz3MmsW1n9aCug&s=w0JzItyq4WpY9NEYd7QFGDM_7S5aHTz_jLZ08Pzre0s&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_metisexperts&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=03omif0Fb1L-KoIznvZDFzD0u5GvIwAvm1qMv6P6K6M&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 11:16 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> Jamie,
>
>   I appreciate these reflections. And your quote “Is the mind within the
> body or the body within the mind?” is a good reminder that (a) we are
> strange loops of awareness; (b) we need a new grammar to capture the ontic
> reality and our subjective experience of it.
>
>
>
> We can start by noting that “the mind” is not a useful construct in and of
> itself. When you say out loud, “Is the mind in the body?” you are engaging
> in information interface between 5 identifiable zones.
>
>
>
> First, there is the muscle movements and the sounds, which is what your
> dog or cat would see you. This is Mind1b. Then there is the
> neurocomputational feedforward/feedback loops that we could track
> indirectly via fMRI or PET scans showing the brain activity from the
> outside as it processes information. This is Mind1a.
>
> Then there is you subjective perspectival phenomenology, the integrated
> global workspace that has the adverbial frame of observer framing the
> adjectival properties. This is Mind2. You can then activate a
> self-referential “I” that can narrate what is on the screen and also
> verbally interprets the narration, that is Mind3a. Then there is the public
> speech as heard by another human than can speak the language, which is
> Mind3b.
>
>
>
> Surely, with this frame, we see indeed you are a strangeloop of causation
> and your mind exists within your body and your body within your mind,
> depending on the epistemological arena we decide that we are in.
>
>
>
> Rock on,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 11:20 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> *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'm beginning to wonder, however, if this giant objective system is
> actually subjective...like, not to any individual person, but to that which
> reconci...fuck I'm not going to try to say that...
>
>
>
> How about this:
>
>
>
> Is the mind within the body or the body within the mind?
>
>
>
> If you ask aloud who hears this sentence, do you not get a miraculous
> sense of realizing an infinite loop as both speaker and hearer? (It took
> practice, as maybe connections need to be made, or cobwebs cleared).
>
>
>
> What is the body then? How could we be justified in maintaining an idea of
> the body that in truth is infinite.....the body is infinite.
>
>
>
> And, if there is an order to even this way of being, whereby the
> individual is theirself the creator of their own reality, and learning that
> self-completing order of language for the first time, rather than a
> either-or interpretation, why not call it science?
>
>
>
> The political shift is in recognizing other people as mere thoughts. Do
> you ever really know someone?
>
>
>
> The brain is the seat of the mind, but the mind is only thoughts. Without
> thoughts, what mind is there?
>
>
>
>  "What we call mind, absent of ideal forms and culture is only a
> combination of restlessness and dullness."
>
>
>
> The brain is the womb of culture, and culture is composed of the ideal
> forms, which are also called memes.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021, 7:45 PM Adriana Forte Naili <
> [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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Thank you for this Gregg.
>
>
>
> On 27 May 2021, at 03:46, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Adriana,
>
>
>
>   Here is the concept of Wisdom Oriented Modern Empirical Natural Science
> (i.e., WOMENS Knowledge) in terms of the symbols and maps given by UTOK.
>
> <image001.png>
>
> The Tree of Knowledge provides the new ontological map of MENS. That is
> “Modern, Empirical, Natural, Science”. There are many features that make it
> a new model, but let’s just say for now it is a new way to think of the
> “physical-bio-psycho-social sciences” as a coherent whole. It solves a
> number of problems with MENS knowledge. One major problem with MENS
> knowledge is that it overextends its explanatory field and tries to
> dominate and control (sound familiar 😊?).
>
>
>
> Contrary to many proclamations from scientistic scientists, MENS knowledge
> does not explain idiographic subjectivity. We can be confident that the
> eliminative materialists (Scientific Worldview A) are just living out an
> egotistical fantasy that they can explain everyone’s feelings. WRONG! The
> nature of the language game of science is that it is grounded in third
> person, quantifiable objectivism. It is the language of “behavior from the
> outside” not of “subjective feelings from the inside”. Moreover, it
> operates to explain generalizable patterns in the world, not unique,
> unreliable, specific, unrepeatable occurrences. All of this is basically
> “error” to MENS knowledge.
>
>
>
> This hole in MENS knowledge is filled by the iQuad Coin. The Coin is in
> the shape of an H and when you turn it on the side, it turns into an I.
> This is because it represents your subjective Human Identity. See here:
>
>  <image002.png>
>
> As the box suggests, it is the view from the inside. I am a therapist, so
> when I meet with someone in the clinic room, my first orientation is to
> empathize with their unique phenomenological experience of being in the
> world. And, as we humanistic therapists say to our patients, “you are the
> expert on you”. Another way of saying this is that the authority of MENS
> knowledge is put off to the side, at least at first. However, as someone
> narrates their problems, a psychological doctor needs to be able to offer
> them a wise frame that can help them understand themselves and then begin
> to make better sense out of their world. Most importantly, we want to be
> able to help them (a) become aware of themselves and the world, (b) accept
> the situation and their feelings, and (c) actively change what they can
> toward valued states of being.
>
>
>
> In UTOK’s vision of reality, we can frame this as “following the path”
> and/or “flipping the coin”. This is brings in the final component, which is
> the Garden. The Garden sits under the Elephant Sun God, which represents
> the ultimate concern/meaning/goodness, both for the person and the
> “infinite.” It symbolizes the transcendent spiritual potential of the
> individual to evolve beyond their egoic functioning and embody “wisdom
> energy.” Thus, we can think of the Elephant Sun God as the symbol that
> orients the unique soul (represented by iQuad).
>
>
>
> The Garden contains the map of scientific knowledge given by the ToK
> (e.g., the ToK is the first branch on the Tree in the UTOK Garden), but it
> also includes much else. For example, the right side of the Tree in the
> Garden includes the four branches that frame the “unified approach” to
> psychotherapeutic healing. That is, it integrates across the fields of
> psychotherapy (framed by the unified theory of psychology) and gives maps
> and frames for character adaptation, development, well-being, and
> psychological mindfulness. It also includes many components and symbols
> that represent collective wisdom. I say this because modern Western therapy
> grants way too much power to individual subjectivity (i.e., the Coin).
>
>
>
> I hope this helps clarify the vision I am trying to share. It has not been
> an easy vision to convey, and my “MENS side” often cuts into some of the
> technical details, which often derails conversations. Anyway, the overall
> point is that if we can collectively outline the path from our current
> soul/spirit killing, chaotic fragmented ways of knowing that were
> institutionalized during the modern era into a coherent naturalistic
> ontology (ToK) and then flip the coin (subjective soul/spirit) into wisdom
> (Garden/Sun God), we will be much better off as a local-global collective.
> Another way of saying this in the language of UTOK, is that we face the
> challenge of the 5th Joint Point but can meet it with the right,
> adaptive, wise frame.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps show what I am trying to get at with UTOK and the move
> toward WOMENS knowledge.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> PS Many thanks to Lene Rachel Andersen, who helped name WOMENS knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Adriana Forte Naili
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:26 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> *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 second Joan. :-) Wisdom Oriented Mens Knowledge (WOMENS) very clever
> indeed. I’d love to read more on this Gregg, if you have anything written
> on this specific point.
>
>
>
> Adriana
>
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:40, Joan Walton <[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.
> ------------------------------
>
> " Indeed, the UTOK frames science as “MENS knowledge
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.psychologytoday.com-5Fus-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-5F202007-5Ftheory-2D2Dmens-2D2Dknowledge-2D23-2D3A-2D7E-2D3Atext-2D3DWhat-2D2520is-2D2520the-2D2520relationship-2D2520between-2D2520a-2D2520human-2D2520knower-2D252C-2D2520groups-2D2520of-2D2Cwhich-2D2520is-2D2520-2D2522objectively-2D2522-2D2520known-2D253F-2D26text-2D3DAs-2D2520a-2D2520theory-2D2520of-2D2520MENS-2D2Cscientific-2D2520knowledge-2D2520were-2D2520not-2D2520success.-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DWoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8-2526s-253DjG0BVfjAqdYnJpTe4uDrSIp7cB4AKGuguRPY8eUraOo-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276216057-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DnnBb7hwPnaMdqG7owGYM-252B3oeLiUyXN5nBgHbN-252Fleh6c-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=uIIHq1Lp_uw5pm_MHcGe5zUCF434Op7e801OkkuD3b4&e=>”
> (modern, empirical, natural, science methods) and argues we need a shift to Wisdom
> Oriented MENS knowledge (WOMENS) in the 21st Century
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fmedium.com-5Funified-2D2Dtheory-2D2Dof-2D2Dknowledge-5Ftoward-2D2Dwomens-2D2Dknowledge-2D2Dand-2D2Dthe-2D2Dcultivation-2D2Dof-2D2Dwisdom-2D2Denergy-2D2Din-2D2Dthe-2D2D21st-2D2Dcentury-2D2Dfb6528a54f35-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DWoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8-2526s-253De-2DCFIgPIcxNIXB2JGKqoCNPhZFdlR5KBBpoutOYENz4-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276226008-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3Dj6bJxBH7tbr7m-252Bkhpdfa5e-252BLZbsCAmXMsz5Udi0mYb8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=kDgG0zCmlWWJA2vRoMt9vnEFkgn6X9ZF1YMTHKB6k8w&e=>
> ."
>
>
>
> Very clever 😀
>
>
>
> Joan
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 14:19, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Excellent point, Joan. And I should have clarified. Also, not
> confrontational at all! You should see some to the email lists I am on
> …this does not even register 😊. We should have started with that. So, if
> we go with a broad definition of science, then yes, things are complicated.
> Consider, for example, this presentation that Gien shared of Sadhguru:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_w7irEcQHChw&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xBiFXk7uhpNGcgP1aeXWYZwWreAf2fz3MmsW1n9aCug&s=tdEmezXnIKlVK0LYZdhSZATSbdSURQxMc1YokgDVHJw&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fyoutu.be-5Fw7irEcQHChw-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253Dqn6Jpy56-2D9RL98VqXtsQD-2DLkjeksL4UPKq7a8nQ1sHA-2526s-253Doxd7hi08iAn4mStqzVHMsiWwqWwbxB8tWAKGQzAv2ms-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276235969-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DRBR4DX-252BzHPffFO7dnwfNwbatk6PyyHylhZmLfzzzcU8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=JCxBqy5VdFjDf_dn3svS6RtqQ1c9CkP0vMMmqw7Syhw&e=>.
> He is grounded in the yogic sciences, and that is not what I would mean.
>
>
> I mean “modern, empirical, natural, science” that stems from natural
> philosophy and has the lineage from Copernicus into Descartes/Galileo into
> Newton/Hook that gave rise to classical physics. It is the kind of
> onto-epistemology that I argue frames modern psychology and gives us the
> problem of psychology. So, I should have said I start there. Indeed, the
> UTOK frames science as “MENS knowledge
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.psychologytoday.com-5Fus-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-5F202007-5Ftheory-2D2Dmens-2D2Dknowledge-2D23-2D3A-2D7E-2D3Atext-2D3DWhat-2D2520is-2D2520the-2D2520relationship-2D2520between-2D2520a-2D2520human-2D2520knower-2D252C-2D2520groups-2D2520of-2D2Cwhich-2D2520is-2D2520-2D2522objectively-2D2522-2D2520known-2D253F-2D26text-2D3DAs-2D2520a-2D2520theory-2D2520of-2D2520MENS-2D2Cscientific-2D2520knowledge-2D2520were-2D2520not-2D2520success.-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DWoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8-2526s-253DjG0BVfjAqdYnJpTe4uDrSIp7cB4AKGuguRPY8eUraOo-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276235969-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DtM7IacJAM3Z4r2r7EeUn1HV2NMAst1XfIguwk5R41-252BA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=8I79L2eCJBain50lC1L_IgwhXzHoHlJrXllUnpNdniM&e=>”
> (modern, empirical, natural, science methods) and argues we need a shift to Wisdom
> Oriented MENS knowledge (WOMENS) in the 21st Century
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fmedium.com-5Funified-2D2Dtheory-2D2Dof-2D2Dknowledge-5Ftoward-2D2Dwomens-2D2Dknowledge-2D2Dand-2D2Dthe-2D2Dcultivation-2D2Dof-2D2Dwisdom-2D2Denergy-2D2Din-2D2Dthe-2D2D21st-2D2Dcentury-2D2Dfb6528a54f35-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DWoQhbpRBokc5H8FOkAeHiCuvHNQxkwqbLaxLoOBEfK8-2526s-253De-2DCFIgPIcxNIXB2JGKqoCNPhZFdlR5KBBpoutOYENz4-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276245919-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DzHzA4smJ5LUi86hB6Iwp6PhqXYb0DfNOyXIPnm74jwI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=S4DuIeeo8miqn7yYFfmZv6mM4MSdr_whlETrFL1q8MI&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of *Joan Walton
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK 4 Scientific Worldviews
>
>
>
> *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 Gregg
>
>
>
> A very quick response.  The main point I want to make is - it all depends
> how you define 'science'.  The etymology of science is Latin *scientia
> (knowledge) and* *scire* ‘to know’.
>
>
>
> How science is defined, and what are seen as acceptable ways of knowing
> (epistemological questions) are culturally shaped, as are understandings of
> what constitutes valid 'evidence'.    And all of these emerge from our
> ontological views of the world, none of which are proven.
>
>
>
> You write:   "I don’t think it gives enough metaphysical/ontological
> coherence and at the same time raises too many questions".
>
>
>
> Personally, my way of understanding the world, and the nature of reality,
> is contained somewhere within one of the options provided by Worldview D
> (as you will doubtless be aware).  And for me, it gives more metaphysical
> and ontological coherence than any other I have explored (and I have spent
> a lifetime exploring).  In fact, it is the only way of seeing things that
> offers me any coherence at all.    I have come to it as a consequence of
> daily experience as well as intellectualising about it all.    I don't
> think 'raises too many questions' is ultimately a valid critique.   I could
> say that your interpretation of science raises (too?) many questions for
> me.
>
>
>
> So I'm back to that term 'science'.  What do you mean by it?  Is your
> definition of it an 'objective truth' or 'culturally derived'?   If it is
> culturally derived, then that - I would suggest - undermines the rest of
> your argument.  Because culture consists of norms, beliefs and values, none
> of which are ultimately provable as 'truth'.
>
>
>
> I hate emails, because they can sound confrontational, when they are not
> intended to be.  I think this debate is important for all kinds of
> reasons,  and I'm intending my contributions to be friendly and
> constructive in nature.   I hope they are read in that light :-)
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Joan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 13:30, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi TOK Folks,
>
>
>
> I have been writing a bit in my in-progress book, The Problem of
> Psychology and Its Solution, frames science (i.e., as a modernist,
> empirical, natural, scientific methods-based system of justification) and
> the kind of scientific worldview it offers.  I have identified four
> different broad scientific worldviews and would love to get your take.
>
>
>
> First, there is the reductive physicalist flatland view, which we can call* Scientific
> Worldview A*. This is the view of people like John Watson and his
> neuro-reflexology, Alex Rosenberg and his embrace of scientism and physical
> reductionism, and the eliminative materialists. The most recent PT blog I
> did was on highlighting why I think this is silly
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.psychologytoday.com-5Fus-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-5F202104-5Freductive-2D2Dphysicalism-2D2Dis-2D2Dsilly-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253DuMreu9sOIqxnQ-5Fp8-2D5hBB28ZbAOQBPmphZqg-2DG2bchg-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276245919-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DVfxiwvay3qEvSlE2ug-252F9pySqhjebKRkTDIcIBktvK-252Fs-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=GpofRgAxp0v7o8AQ236fSmBaq-JwgIcf2b_nJ7VrmrQ&e=>.
> I don’t think too many people really adopt this view or offer strong
> defenses of it. I think this is mostly a rhetorical position against any
> “fluffy” ways of thinking, although it can’t be taken seriously on its own
> terms, as strong versions end up arguing that arguments don’t really exist,
> thus it collapses in on itself.
>
>
>
> Second, there is what I would call “weak epistemological emergentism” (*Scientific
> Worldview B*). These are the folks who embrace a broad materialist view
> of science, and, at the same time, they acknowledge that emergent
> properties are key and that we need to talk about them. This is someone
> like Sean Carroll and his poetic naturalism (or, what I would call, “poetic
> physicalism”). There is a lot of confusion about what exactly emergentism
> means. But the two weakest versions of emergentism are that (a) aggregate
> groups have properties that don’t appear in the individual units (i.e.,
> fluidity emerges with lots of water molecules, but does not exist at the
> individual molecule level) and (b) that our vocabularies and
> epistemological approaches require us to talk about “higher level”
> phenomena. However, these folks argue that we could, in theory, reduce it
> all ontologically to quantum fluctuations. This is scientific worldview B,
> which I think would probably characterize the majority of big picture
> scientists. I think Big History generally falls here, as does Consilience,
> probably David Deutsch. Classifying these folks is hard to say, because I
> don’t think they understand the difference between their view and the
> ToK/UTOK view.  Many people on the TOK list lean in this direction, but I
> think most then find the ToK to be an upgrade (although I welcome defenses
> of Worldview B over C)
>
>
>
> Third, there is the ToK/UTOK formulation, which gives a kind of “strong or
> ontological emergentism” (*Scientific Worldview C*). (Note, I will no
> longer be publicly using “strong emergence” as I did in this blog because
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.psychologytoday.com-5Fus-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-5F202004-5Fstrong-2D2Demergence-2D2Dis-2D2Dvalid-2D2Dconcept-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253D6VSA77jVLqMttadhGqgQC8Bdj2VZPk-2DWlPc5L4xL-5F2M-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276255882-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DVBjyOJy9ukEeubVIZu1uCzvAQgwOrTPCfbKCcPEjxdY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=JRDxJKJOBCyb53MHWMyQVxtirDIG1NvDWL0F00mmhhI&e=> John
> V does not like the term, but it is useful here and consistent what how it
> is often described, such as here by Chalmers
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.consc.net-5Fpapers-5Femergence.pdf-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253DHnZwG3rdMm8ZDKuqxec2V-5Fcwkzl3m28AgVvhgIaQF80-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276255882-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3D3BrhSopwa2h6Oseh4xcOZUcFzWsc-252FUW-252F0Z0g-252Fj3YEkk-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=LKnnCGpz10rI-In8FyrNrgSHJrjo9pc08y0iCJ3LGiQ&e=>).
> The difference between this and weak can be thought of in terms of the
> shape of the ToK. A weak version might give a single cone of
> complexification. The strong version argues that new causal properties
> emerge that are not reducible ontologically to the levels beneath them.
> Specifically, there are epistemic/communication/information processes at
> the level of Life, Mind, and Culture that cannot be ontologically reduced
> to the levels beneath them. The key here is that the ToK argues for two
> kinds of emergence. One weak/within, one “strong”/between dimensions. The
> ToK thus rejects physicalism or materialism, as it implies an ontological
> reduction akin to the kind of weak emergence that happens within a
> dimension. Rather, the ToK gives us a view that is “naturalistic” and
> “behavioral”. That is, science is about observing, describing, and
> explaining patterns of behavior in nature at various levels and dimensions
> of complexity, mapped by the ToK and Periodic Table of Behavior. Crucial to
> the ToK/UTOK is an ontological substance continuity—but new causal
> emergences as seen in the cosmic evolution from Energy to Matter to Life to
> Mind to Culture to the scientific knower. The strong version of the
> ToK/UTOK is that this is ontologically complete. The weak version is that
> this is ontologically sound (i.e., coherent naturalism) and we are agnostic
> about other possible realities that might influence the picture (anywhere
> from dark matter to an infinite cosmic consciousness).
>
>
>
> Fourth, there is the post-materialistic vision of science, *Scientific
> Worldview D*. Two examples are the Galileo Commission report
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fgalileocommission.org-5Freport-5F-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253D8ReP3eraNKzWtIzxhJ3gIAKP49DrPjyG8s3-5F6PcgftQ-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276265840-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DKYBsVqzmCGIF0U-252Ffj4JM2e-252FozTdJaXa2PJtr-252FJSR24o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=XojIdSLWxtX-EG3i53dUbRLarywmTF2Rzuy1leh4sRY&e=> and
>  Sean Esbjörn-Hargens work in the “Integral Exo Studies
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.youtube.com-5Fwatch-2D3Fv-2D3DcdRvOSyTJ0s-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253DvIWbNwiCF009-2DEZ0hoRM3dDs73X-2D5w28mM2gArw6nY4-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276265840-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3Djfqpojli6LKSdHLJZjaXEXsITveUFCeu8935QASsNMw-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=kj8UaXyuilbTtezblS5MKmEVzES21O9QM95O19RwloQ&e=>.”
> These perspectives see the need for a different metaphysics than given by a
> coherent naturalism. This domain is, of course, not homogenous, as it opens
> up many possible paths. One general way to characterize it would be an
> approach to science that argues that an emergent naturalistic behaviorism
> as given by the ToK is not adequate to explain empirically documentable
> phenomena that warrant belief. For example, NDEs that point to a life
> beyond, past lives/reincarnation, higher dimensions of a consciousness
> field that afford parapsychological phenomena, the existence of god/s, etc
> are enough evidence to conclude that the emergent naturalistic picture is
> not sufficient for coherence. (Note, I think that the Galileo report is
> hard to read here, because half of it is about criticizing Worldview A
> strongly and Worldview b weakly, but it is not really positioned in
> relationship to Worldview C.
>
>
>
> Finally, of course there are traditional theological worldviews, like
> Catholicism, but I am not considering them here because they are
> theological rather than scientific.
>
>
>
> I am curious to hear what folks think of this taxonomy of scientific
> worldviews. It seems to me “A” is out. I don’t know how you could argue for
> a stronger version of reductionism that what Carroll puts out in The Big
> Picture. If anyone knows of works they consider to be strong examples of
> this that are well-done, please let me know. Obviously, I think Worldview C
> is better than B for a host of reasons, starting with the Enlightenment Gap
> and the problem of psychology.
>
>
>
> Worldview D is interesting and worth deep consideration, and I know
> several people on the TOK list lean in this direction.
>
>
>
> but I don’t think it warrants being called “scientific”. That is, although
> I appreciate the evidence that is offered for it and find it to be pointing
> to possible truths, I don’t think it gives enough metaphysical/ontological
> coherence and at the same time raises too many questions. That is, it works
> as an effective argument against Scientific Worldview A, and somewhat B.
> But once you have Scientific Worldview C, especially placed in the context
> of UTOK which frames science as a kind of justification system, rather than
> “The Truth about the Ontic Reality,” then the argument for Worldview D as
> science gets much more wobbly.
>
>
>
> Welcome thoughts, per usual. Might do a blog on this.
>
>
>
> Regards to all!
>
> G
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xBiFXk7uhpNGcgP1aeXWYZwWreAf2fz3MmsW1n9aCug&s=PjQdN-8JXrFbLNjokT8W7PWvDJT-zrFKFl5MkgabcFo&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org-5F-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253D3BilrJ-2D9FlmfNRhZYQgmZCoW3NBd-2DMdAFX0Vw43m-2Di8-2526s-253D-5FTWUx3nj7p1pH86fhNIFJ9vPindVmEkkMFvjWmbau-5FA-2526e-253D-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276275797-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DMsk7C5vxgf6oZATMCfUYjnQYw2HnFE-252BH0HyoljcHcR4-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=voXijtgygRVg2XlcPTwn3AWOJn8Dc5aieGBTjkXcvUw&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276275797-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DN8Dijc9-252BV9dnjBnbHLYZ-252FeMXYNQ6vpJqyCe-252BgI4BsCY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=IMH1FEcfQuHT9eiMtlgdoHu7Rr1SwSd1MZnG0sLdz_k&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276285751-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DboAGWESSE3enoJaet8o8xnA553MtR01flsvcggpvUqE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=RDPl91tj6v4j2LohLA36RPStNnrQHf-FcpvMOiTYUJw&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276295708-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DKe3KQpvgkwIW7Gef7JnCn0IAh9CRd0EMnnPPsX2jYb0-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=jSP14usaXvFBNsJWe3ehnqrRjGQgod6-xzbnL9crdvE&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276295708-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DKe3KQpvgkwIW7Gef7JnCn0IAh9CRd0EMnnPPsX2jYb0-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=jSP14usaXvFBNsJWe3ehnqrRjGQgod6-xzbnL9crdvE&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276305665-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DBL-252Bo2wxofkeF8TJ3Xb4Ts3ZtBaN-252BvA-252BydXmzb4HcfY0-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=I8Aywm4lHhVN6xUZto1sE_cyy6xdVs7OJL9G6VKhnnw&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276315620-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3Dp1hreUfBfWqFR9WfFLrcwea2hswcl-252BpR3pY207EU52I-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=9KIMvY_TWjo9YwNt6kFYLfr6omFW791TL6vxVnMB3Tk&e=>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276315620-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3Dp1hreUfBfWqFR9WfFLrcwea2hswcl-252BpR3pY207EU52I-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=9KIMvY_TWjo9YwNt6kFYLfr6omFW791TL6vxVnMB3Tk&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276325588-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3D2-252F0Ov9Km5jXzU2dTdsSUu4HkUqeUbQbAzS3PY7-252Br-252Fas-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=YQY2qSpBUeUJ1tR_fPNko0Q2-hzSq9qERna6iNnvrRo&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C1d34d58f187b4eafaa5508d921eba68d-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637578118276335538-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3Dg-252BWO-252FyJOpW9xbSkWm3dKrJB0lVOEiWTShJu-252BQX7vWHY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8G1iEaeYDwW7yXxAQ75ojrAKMbVUZq8XzUfHOV8m_MM&s=ShGGHzM7TE2uhWZjeKuiv835fySyCgWrM4HnPLtBh-o&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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