On 11/6/2020 7:33 PM, James Lyons-Weiler wrote:
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi, everyone,
> Interesting discussion.
>
> I have sufficient humbleness to say that Physics, as a human creation
> (like mathematics) may not be
> truly 'universal'...
*/DL: I would immediately concede would you say that Physics, as a human
creation (like mathematics) may not be always true or valid or be
confined to a frame of human cognition, because falsification keeps on
happening all the time as newer knowledge evolves.
But universality of physics is the foundation of objective western
modern science. This indeed is the reasons, the we in Physics &
Mathematics have strict differentiation between Theory, Law, Hypothesis,
Conjecture, C/**/*/o-incidental Chronospatial /*Trends (Statistical).
/*
*/Undeniably experiential sciences are very different.
/*
*//*
> other more comprehensive paradigms can be conceived that surpass our
> biological
> level of cognition. I don't mean what we call "metaphysics".
>
> We can envision operations other than we can individually or
> collectively conceive that other sentient species
> might have developed.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 8:22 AM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gregg,
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks. I stand corrected. Physics is universal, physicists aren't.
>
> TY
> DL
>
>
> On 11/6/2020 6:36 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote:
>>
>> Deepak,
>>
>> I agree that */physics/* is neither eastern nor western.
>>
>> */Physicists/* are different. They are persons who are socialized
>> into particular frames of being, and thus the idea of Western
>> physicists makes sense to me, but Western physics does not.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2020 7:38 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Gregg,
>>
>> Physics (physicists) is universal & neither eastern nor western.
>> Consciousness as deduced in my work is valence, a quantum
>> perturbation from a system's state cascaded across complexity
>> (higher & higher) to the top. And brain is a mere processor of
>> accumulated & cascaded information. A smartphone is a device that
>> can be used to do a number of things, but only when a source of
>> data is available. Consciousness is the internal data source,
>> while brain is processor. Any other processor, smaller brain (as
>> in birds & some animals), very large brains (as in elephants &
>> whales & dolphins) or even a highly developed nervous system
>> without a brain.
>>
>> You have the book with you. The (attribute based) definition of
>> consciousness is also provided therein.
>>
>> TY
>> DL
>>
>> On 11/6/2020 5:42 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote:
>>
>> I just saw Deepak’s reply.
>>
>> In my comment about physicists, I should have said “Western
>> physicists” :0)…
>>
>> That said, I would need to explore more what is meant by
>> consciousness without a brain…
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak
>> Loomba
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2020 7:11 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Dear Joan,
>>
>> /Indeed within the existing scope of knowledge it has to be
>> decided whether consciousness is either an entity,
>> property/relationship./
>>
>> /Truly yours
>> Deepak Loomba/
>>
>> On 11/6/2020 4:48 PM, Joan Walton wrote:
>>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Hi Gregg
>>
>> Thank you for your response. I'm not sure whether our
>> sense-making can line up or not, but as I think it is
>> important to cooperatively try to make sense of the crazy
>> world we live in, and the significance of our individual
>> lives within that world, then I'll explain a little of
>> where I am coming from. At the end of this email, I
>> copy a short section from a paper I wrote, which
>> contextualises some of the points made in the email.
>>
>> Firstly, I think the implications of quantum physics for
>> a new worldview are phenomenal - that is a worldview
>> which fundamentally challenges the mechanistic, Newtonian
>> one that dominates and influences an increasingly
>> neoliberal politicised world. What quantum physics does
>> is challenges the separatist, determinist, reductive
>> ontological assumptions of classical science, and instead
>> shows us that we live in an entangled, inter-relational
>> universe, where the observer does not exist independently
>> of the world s/he observes. I don't think we can
>> separate out 'macro-science' and quantum physics, because
>> they are both emergent from the same underlying reality,
>> but their underlying assumptions are in fact mutually
>> exclusive (separate v entangled, certainty v uncertainty,
>> etc).
>>
>> In the classical, Newtonian worldview, it is possible to
>> believe that (inanimate) matter is primary, and that
>> consciousness (life) is a late emergent property of
>> matter. Am I understanding your model correctly, where
>> you have 'matter' at the base, and 'life' as emerging
>> from matter? You do not mention consciousness, but -
>> and correct me if I am wrong - I am assuming that in your
>> model, consciousness emerges with 'life' - and perhaps,
>> in line with the Newtonian view, consciousness is a
>> by-product of the brain?
>>
>> Although there are many interpretations of quantum
>> physics, a central one is that it questions the nature of
>> Consciousness (written with a capital C to differentiate
>> it from the individualised form of consciousness we all
>> experience) - with some physicists suggesting that the
>> only way to explain the double-slit experiment is if you
>> accept that particles have Consciousness. In other
>> words, it is possible that Consciousness is primary,
>> fundamental, universal - which would change everything.
>> Your timeline starts with the Big Bang - but what existed
>> before then? Possibly Consciousness - and if
>> Consciousness is a living dynamic energy, and we are all
>> an expression of that fundamental Consciousness, then in
>> fact Life would precede matter?
>>
>> In other words, the theory is, that if the universe were
>> destroyed by a nuclear bomb right now, the physical world
>> might be destroyed, but Consciousness in its essential
>> form, would not be. It is in that context that Max
>> Planck's quote makes sense.
>>
>> John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, develops this
>> thinking when he states: "Useful as it is under everyday
>> circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’
>> independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.
>> There is a strange sense in which this is a
>> ‘participatory universe’ ".
>>
>> I'm interested in exploring what it means to live in a
>> 'participatory universe' with an ontological assumption
>> that we, as living beings, are essentially creative
>> expressions of a 'participatory consciousness'. Which
>> means that how we experience each present moment, the
>> choices we make, right here, right now, influence the
>> reality that is created. There are no inbuilt laws, no
>> predetermined reality, the future is open to us, and will
>> reflect the extent to which we are able to 'tune in' and
>> resonate with the fundamental consciousness which is the
>> source of our being. And in that sense, the quantum
>> principles of entanglement, interconnectedness and
>> interrelatedness become central. This becomes important
>> when we think of problems like climate change,
>> environmental degradation, terrorism, the many forms of
>> abuse and oppression that epitomise our world - all stem
>> from perceptions of separation and alienation, and a lack
>> of connection to each other and the wider planet.
>>
>> Where does this tie in with psychology, which I know is
>> your main interest? Well, with the kind of ontological
>> foundation that I am proposing, I see psychology, the
>> different sciences, sociology, politics, economics, etc
>> etc as all being interrelated, and it is important to see
>> each discipline in the context of all the rest - again to
>> follow any one of these without attention to their
>> relationship to all the others, merely exacerbates the
>> sense of separation which I think is core to all world
>> problems.
>>
>> If this is not really relevant to your interests, please
>> do say! But it does worry me that there are so many
>> intelligent people on this planet, many with great ideas
>> about what needs to be done to make the world a better
>> place (and listening to Trump in the last 24 hours, we
>> definitely need more intelligent alternatives), and with
>> theoretical frameworks (such as your own) which aim to
>> enhance understanding and wisdom. However if we don't
>> make some attempt to 'join up' these different
>> approaches, and translate these into some form of
>> cooperative (including political) action, then our
>> individual voices will be drowned out by the tsunami of
>> ignorance, selfishness and self-centredness etc, that
>> threatens to overwhelm us.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> Quantum physics has revealed that reality is much more
>> complex, and far less easily comprehensible, than had
>> appeared to be the case when it was believed that the
>> Laws of Newtonian Science were applicable to all of reality.
>>
>> Scientists have recognised the problems that are
>> inherently challenging in this. Einstein (1879-1955)
>> summed it up as follows:
>>
>> We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two
>> contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of
>> them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together
>> they do." (Einstein & Infeld 1938:262-263).
>>
>> **
>>
>> John Wheeler (1911-2008), a theoretical physicist and a
>> colleague of Einstein’s, reflected on the very different
>> worldview that emerged from quantum physics:
>>
>> Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that
>> the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view
>> can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in
>> which this is a ‘participatory universe’. (1994: 126)
>>
>> Wheeler suggests that, rather than being passive
>> bystanders in the world, we are instead active
>> participants, who create rather than discover the
>> universe with which we are interacting.
>>
>> In summary, quantum physics reveals that we live in a
>> non-deterministic universe, where it is not possible to
>> predict with certainty, but only in terms of
>> probabilities; and where there is no independent
>> observer, as the act of observing and measuring reality
>> changes the nature of that reality. The phenomenon of
>> entanglement identifies that the influence of one
>> particle on another cannot be explained by cause and
>> effect, but instead indicates a relational
>> interconnectedness that can only be understood within the
>> context of the whole in which both particles are located.
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:15, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joan,
>>
>> Thanks for this note. I appreciate your
>> question/point about ontology. I am somewhat
>> familiar with Barad’s work, but did not dive deeply
>> to see how much it aligns with my own. I will say
>> that think there are many different issues here that
>> need to be disentangled. For example, I was not sure
>> if you were talking about scientific knowledge or
>> other forms/domains/claims pertaining to knowledge.
>> The issues are a bit different depending on the frame.
>>
>> If we are talking about our scientific knowledge of
>> the universe, the ToK System aligns quite well with
>> Roy Bhaskar’s work in critical realism. He does good
>> work separating epistemology from ontology. Note that
>> most of his focus is on macro science and everyday
>> knowledge. Things are a bit different if we move into
>> the quantum domain, so I would need to know which
>> domain you were focused on.
>>
>> Here is the basic map of scientific knowledge and
>> reality afforded by the ToK System. It characterizes
>> Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture as planes of
>> existence, which represents the ontic reality. It
>> identifies science as a kind of justification system
>> that generates ontological claims about the ontic
>> reality via epistemological methods that justify
>> those claims.
>>
>> Given this map of the ontic reality and scientific
>> onto-epistemology, I don’t know how to interpret Max
>> Planck’s quote.
>>
>> I would welcome your interpretation to see if our
>> sensemaking lines up here or not.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf
>> Of *Joan Walton
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>>
>> *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 __
>>
>> I was interested in a sentence in the email below:
>> "I am noting an interesting set of tensions is
>> emerging between folks in the group who emphasize
>> epistemological positions that are grounded in:
>> 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2)
>> objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language)".
>>
>> I would be interested in the ontological assumptions
>> that you and others consider inform these
>> epistemological positions? So often, ontology gets
>> explicitly ignored (whilst implicitly influencing
>> everything).
>>
>> I'm very interested in the idea that separation of
>> any kind is an illusion, and am exploring the idea of
>> the 'inseparability of the knower and known'. I
>> don't know if you are familiar with Karen Barad's
>> /Meeting the Universe Halfway - quantum physics and
>> the entanglement of matter and meaning/, and her
>> concept of 'ethico-onto-epistemology' where ethics,
>> ontology and epistemology are entangled. In
>> exploring these ideas, my starting point is that
>> everything starts with our experience (hence
>> phenomenological); and we have no experience without
>> consciousness - so consciousness is fundamental to
>> all that we think, say and do. So our beliefs about
>> the nature of consciousness become integral to all
>> other ontological and epistemological issues. Max
>> Planck's “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I
>> regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We
>> cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we
>> talk about, everything that we regard as existing,
>> postulates consciousness.” (1932: /Where is Science
>> Going). /
>>
>> But we need to start with our experiences of
>> consciousness, and share those experiences, with any
>> theories grounded in, and resonating with, those
>> first person experiences.
>>
>> Within this context, my sense is that selecting an
>> epistemological position from the three you identify
>> is in itself a form of separation, which we need to
>> try to move beyond?
>>
>> I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it there.
>> Sorry, I do not have the space to read all the emails
>> on this list, though I read a fair number, and I may
>> be writing about stuff you've already covered, or is
>> not particularly relevant to your main points of
>> discussion, but just thought I would give a quick
>> response to that section which caught my attention.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 10:52, Henriques, Gregg -
>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing
>> his story regarding the problem of value in
>> psychology. It affirmed for me strongly how
>> fraught the problems of simply applying the
>> methodological language game of MENS is to human
>> psychology, as it comes with many different
>> “value parameters” that can quickly be overlooked
>> and hidden, and extreme assumptions of
>> “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the
>> methods.
>>
>> My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the
>> ToK System instead of empirical methodology as
>> the language game of MENS. The reason is
>> obviously, metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For
>> example, it was clear that the exchange, as all
>> the TOK Community exchanges have been, along with
>> virtually all other zoom exchanges, take place on
>> the Culture-Person plane of existence and involve
>> justification, investment and influence dynamics.
>> In the broad sense, Steve shared his
>> justification narrative for his struggles with
>> the justifications that empirical psychology,
>> especially trait personality psychology, offer.
>>
>> Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a
>> caveat. The problem is largely resolved, IMO,
>> when we have the right metaphysical map of human
>> psychology. The “traits” of the Big Five are,
>> indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge over
>> the course of development. There are genetic
>> differences that track onto behavioral
>> dispositional differences, although the road is
>> complicated and filled with feedback loops, such
>> that genes clearly don’t cause traits.
>>
>> I could go on, but the point is that we need a
>> theory of “traits”, just like we need a
>> theory/frame for talking about our entire subject
>> matter. And, ala Mike’s arguments, that does need
>> to be intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW,
>> I am noting an interesting set of tensions is
>> emerging between folks in the group who emphasize
>> epistemological positions that are grounded in:
>> 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2)
>> objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language).
>>
>> The question I pose: What is the proper language
>> game for human psychology? For me, the
>> metapsychology provided by UTOK provides the best
>> way forward. For starters, it shines the light on
>> the Enlightenment Gap
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=meyfxoGp13Dr61ajBU9icCoVaWoi7x-1EVnbsJSORMs&e=>
>> and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue
>> it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap
>> that Steve found his “is-ought” problem. And the
>> proper way forward is not via the empirical
>> methods of science, but first, a language game
>> that gets the field of inquiry clear. We were
>> headed in that direction near the end: What are
>> the/needs/ we have as Primates? How do we
>> /justify/ our selves as Persons?
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>>
>> 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=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ZPBHG38j7HZZH6kOesx-ZPoW8A3RJJYaxQv7aqrA-88&s=iLIJ197cHMe-1Si1Dt19Kv1L0-7mxtczT6JHgb_Vazw&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=g0V3gh806uhoNKQyWv1SB_52tEzR45nG9MsiUdzIu2U&e=>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write
>> to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
>> click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
>> click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>
> --
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> james lyons-weiler, phd
> Author, CEO, President, Scientist
> Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=S65j5Qn2dSQad-RYS6t_lSt_o0bSfU7Aeu1wsAg3QQM&e=>
> Guest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__childrenshealthdefense.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=TSpbHBdIMxj_DUaCmCyh4ODlKM8vAWpoUMkRPXbeRYM&e=>
>
> The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1KNSxPp&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=UnEuMUVyuAv_GUyHv_bgay4SyL3QJlHMhizEFtgGhK4&e=>
> (Skyhorse Publishing)
> Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_9814730149_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Fqf-5Fsp-5Fasin-5Fil-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D9814730149-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Dlivgrelivwel-2D20&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=MsazxFDHEB0H3-G-ME7SXnDovHc4Ty5PdseITKLBDFI&e=> (World
> Scientific, 2016)
> Ebola: An Evolving Story
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1TGYY9r&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=Xb4XSyS6GVtki0NRRDLfbvOMER_CinYuRwx3DyiRfY4&e=>
> (World Scientific, 2015)
> cell 412-728-8743
> email [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> www.*linkedin*.com/in/*jameslyonsweiler*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jameslyonsweiler&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VzU0KwbSwG884X5iW-Ch0ZtUASZlEgeiJ_-4ERb-vIU&s=rDoyN3lGGoFLGXw4L2WAq-xLVgqw_nBrOQXMcxjWUEg&e=>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>
--
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
