Hi TOK List,

  Just to follow up on my point about behavior being the conceptual lens that natural scientists use to understand complex patterns, here are three very recent articles that together make the point (I am also sharing them because they are of interest in and of themselves 😊):

On the behavior of Neanderthals:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/science/neanderthals-fishing-ocean.html

On the behavior of the coronavirus
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w

On the behavior of bubbles:
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-simulating-behavior-fluids-pipes.html

Best,
Gregg


From: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: concentric circles of behavior

Hi TOK List,

  Thanks for the discussion on the concentric circles. Very helpful! A bit of background on where the diagram came from.

  First, it emerged as I trace the history of the term. The term behave has roots with the word “have” and it is connected to having (or not) proper comportment. That is, the inner circle, the notion that people behavior “good or bad,” is the original meaning of the term. And in everyday contexts, this remains the most common usage of the term (i.e., when we say things like, “Can you believe that guy’s behavior?!”)

  Then the term enters the lexicon of science with behavioral psychology and John Watson. This is when the concept of behavior is placed in direct contrast to inner conscious experience in the context of “doing science”. The reason is because of the “epistemological gap” between third person and first person experience. No one can observe another sentient being’s phenomenology directly.

  Then the term evolves and becomes increasingly general, meaning that it becomes synonymous with movement or patterns of change. Thus, we get physics is the science that analyzes the behavior of matter and energy.

  What I am exploring is the idea that behavior is the central concept in the language game of natural science. I mean this in the sense of Ken Wilber’s argument that science adopts an “exterior” or objective third person view on the world (see here<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201510/positioning-our-knowledge-in-four-quadrants>). I mean this in the science ontological theory sense that is mapped out in the Periodic Table of Behavior<https://www.gregghenriques.com/uploads/2/4/3/6/24368778/periodic_table_of_behavior4b.pdf>. And I mean it in the ontic reality sense of the universe as an unfolding wave of behavioral complexity.

  Note, though, that the final circle which includes good and bad adds another layer of “knowing” that involves worldview, values and ideology. I explored these considerations in my analysis of the concept of well-being.<https://www.gregghenriques.com/uploads/2/4/3/6/24368778/nested_model.pdf> I point out that the concept of well-being is not a pure science concept, but is an applied science concept that involves the values and ideology of the evaluator.

  So to answer Michael: My agenda is to frame the language game of natural science in terms of behavior. I want to be clear that I see natural science as a particular kind of justification system that is focused on describing and explaining behavior. I am trying to show that “behavior” as opposed to reductive materialism is the proper way to conceptualize science (see here<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201911/scientifically-say-yes-behavior-no-physicalism>). I am using Wilber’s epistemological quadrants, but also showing that Wilber, like so many people, equate behavior with reductive physicalism, but that is a big mistake. Reductive physicalism is not only wrong, but it cannot “play well” with humanistic language games. Humanistic language games embrace the first person, idiographic experiential process of being and they embrace moral (good v. bad) concepts. My ToK theory of scientific knowledge is commensurate with those ways of thinking. As such, it sets the stage for a consilient scientific humanistic philosophy.

  Also, Mike, I want to speak with you at some point about your thoughts about Thomas Teo’s Psychological Humanities<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/gpr0000132>. I am coming around to embrace that idea, which would add a fourth branch to my formulation for the institution of psychology<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201306/psychologys-three-great-branches>. Notice the defining feature that Teo identifies in his argument is the embrace of subjective (inner) experience. Much more to say, but I think it will leave it there for now.

Best,
Gregg


From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Joseph Michalski
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 2:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: concentric circles of behavior

Thanks Michael. You're more interpretive explanation delves more deeply into the meaning of the system, which the more "behaviorist"-oriented among us, such as myself, do not spend nearly enough time examining. What I read from your analysis (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that we who think of the world in more purely "behavioral" terms cannot readily translate human meaning onto such a map or Cartesian set of coordinates, at least not in the same way that we track the physical movements of objects and organisms. Yet can we map "mental behavior" through a more explicit formulation? I'm genuinely (and naively) asking the question, as this is not my area of expertise. All the best, -Joe


Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491

Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0

________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 2:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: concentric circles of behavior

Hi All:

On the concentric circles and morality…

Although I’m not entirely sure what your agenda is here (which is important!), the circles make sense to me.  From my vantage point, the only circle that it makes sense to speak of morality is the human circle.  I’m not sure that it makes sense to say that animals who do not have symbolic capacities (that will include some primates, and maybe other species) perform moral judgments — judgments of “ought” and “ought not” as John has pointed out.  Perhaps moral judgments function at the level of semiotic social beings or the like.

This will come as no surprise to Gregg.  As one moves down to toward the core of the circles, the concept of “behavior” suggests increasing levels of nuance, right?  At the outer rung, defining behavior as object-field relations, as you suggest, “behavior” can be mapped out mathematically or in Cartesian coordinates.  For my money, I’m not sure “behavior” is the right word there. Yes, we can speak of the “behavior” of falling objects, but it makes more sense to speak of the movement or the trajectory of movement of falling objects.

As we going toward the core, the capacity for mathematical and Cartesian representations diminishes, and ultimately fades, right? I would argue that it is not possible to map human action — even human reaching — into a three dimensional space.  You can map the motor components of action onto a three dimensional space; however, to the extent that an act like reaching is motivated and organized by a goal or representation (which is not simply in the world, right?), the representational aspects cannot be modeled in a three-dimensional space.

That is why, in my view, the concept of “behavior” is — [Gregg is taking out a knife right now, and is ready to perform the act of plunging it into me, which will create quite a Cartesian stir to be sure] — not the right term.  Once we get to the level of experience and meaning, we are dealing with a different type of process — it is not mere movement or mere motor movement.  In my view, the concept of “behavior” shifts as we move from the top to the bottom of the circles in qualitatively different ways — ways that require the we use different terms to refer to the levels.

But these are merely meandering musings.

[Gulp! Ow! I just felt Gregg’s knife.  Nah — he’s too gentle and sweet. ]

M.


Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.
Academic Director, Compass Program
Professor, Department of Psychology
Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
978.837.3503 (office)
978.979.8745 (cell)

Political Conversations Study: www.CreatingCommonGround.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cBAfhxQeljrqX-ITokuTtCc0xUIH41_B6Kjj2mN5N5s&s=UlgLrltUg1FunuZuKPMFWy6hQyzERu5usdwpQjn0mu0&e=>
Blog: Values Matter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cBAfhxQeljrqX-ITokuTtCc0xUIH41_B6Kjj2mN5N5s&s=RoroeabS6ylx6G_QLH_e2wd7Z-0fTEpQLSWZ2mLNLjk&e=>
Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cBAfhxQeljrqX-ITokuTtCc0xUIH41_B6Kjj2mN5N5s&s=7imeEoTWIuhfFk2KyFiUvqHrXY9S5BYLc0zQT3ZnEzs&e=>
Coaching and Author Website: www.michaelmascolo.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cBAfhxQeljrqX-ITokuTtCc0xUIH41_B6Kjj2mN5N5s&s=nrmNCv0uNkChLWpWz_-p3jqLtXA3ovqGPSyF8eH-3B4&e=>
Academia Home Page: http://merrimack.academia.edu/MichaelMascolo<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cBAfhxQeljrqX-ITokuTtCc0xUIH41_B6Kjj2mN5N5s&s=mvADY4NXi-gS9n63_YAhnTukSH82r0HBeQJ1gDk02aA&e=>

"Things move, persons act." -- Kenneth Burke
"If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well." -- Donald Hebb

On Mar 25, 2020, at 1:22 PM, Zak Ali <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

It makes sense to me but based on findings in this video I wonder if this good and bad behavior is at an organism level?
https://youtu.be/CfqO1U6lfDs<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_CfqO1U6lfDs&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uEAQTYvi_-jbsQja5fwRbO8Ok-0b7zheE8fDpCxUF_k&s=e8-adGXJNMEEMP28Qg931zOxkaWELRejmRsj7bf79Rk&e=>

Zak Ali

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:03 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi TOK List,

  I wonder if this diagram elicits any reaction on the concept of behavior…note that the outer ring refers to the concept of object field change in general, which can be represented mathematically. For example, via three Cartesian coordinates of space and one of time…

<image001.png>
############################
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
############################
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

############################

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
############################

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

############################

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