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 the *metaphysician* 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 be *possible* 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 t*he 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tannerlectures.utah.edu_-5Fdocuments_a-2Dto-2Dz_p_popper80.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6h58_76AEkn_mllrat6hpXqg_KFxaZcn70icRz5Xxs4&s=LhNL2gW7llP3IS1jqW0PbWP5HkAqITLr_ija0JXEPkY&e=>
> 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 that *creates 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 for *integrating
> 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 <[log in to unmask]>] *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 perhaps
> *psycho-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 <[log in to unmask]>] *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:
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__journals.sagepub.com_doi_abs_10.1177_0959354308097258-3FjournalCode-3Dtapa&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zdDeGkHad-vorJMEb-rus3zR7vZKC-212xFyyTdJIaA&s=O2kI8xl23xKdwIBQUZM7tMrNjFaU_Ntp1a1--nGmANQ&e=>A
> Commentary on Henriques' Tree of Knowledge System for Integrating Human
> Knowledge
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__journals.sagepub.com_doi_abs_10.1177_0959354308097258-3FjournalCode-3Dtapa&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zdDeGkHad-vorJMEb-rus3zR7vZKC-212xFyyTdJIaA&s=O2kI8xl23xKdwIBQUZM7tMrNjFaU_Ntp1a1--nGmANQ&e=>"
> 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 <[log in to unmask]>] *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:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
> ############################
>
> 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
|
