TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

April 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:57:27 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 kB) , text/html (47 kB) , image004.png (45 kB) , image007.png (90 kB) , image002.jpg (28 kB) , point source.pdf (258 kB)
Dear ToK and Blaine, I for one appreciate the give and take expressed in
Blaine's post. In that spirit, I would like to say that as a working
scientist I have always assumed that causation was the 'touchstone' of the
scientific method/goal to 'know what we do not know'. And in my personal
'journey' I have been able to find the causal origin as the Singularity/Big
Bang......so in that vein, everything emanating from that point source, all
is causation, inanimate and animate alike when seen from that Cosmologic
perspective. So when Blaine raises the subject of morality, I think
'cooperativity' in both the physical and biologic realms alike in service
to the equilibrium of homeostasis. I have hypothesized in print that the
atom and the cell share the same characteristics of determinism and
probabilistic behaviors. In Atomic Theory, the equilibrium/homsostasis of
the neutron in the nucleus and the electron circling the nucleus is
expressed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The same 'balance' is struck in
biology/physiology based on The First Principles of Physiology, the
negentropy and chemiosmotic bioenergy determining the unicellular state,
homeostasis allowing for a range of normal states (see attached, if you
wish, me being percieved as verging on being obnoxious and self-serving,
neither of which are my intent or desire....just the opposite, I am here to
serve as best I can). I share these ideas in service to Gregg's ToK as a
framework for which I have offered that his 'joints' between levels can
linked *causally* by specific processes, both physical and biologic. I
would like to think that the 'bridges' generated in this way open up to
fundamental understanding unattainable through descriptive biology, which
remains enmired in the ambiguity of our origins and the deceptions we have
practiced until now as coping mechanisms for lack of understanding of the
Cosmology in our cells.......

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Fowers, Blaine J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Gregg's fascinating post about theory, meta-theory, and metaphysics was
> sufficient to jolt me out of my lurkerhood on the list. Before I respond to
> his post, I want to echo others' sentiments about how wonderful it was for
> me to get together with and meet all of you. It was time very well spent.
>
>
> I think the continuum that Gregg laid out is very useful, and I employ
> something very similar when I teach research methods to doctoral students
> (ppt. slide attached). It is enormously useful to be able to locate one's
> activities on such a continuum or hierarchy.
>
>
> I have a couple of issues with what Gregg shared. I think they are
> important enough to alert folks to them, and you all can decide what to
> make of the questions I raise.
>
>
> The first question is why theories have to be causal. I think the idea of
> causality as the exclusive form of explanation in human affairs is deeply
> problematic. I do recognize that causality plays a role in human action,
> but I don't think all human actions are due solely to causal forces. Some
> claim "mental causation," but that is a pretty fraught concept that I think
> does more conceptual damage than good. One point against exclusive
> causation is that the factors at play in human action are so complex that
> claiming straightforward causation for most actions is virtually
> impossible. Second, if human actions are entirely caused, that does not
> seem to leave room for agency, something to which I know that Gregg and
> many others are  committed. More importantly, hermeneuticists have argued
> (very persuasively imho) that humans are self-interpreting beings. This
> means that we are partly constituted by the ways we understand ourselves.
> If those understandings are changed (i.e., reinterpreted), our identities
> and actions change as well. From this viewpoint, humans action is
> constitutively related to one's self-understanding and a constitutive
> relation differs significantly from a causal one. This is a very complex
> question that I am simplifying here for the sake of brevity. Tons of ink
> has been spilled on the question of causality. But I thin each of us has to
> pick a side on this question (roughly, agency, determinism, or
> compatibilism).
>
>
> A second question is the use of Kuhnian language of "paradigms" and
> "normal science". After reading a fair amount of contemporary philosophy of
> science, I've concluded that those are very problematic terms. Kuhn is a
> very important figure, but he did not define those terms very carefully,
> and his usage was pretty sloppy. He was extremely influential with his
> primary idea that the history of science has to play a significant role in
> any valuable philosophy of science, but few, if any, philosophers use his
> nomenclature to analyze science. Instead of "paradigm" I would recommend
> something like "scientific praxis or practice". The term paradigm is often
> used in psychology to describe a much lower level of scientific practice:
> a particular approach to a research topic, as in "the minimal group
> paradigm" that guides studies of intergroup relations.
>
>
> Third, I want to make something explicit that I believe is implicit in
> Gregg's post. There is no defensible strict separation between data and
> theory (i.e., there is no theory-neutral data language--all data are
> identified and delimited by theory). That data-theory separation is a
> ghostly remnant of logical positivism that still has a lot of influence in
> psychology, but has been entirely debunked in the philosophy of science. It
> may be an obvious point to this group, but it's not obvious to most
> psychologists. Gregg is explicitly and expertly making an analogous point
> that there is no metaphysics-free theory either. Most psychologists don't
> think they have to address metaphysics at all, and consequently operate
> with metaphysics by fiat.
>
>
> Finally, as you may know about me by now, I find it important to point out
> that the entire continuum (or hierarchy) of science is imbued with moral
> import and serves the human project of seeking knowledge (a key human
> good). This wasn't mentioned, but I know Gregg understands this (albeit
> perhaps a little differently than I do). It's just another thing I think is
> important to make explicit because the assumption of the fact-value
> dichotomy is so pervasive and powerful.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Blaine
>
>
> Blaine J. Fowers, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Educational and
> Psychological Studies
> Merrick 312
> 5202 University Dr.
> Coral Gables, FL 33146
> 305-284-5261 (o)
> 305-284-3003 (f)
>
> Frailty, Suffering, and Vice: Flourishing in the Face of Human Limitations
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apa.org_pubs_books_4317447.aspx&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=OXLH06XDiSA4Q0oeDXUJD0pMecaOUDYDQ8GZxktRZhA&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_results_-3FSTEM-3Dtrue-26SF1-3Dkword-5Findex-252Cidentifier-26SORT-3Dmat-5Frank-5Fus-252Fd-26SF99-3Dlang-5Ftoggle-26ST99-3Dus-26ST1-3Dthe-2Bevolution-2Bof-2Bethics&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=r1MrGL1caVhFYy4WwgIH2g1IeoPSxQVKY3bderDu1s4&e=>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_results_-3FSTEM-3Dtrue-26SF1-3Dkword-5Findex-252Cidentifier-26SORT-3Dmat-5Frank-5Fus-252Fd-26SF99-3Dlang-5Ftoggle-26ST99-3Dus-26ST1-3Dthe-2Bevolution-2Bof-2Bethics&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=r1MrGL1caVhFYy4WwgIH2g1IeoPSxQVKY3bderDu1s4&e=>The
> Evolution of Ethics
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_us_book_9781137344656-23otherversion-3D9781349466139&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=tdbeydAub7mJZ7ezPPKBF8jeNO-uvH-XiMMM63Bmw7g&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blainefowers.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Ye8EAZGIuQPbEoJRt38dg9OIMZUMrvPs3j7EmckHK-A&s=PHpkHlup8D7vGFzf1RPp4pgMUyhE4w0HxLSC31fiOkk&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blainefowers.com&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=lIA3qSZZsJEzVLmNIviK9ov0A27R8_kLLWFSEqd_k90&e=>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]
> edu> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:55 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: What is a theory in psychology?
>
>
> Thanks to Waldemar and Nancy for raising these important issues. The way
> we “talk” about these issues are crucial, so I very much appreciate this
> exchange.
>
>
>
> I am in general agreement with what you write below, Nancy. What I am
> offering the field can legitimately be characterized as a *framework*. My
> caveat is that I would add the word “meta-theoretical” in front of that
> word. BIT, the JH, and the Matrix are all *meta-theoretical* frameworks.
> I believe this is an important addition because it emphasizes that the
> framework is not offered willy-nilly, but instead is a tapestry of
> established ideas. But as long as we are clear about that, I will say that
> I am ok with framework. Indeed, I have tentatively titled the book I am
> working on *The UTUA Framework: A New Vision for Psychology and
> Psychotherapy*.
>
>
>
> My hope is that we could all be clear about what exactly this means. For
> me, I prefer to think about these issues in terms of a continuum along a
> level of analysis that stretches from “zooming in” on a particular
> phenomena or event, to zooming out, ultimately ending at the concepts and
> categories one is using to map reality. Something along the lines of the
> following:
>
>
>
>
>
> Mainstream psychology emphasizes the right side of this continuum:
>
>
>
>
>
> Consider, for example, prior to my forays into meta theory, I did my
> masters research on ethnic and gender differences in body image. The
> paradigm I used in that research (which really was implicit) was the
> mainstream social cognitive and methodological behavioral paradigm (i.e.,
> Albert Bandura’s version of reality). I used principles of learning, social
> influence and attribution to make predictions about the way men and women
> and individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds would feel and think about
> their bodies.
>
>
>
> However, as we are all well aware by now, I found myself returning again
> and again to the issue of the paradigms. Why did we have to start there?
> And why were they different? How did they relate to each other? Was there a
> way to get them to be harmonized? This was particularly a prominent issue
> in the clinic room, when one had psychodynamic, experiential, family
> systems, and CBT “voices” in one’s head (among others) each of which was
> offering different emphases, languages, ideas for intervention, and desired
> outcomes/valued states of being, which I experienced as chaotic.
>
>
>
> And so I started my adventures in constructing the unified “theory,” where
> I was focused more and more on the left side of the continuum. When I wrote
> the book, *A New Unified Theory of Psychology*, I was definitely oriented
> toward thinking of that as an exercise in “meta-theory.” That is, the
> system allowed us a framework to organize the paradigms and other big ideas
> into a coherent system. BIT, JH, and the Matrix are meta-theoretical
> frameworks.
>
>
>
> Over the past three or four years, I have become convinced that there is
> the final, most abstract layer, that of concepts and categories that carve
> up reality. Although I only rarely used the term five years ago, several
> years ago, I came to see this concept and category dimension as
> “metaphysics” and realized that the ToK is a new metaphysical system. This
> popped for me when I was reading Koons and Pickavance (2014) instruction to
> metaphysics, which they stated that 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. *
>
>
>
> This is very much what the ToK System is about. And I realized that I was
> very focused on the problem of psychology because I was very focused on
> developing a framework/meta-theoretical system that had the correct
> definitional structure. It is crucial that we have shared meanings of the
> terms psychology, behavior, mind, and persons (relative to animals).
>
>
>
> Bottom line, I see the unified theory as a metaphysical (ToK),
> meta-theoretical (BIT/Matrix/JH) framework (that connects to empirical
> observations, which is, of course, crucial). It should be taken seriously
> because it is the only system that solves the (metaphysical) problem of
> psychology. And it is up to the task of providing us a language
> game/system/framework that can describe, explain, and predict human
> behavior (see Joe’s most recent post on the science of talking).
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Link
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:11 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* What is a theory in psychology?
>
>
>
> Dear Waldemar,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your inquiry. Your question has helped me to clarify my own
> thinking. My question includes both components.
>
>
>
> *Regarding building knowledge within the ToK  system:*  The core problem
> is that  psychology does not have a theory describing human functioning.
> As Gregg has so eloquently pointed out, this is a matter of serious
> concern. I think that Gregg’s ToK system makes important inroads into this
> problem, but from my perspective it offers a framework for understanding
> human functioning rather than a theory.  For me, a theory describes in
> detail the linkages between concepts. For example, Gregg says that his
> Behavioral investment  Theory is make up of 6 principles: 1) energy
> economics 2) evolution 3) genetics 4) neuro-computational control 5)
> learning and 6) development.  I completely agree. But for me, a theory has
> to describe how these things meaningfully interconnect.  In my  opinion,
> Gregg’s ToK system lays the groundwork but does not do all interconnecting
> that needs to be done in order for a theory to emerge.
>
>
>
> *Regarding how to “justify” this system to those who question the ToK
> validity:*  I think that Gregg’s ToK system was built with strong,
> science informed and experienced informed intuitions about how humans
> function. Knowledge-building begins with intuition. It then involves
> building a model and putting it out in the public domain  and seeing if the
> ideas of others cohere.  That is why I think that the difference between
> the terms “theory" and “ framework" are important. A “theory" activates
>  justification of ones own position relative to others. A “framework" is
> more welcoming. It offers other ideas a place at the table.
>
>
>
> I don’t know if Gregg sees his system as a theory or a framework, and (I
> realize now) that I have some self-interest in asking the question.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> *From: *tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]
> edu> on behalf of "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Reply-To: *tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: Thanks to all who made the conference a success
>
>
>
> Nancy:
>
>
>
> May I ask a question about that which you are discussing with Gregg?
>
> In particular, I am interested in your query: One thing I have been
> wondering about is how you envision building knowledge within your ToK
> system?
>
> Are you asking about how the collection of knowledge in ToK is or is going
> to be organized?
>
> Or, are you asking about how a reply is (or replies are) going to be
> structured so as to provide answers or responses to those who question the
> ToK (ie: how do you argue to the outside world that your intuitions are
> better that theirs?)?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Waldemar
>
>
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Gregg,
>
>
>
> I returned feeling upbeat and very stimulated intellectually. It was good
> to get out of the confines of my Toronto home office and experience the
> welcoming warmth of you, the other ToKers and the whole JMU community.
> THANK YOU!!!
>
>
>
> One thing I have been wondering about is how you envision building
> knowledge within your ToK system?  I think that we have strong negative
> reactions to scientific thought as it is currently practiced, but we may
> have different ways of reacting to that negative feeling.  My feeling is
> that scientific thought has taken over too much of the dialogue.  Experts
> use the “data shows that…”argument to silence opposition. The truth is that
> the data seldom show anything with absolute clarity.  It is not surprising
> that ordinary people have given up on science and stopped listening.  My
> solution to this problem is to try to contain science by putting it in
> balance with a narrative.  I believe that the narrative (theory) can only
> be built using data. Once we have a narrative, we can use new data to
> refine or change the it, but without a narrative, we are at sea.
>
>
>
> My impression of your negative reaction to the same reality is to blast
> through it with your strong and good intuitions about how things fit
> together. I like and trust your intuitions, but how do you argue to the
> outside world that your intuitions are better that theirs?
>
>
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]
> edu> on behalf of Gregg Henriques <[log in to unmask]>
> *Reply-To: *tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:30 AM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Thanks to all who made the conference a success
>
>
>
> Dear TOK Society,
>
>
>
>   I am writing to offer deep gratitude to all those who came and
> participated in the first ever TOK Society conference over the weekend. I
> thought the talks were splendid. The breadth of ideas covered was huge and
> yet they did seem to cohere around key themes and pointed to future
> directions for education, psychology and society at large. I also found the
> conversation on the back half of Friday to be very stimulating and
> demonstrated how thinking about big TOKs could illuminate powerful
> perspectives on real world issues.
>
>
>
>  I will be in consultation with folks about next steps. One thing I would
> like to consider is having folks share their powerpoints on the list and
> perhaps have some time devoted to reviewing the talks and engaging in some
> exchange about them on this list.
>
>
>
> Thanks again to everyone.
>
>
> 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 my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Ye8EAZGIuQPbEoJRt38dg9OIMZUMrvPs3j7EmckHK-A&s=Tm0fvWVXjtfE1XEm1vTIzcUz5wQ5d5A45pF7GafuiB0&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.psychologytoday.com-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DJuk60hGu1CZhdxRJtBM7WIs6w-5F5lt2vuWHMjngCjLqY-2526s-253DRmWJ8gbPqrT25c6lk-5FwlXp7aiI0wwyVvlnjeGNCtY-5FI-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DIjSopDIwLLAuW1NLGQd34z0o86rLsqlL5N3Y-252FjNvqYc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=MJ6PQoYo2fCRFbKHRlbE9nfR0sG2giNofaj4MOhoGn0&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-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=baS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY&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-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=baS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY&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-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=baS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY&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-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=baS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY&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-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw&s=baS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY&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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2