Mark, thanks for the replies......I'd like to respond again by interjecting
into your words in brackets for efficiency and fluidity....
I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our "environment"
and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al since I started to study
them in the 1960s -- so thanks for repeating your understanding of these
approaches (and reminding us how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian
synthesis) . . . !!
[Again, my lab is funded by the NIH to study the Lamarckian inheritance of
asthma, so I have 'first hand' knowledge of the reality of that process]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
pedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7v
CI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIY
BgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=
07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e=
That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium and a
human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same -- at the "level"
of MIND and CULTURE. In fact, the environment that we are "endogenizing"
isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but also includes much more. In
particular it includes various technologies, such as human language (for
which has no clear "evolutionary" origin) &c.
[But that's exactly the point.......the paramecia 'ingests' what is
pertinent to its reality, and we do the same. In a paper of mine on
'Phenotype as Agent' I have made the observation that what we think of as
phenotype descriptively is actually the offspring expressing epigenetically
inherited traits that foster the environmentally relevant behaviors that
will a) allow the organism to adapt to its current environment, and b)
foster further 'knowledge' of the ever-changing environment in an on-going
manner, iteratively. And by the way, the effect of cigarette smoke on the
asthma phenotype (our research) is of interest in this vein because the
molecular effect of nicotine, the proxy for smoke, which is composed of
3,000 substances, is to stimulate the Nicotinic Receptors in the smooth
muscle of the upper airway, causing increased calcium flux in response to
stimuli such as cold air and particulates, making the muscle more
'twitchy'. Importantly, the same effect is seen in the brain, where
increased calcium flux increases short-term memory. This is what is
referred to as epistasis, or balancing selection. It would explain why
people continue to smoke, despite all of the attendant pathologies]
My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also
"environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them but at a
different level in the "ToK Stack." Aristotle had one environment to
"endogenize." Newton had another. So, did Einstein &c. What interests me
is how the "internalizations" of their own environments (alas something we
can't do, pointing to the core problem with our accounts of history)
affected the problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed.
[Agreed. I think of the emerging data showing that identical twins are not
epigenetically identical, for example, and I had mentioned my take on
Piaget's way of thinking about the stages of childhood development in
service to our big brains. In actuality, the stages facilitate the
acquisition of epigenetic marks in a way that is opportune for the
individual. And the stages of the life cycle are similarly different in
length and depth as a function of the endocrine system of the individual
since it is now known to be under the influence of epigenetics too. Lewis
Wolpert, the developmental biologist has famously said that gastrulation is
the most important thing you'll do during the course of your life. That was
based on the fact that it is at that phase of embryologic development that
the mesoderm, the germ layer between the endoderm and ectoderm is
introduced, and is critically important for more complex physiologic
traits. We now know that the mechanism of gastrulation is affected by
epigenetics, so Wolpert was prescient in identifying the significance of
gastrulation!]
I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite relevant
-- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what happens in CULTURE.
This raises the question of how to describe that environment for *culture*
in a way that yields useful "explanations" (even if they aren't
sufficiently "mechanistic" for your taste) about how they are "endogenized."
[With all due respect, if in fact culture is the net result of our
endogenization of our environment as Niche Construction, then it is
homologous, i.e. coming from the same origin. That would allow for much
more in depth understanding of the mechanisms involved in the 'web of life'
at every scope and scale. Culture, like all of life, is not an 'add on', it
is what Andy Clark the psychologist refers to as the extended mind]
That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in. His 1964 "Understanding Media"
attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of its first chapter,
"The Medium is the Message." When Gregg gets back, we'll launch into a
discussion of McLuhan's contribution to see if it is useful for
understanding what we are up to today.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
O2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLA
TW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e=
Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of the stack
-- even though I've spent many years studying the "lower" ones -- I have
built a Center that is attempting to expand McLuhan's 1950s/60s insights
into the 21st century. We are also here to help Gregg accomplish his goals
for the ToK Society (yes, for which, this is the mailing-list).
www.digitallife.center
[I would like to delve into McLuhan based on my vertical integration if you
see value added? Do you think that connecting the dots between physiology,
environment and culture would be helpful? Instructive? Illuminate aspects
of McCluhan that are 'novel'? 'McCluhan, Lamarck and Stahlman walk into a
bar'???]
Mark
P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating how
biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as "social
evolution." Many have tried but they all seem to have failed.
Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely didn't get into that
topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11 conspiracy). Instead, what
seems to have been adopted by many are various schemes typically called
"co-evolution," in which society (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our
biological species (which, in practical terms, just means "social
evolution.") Kevin Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a
particularly notable person in that field. Perhaps some of this work would
also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ??
[Well if my homology between Nick Christakis's networking model of human
society and Niche Construction is correct, that would be the basis for
biologic and social evolution being one and the same, wouldn't it? In Jared
Diamond's book 'Collapse' he shows how successful societies have lived with
their environments, which exemplifies the advantage of being in sync with
ones evolutionary arc. But there's not much else out there...yet]
Thanks for the dialog....John
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> John:
>
> I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our "environment"
> and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al since I started to study
> them in the 1960s -- so thanks for repeating your understanding of these
> approaches (and reminding us how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian
> synthesis) . . . !!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7v
> CI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIY
> BgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=
> 07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e=
>
> That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium and a
> human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same -- at the "level"
> of MIND and CULTURE. In fact, the environment that we are "endogenizing"
> isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but also includes much more. In
> particular it includes various technologies, such as human language (for
> which has no clear "evolutionary" origin) &c.
>
> My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also
> "environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them but at a
> different level in the "ToK Stack." Aristotle had one environment to
> "endogenize." Newton had another. So, did Einstein &c. What interests me
> is how the "internalizations" of their own environments (alas something we
> can't do, pointing to the core problem with our accounts of history)
> affected the problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed.
>
> I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite
> relevant -- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what happens in
> CULTURE. This raises the question of how to describe that environment for
> *culture* in a way that yields useful "explanations" (even if they aren't
> sufficiently "mechanistic" for your taste) about how they are "endogenized."
>
> That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in. His 1964 "Understanding Media"
> attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of its first chapter,
> "The Medium is the Message." When Gregg gets back, we'll launch into a
> discussion of McLuhan's contribution to see if it is useful for
> understanding what we are up to today.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
> O2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLA
> TW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e=
>
> Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of the
> stack -- even though I've spent many years studying the "lower" ones -- I
> have built a Center that is attempting to expand McLuhan's 1950s/60s
> insights into the 21st century. We are also here to help Gregg accomplish
> his goals for the ToK Society (yes, for which, this is the mailing-list).
>
> www.digitallife.center
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating how
> biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as "social
> evolution." Many have tried but they all seem to have failed.
> Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely didn't get into that
> topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11 conspiracy). Instead, what
> seems to have been adopted by many are various schemes typically called
> "co-evolution," in which society (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our
> biological species (which, in practical terms, just means "social
> evolution.") Kevin Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a
> particularly notable person in that field. Perhaps some of this work would
> also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ??
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_CoEvolution-5FQuarterly&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnp
> nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJu
> d5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=Ry24gsV5__DzdGAibX51Oms8CNBP5pW4hg82V-ObIQA&e=
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Dear Waldemar & TOKers, thank you for asking me to define the paradigm I am
>> referencing in my comments. Suffice it to say that my body of work on
>> cell-cell signaling and evolutionary biology (80ish papers and counting)
>> is
>> all in the peer-reviewed literature, based largely on my research career
>> of
>> 50 year's duration as a working scientist funded continunously to the
>> present day by the NIH and other agencies. About ten years ago it dawned
>> on
>> me that I had enough information to put together a cellular-molecular
>> model
>> of the lung alveolus, which I published; in so doing I became aware of the
>> fact that the model allowed me to trace the process of gas exchange
>> backwards in space and time phylogenetically because the alveolar cellular
>> pathways are highly conserved, though the phenotype of the alveolus
>> changes
>> in a well documented pattern by which the size of the alveolus decreases
>> in
>> order to increase the surface area-to-blood volume ratio, thus increasing
>> the exchange of oxygen for metabolic demand as vertebrates evolved (hope
>> that was clear). In tandem, the surfactant that is necessary to reduce the
>> surface tension of the alveoli had to evolve or the alveoli would collapse
>> due to the diminishing size of the alveoli, so there is a biochemical
>> process that can be traced backwards in order to determine the
>> evolutionary
>> changes at the molecular level...... Tracing that process backwards, I
>> arrived at the point where cholesterol, the most primitive surfactant, was
>> 'inserted' into the cell membrane of unicellular eukaryotes, our
>> ancestors.
>> Since cholesterol is a ubiquitous component of the surfactant system I had
>> a way to tie the biochemical and structural changes in the alveolus over
>> the course of evolution, enabling me to 'see' the process of evolution in
>> the forward direction mechanistically for the first time, aided by the
>> process of lung development, which recapitulates the phylogenetic changes
>> (Haeckle's 'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny'). And because the molecular
>> mechanisms of lung evolution are common to other tissues and organs, I was
>> able to assemble a model of vertebrate physiologic evolution, beginning
>> with the organelles of unicellular organisms, all of which derive from the
>> cell membrane (Torday and Rehan. Evolution, the Logic of Biology. Wiley,
>> 2012). More importantly, Lynn Margulis's Endogenization Theory, that
>> evolution is a consequence of the internalization of the external
>> environment, could be demonstrated based on the cellular molecular
>> approach
>> I have described, merging the two concepts in a novel way to explain the
>> process of evolution mechanistically from its unicellular origins
>> *forward *.The
>>
>> commonalities within and between all organisms evolutionarily ultimately
>> led me to conclude that consciousness is actually the aggregate of the
>> endogenization of the external environment, nominally to form the
>> physiologic system, but taken together, is how and why we are aware of
>> ourselves and our surroundings, i.e. consciousness is integral to our
>> physiologic being, not a thing apart from us, either all being in our
>> heads
>> (Freud, Jung), or a manifestation of the external world (Plato), or some
>> combination thereof (James, Chalmers, Clark) but one and the same as the
>> Cosmos. So the process by which a paramecium knows there's a sugar source
>> in its environment, mediated by calcium flow within its cytoplasm is no
>> different from putting sugar on my tongue tasting sweet to my brain, which
>> is admittedly a more complex process, but still reduces to calcium flows.
>> Ultimately, the reason that the first cell formed as lipids in water
>> derived from the snowball-like asteroids that pelted the primitive Earth
>> is
>> because it was Self-referential and Self-organizing, the template for
>> which
>> was the Singularity of the Big Bang, offering a continuum from the
>> Singularity to the evolution of life on Earth. That homology between
>> matter
>> and organic life is the first 'joint' in Gregg's ToK, and each subsequent
>> joint can be understood mechanistically in my opinion by using the
>> cell-molecular approach I have described. The advantage of this
>> mechanistic
>> understanding of the ToK is that is scientifically testable/refutable,
>> predictive, and offers the opportunity to connect various 'traits' both
>> within and between levels of the ToK that would otherwise remain
>> descriptive. So for example, because it has been hypothesized that the
>> unicell was the first so-called Niche Construction, i.e. the
>> endogenization
>> of the environment , it telescopes from the origins of life to
>> multi-leveled ecologies, beginning with small communities, towns, cities,
>> States, Nations, Gaia based on the same principle of Niche Construction,
>> the ability of organisms to form their own immediate environments- 'First
>> there were bacteria, now there is New York!' (Simon Conway Morris).
>>
>> I hope that was helpful in explaining my position vis a vis the ToK. I see
>> value added in this way of thinking about the ToK that is untenable based
>> on conventional descriptive biology. I welcome your comments, criticisms
>> and questions. I am here to serve as best I can.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> A suggestion:
>>>
>>> Perhaps, it would help if we had a brief definition, statement,
>>> or
>>> synopsis, of what:
>>>
>>> 1. John considers to be the central nature of the
>>> paradigm he is proposing.
>>> 2. Mark considers to be the central nature of: a. The
>>> new
>>> paradigm in which we find ourselves and b. The previous/old paradigm
>>> which
>>> was replaced by the new paradigm.
>>>
>>> That way we could be reassured that we are reading, thinking, talking,
>>> and
>>> writing about the same things.
>>>
>>> Best regards to all,
>>>
>>> Waldemar
>>>
>>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> > On Jul 10, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi All,
>>> > Thanks much for the stimulating contributions. I will offer some
>>> thoughts soon, so that perhaps we can sort out where it is where we are
>>> standing, both as a group and as individuals who have all been on long
>>> and
>>> intense journeys trying to figure out some of the most complex problems
>>> in
>>> philosophy. I think we all have interesting things to say.
>>> >
>>> > Warm regards to all!
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > G
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>> >
>>> >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Mark,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you-- and thank you also for the correction! Cantor has emerged
>>> again in a small body of work I am doing on people named Georg(e/es), so
>>> I
>>> will be sure to look into this intrigue before exhibiting/writing about
>>> it
>>> again! (The others are Braque, Gurdjieff and Sand...)
>>> >>
>>> >> Corinne
>>> >> ________________________________________
>>> >> From: tree of knowledge system discussion [[log in to unmask]
>>> edu] on behalf of Mark Stahlman [[log in to unmask]]
>>> >> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:04 PM
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> Subject: Re: New Paradigms
>>> >>
>>> >> Corrine:
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks -- fascinating and beautifully done . . . !!
>>> >>
>>> >> Small correction, if you don't mind. Galileo's astronomy didn't
>>> >> really "threaten" anything and his problems with the Church were quite
>>> >> different from the usual accounts, having more to with his anti-Rome
>>> >> Venetian backers (btw, my "godfather" Giorgio Desantillana wrote the
>>> >> one-time "definitive" work on the topic and my father helped to design
>>> >> what is now the Galileo Museum in Florence) and it was Cantor who
>>> >> approached Franzelin, who pretty much blew him off (i.e. the Church
>>> >> really didn't care what he was doing).
>>> >>
>>> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Crime-2DGalileo-2DGiorgio-2DSantillana_dp_
>>> 0226734811&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Bfq1ppMS3XgQnnQpYnIZ8wC_
>>> 97XYRZJRxUuB1rAMdwc&e=
>>> >>
>>> >> Mark
>>> >>
>>> >> P.S. The usual reports about G. Bruno's troubles are also mistaken.
>>> >> It had little to do with his "heresy." In fact, as best as I can
>>> >> tell, he was an "agent" of the English spymaster Walsingham and was
>>> >> caught organizing against the Vatican. We often forget how much
>>> >> "intrigue" was going on in those days and how often Rome was on the
>>> >> receiving end (as well as dishing it out) -- plus how they were
>>> >> finally defeated in the mid-19th century after many centuries of
>>> >> declining influence.
>>> >>
>>> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Francis-5FWalsingham&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> IYy1BIydW2s5dWUnNTYIYOmAhcjKtdkXhsxHKkAcdVo&e=
>>> >>
>>> >> Quoting "Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Just sharing some of my artwork that relates a bit :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Sizing the Infinite, Seeking Eternity," about Georg Cantor was
>>> >>> done in collaboration with E. Theta Brown, Associate Professor of
>>> Math
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cover and pp. 11 – 16. (Photographs and essay.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__
>>> kapsula.ca_releases_KAPSULA-5FGOODMEASURE-5F3of3.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> BwEKKzPLdUHIfojBBcw4PN3O97YYW0fasOi23LN38O0&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Corinne
>>> >>>
>>> >>> PS I have artwork about Gregg's ideas from some years ago that got
>>> >>> buried somewhere in my studio after a move-- when I unearth it I
>>> >>> will share!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Corinne Diop
>>> >>> Professor of Art
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> facebook.com_corinne.diop.studio_&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=KwQnikKeu_aL_
>>> IJaCKzcXiouQheSnbFsIVXtYmyKCZg&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Photography Area Head
>>> >>> http://www.jmu.edu/artandarthistory/programs/Photography.shtml
>>> >>>
>>> >>> School of Art, Design, and Art History
>>> >>> MSC 7101/ 820 S. Main St
>>> >>> James Madison University
>>> >>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>> >>> [log in to unmask]
>>> >>> (540) 568-6485
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *************
>>> >>> JMU Safe Zone Member
>>> >>> http://www.jmu.edu/safezone
>>> >>> ________________________________________
>>> >>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>>> >>> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Mark Stahlman
>>> >>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:13 AM
>>> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >>> Subject: New Paradigms
>>> >>>
>>> >>> John/Joe/Gregg &al:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What Gregg has done here may be the *first* time this has ever been
>>> >>> accomplished (or perhaps even attempted). While many have
>>> >>> "philosophized" over all this, Gregg has actually assembled a group
>>> >>> of experts (which decades of detailed knowledge as well as
>>> >>> experience arguing with their domain-expert colleagues.) Hurray . .
>>> >>> . !!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tree of Knowledge Stack
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Culture :: Sociology (Joe)
>>> >>> Mind :: Psychology (Gregg)
>>> >>> Life :: Biology (John)
>>> >>> Matter :: Physics (???)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Does the "lower" define the "upper" or are there new *principles*
>>> >>> that must be added at each level (or what Gregg calls "dimensions of
>>> >>> complexity") . . . ??
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In the 19th-century, during what was a very different paradigm from
>>> >>> the one in which we live Bernhard Reimann suggested what some call
>>> >>> the "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis" and Georg Cantor generated
>>> >>> his Transfinite schema in attempts to *rigorously* tackle this
>>> >>> conundrum. Both of them have largely been forgotten today and this
>>> >>> was replaced with the notion of a "Theory of Everything" (ToE) and
>>> >>> "Unity of Science" (as per Carnap &al) in the 20th-century -- as a
>>> >>> result of the new paradigm in which those scientists lived (but not
>>> >>> the same one as ours).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Quantum" physics caught many people's attention and, for a while,
>>> >>> seemed to be the answer -- but then it failed to produce a ToE and
>>> >>> dissolved into a group of rival splinters until it was revived by
>>> >>> some "hippies" who were living under yet-another paradigm (yes, as
>>> >>> it turns out, I know Jack Sarfatti and he is an entertaining sorta
>>> >>> guy, whose ideas were enhanced by both some LSD and some
>>> >>> "conspiracies" that he imagines he was a part of) . . . <g>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_How-2DHippies-2DSaved-2DPhysics-2DCounterculture_dp_
>>> 039334231X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> z21gNwg3Phhb8zDjPEWwYZZnnuOW0Vep1M486cPwhDQ&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So much for physics -- but wait there is more! The US *military*
>>> >>> decided it wanted to take some Los Alamos bomb-desingers and shuffle
>>> >>> them across-the-street to a new place that was called the Santa Fe
>>> >>> Institute, to see if the physics of nuclear weapons (i.e.
>>> >>> mini-stars) could be applied to society. The Department of Energy
>>> >>> (which owns the US arsenal, not the service branches) initially
>>> >>> funded them 100% (and now it's 30% with another 30% coming from
>>> >>> Pierre Omidyar).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> santafe.edu_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=AWiCJq0W3SGK9QXs99_
>>> ukwq3kcCNbrSUTQmPezjvzTE&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The result was "complexity science" -- re-branding "chaos," since
>>> >>> that frightens the children -- and its elaborate models of
>>> >>> "emergence." Some of us from the Center spent last Spring with
>>> >>> these folks (in particular, Jim Rutt, long-time chairman and now
>>> >>> trustee at Santa Fe) and I can tell you they don't have a clue (and
>>> >>> are unlikely to ever get one.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, Physics as failed (multiple times). How about Biology or
>>> >>> Psychology or Sociology? As John tells us, biology is broken. As,
>>> >>> Gregg tells us, psychology is broken. As Joe tells us, sociology is
>>> >>> broken. So, what are we going to do . . . ??
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My suggestion is that we take a look at *paradigms* behind these
>>> >>> approaches and their causes/effects. This is the study of the
>>> >>> "structure of scientific revolutions" (as per Thomas Kuhn, although
>>> >>> he never explained either the causes or effects) and, to accomplish
>>> >>> that task, we will need Marshall McLuhan -- which we will do when
>>> >>> Gregg returns.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Structure-2DScientific-2DRevolutions-2D50th-2DAnniversary_dp_
>>> 0226458121&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Wjt2pfZZFEZZ8hHd1Gi8N-
>>> e6L0fJp0jNpkVaXTqhbOw&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To do this, we will have to do something that has been "forgotten"
>>> >>> for 400+ years -- understand *formal* cause. Fortunately, Aristotle
>>> >>> is there to help us (since he's the one who came up with this idea
>>> >>> in the first place, 2500 years ago) and, even more fortuitously, we
>>> >>> are now in a new paradigm (otherwise, we wouldn't be having this
>>> >>> conversation).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mark
>>> >>>
>>> >>> P.S. The previous paradigm was characterized by "globalism" and what
>>> >>> was called the "new world order" (i.e. the one that Kuhn was
>>> >>> plumping for, as funded by the Ford Foundation) and it has now
>>> >>> collapsed. Yes, this is what keeps Henry Kissinger awake at night.
>>> >>> This is why Trump was elected, Briexit occured and the 5 Star
>>> >>> Movement now runs Italy &c. This is also why we are now in another
>>> >>> "counter-culture" (parallel to the 60s), since that's what happens
>>> >>> to *culture* when paradigms shift (over-and-over, making its
>>> >>> explanation a top priority for a "pure" sociology). This is the
>>> >>> focus of my Center (and,, yes, I also know John Ralston Saul).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Collapse-2DGlobalism-2DJ-2DR-2DSaul_dp_1786494485&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> 4kvjg0j27G60OZOmJLQm4GmRSyKFwNZpRY6JwkeZ9WY&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> P.P.S. The "cheerio conspiracy" in all this is that the *center* of
>>> >>> maintaining that now obsolete paradigm was the Government
>>> >>> Communications Head-Quarters (GCHQ) which is the foundation of what
>>> >>> some now call the "Deep State." Edward Snowden had a lot to say
>>> >>> about them in terms of their acronym, "Five Eyes," making Trump's
>>> >>> upcoming meeting with the Queen very interesting -- since the "Deep
>>> >>> State" actually reports to her (yes, making Canada an actual
>>> >>> national security threat) . . . !!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Five-5FEyes&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSj
>>> Odn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=
>>> s3ScNTD00fGwqUNtQsPGQEQcsbcSOwQaTNEYyxaajZA&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> P.P.P.S. Since our confusion about all this has been going on for a
>>> >>> long-time, we will have to "drop back" and try to recover what
>>> >>> previous paradigms -- such as the "Enlightenment" &c -- have
>>> >>> destroyed. That is the origin of the "motto" on the Center website
>>> >>> that "Digital *retrieves* the Medieval" and, from ISIS reviving
>>> >>> *medieval* Jihad, to the Chinese reviving the *medieval* "Silk
>>> >>> Road," it is already the world in which we live. As Marty McKly put
>>> >>> it, "Doc, it's time to go back to the future" . . . <g>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Back-5Fto-5Fthe-5FFuture&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=B4o24kuAh19SX2ks1cGJ_
>>> arOZDTP30QffE62ZH6ORwI&e=
>>> >>>
>>> >>> P.P.P.P.S. What we have to try to avoid, as difficult as it may be,
>>> >>> is to not behave "like a drunk looking for our carkeys underneath
>>> >>> the streetlamp, because that's where the light is." The recently
>>> >>> past paradigms have seriously screwed us up. This is why we are in
>>> >>> such terrible condition -- which, btw, is not the situation in
>>> >>> China, where its historic civilization is now the focus of study at
>>> >>> the Central Party School (where CPC cadre are trained in Beijing) --
>>> >>> and *all* of our attempts at "coherence" have failed. But, we're in
>>> >>> luck, Aristotle is there to help us (which is why Summer School at
>>> >>> the Center is teaching his 4th-century BC "On the Soul".)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
>>> amazon.com_Soul-2DMemory-2DRecollection-2DAristotle_dp_
>>> 1888009179&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=
>>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=tcrM699HyAbsXoXcHy52dE-
>>> oXdz66F8YcxXYBoZt4iY&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
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ############################
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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
|
