John:

As you might imagine, I have no particular affection for "parsimony"  
(or for that matter, "Ockham's Razor.")  In fact, I strongly suspect  
that the inclination to satisfy this urge -- which in the case of  
Ockham, a Franciscan "Spiritual," it was his desire for  
"self-perfection" (or, in theological terms, "gnosticism") that drove  
him to his "nominalism" (undercutting any hope for a "universal  
language" in the process) -- has psycho-technological roots . . . <g>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Spiritual-2DFranciscans-2DProtest-2DPersecution-2DCentury_dp_0271023090&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=MxhmuIj_aSduatWSEJ4zJG39M0nywDQHyOea5cFQ1tE&e=

What I said in my previous email was that "I see *zero* reason why  
LIFE should obey the 'same rules' as MATTER" -- not that they do or  
don't but that there is no reason why they *should* (i.e. nothing in  
the study of either drives us in that direction.)  So, the "motives"  
of those who seek that coincidence also need to be taken into account,  
which is why I bought L.L. Whyte's biography to see what made him tick  
(hint: he thought it was what he called his "pagan-divine" desires, in  
rebellion against his Calvinist father) . . . !!

C.P.Snow was a physicist.  He set himself up against the "poets" from  
Oxbridge who ran the British government -- which he wanted a piece of  
(bringing us back to Michael Mann's "Sources of Social Power" &c.)  It  
seems to me that this also recapitulates the topic of McLuhan's PhD,  
"The Classical Trivium" -- where Snow takes the side of "Dialectics"  
and McLuhan takes the side of "Grammar."  Yes, this is truly a  
*classic* conundrum, sometimes called "Ancients vs. Moderns."

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Classical-2DTrivium-2DPlace-2DThomas-2DLearning_dp_1584232358&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=aBw_AT-rY8Zms2-lj65qCMHO9mzqefr9XLL4CNO20ZU&e=

One recent examination of all this is Sabine Hossenfelder's "Lost in  
Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" -- which digs in on why the  
search for "beauty" (aka "parsimony" &c) produces such ridiculous  
results.  Perhaps you will find it worth the read.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_0465094252&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=Fs-vHlgSbqOvTCGwYnRFp4X7JY51OZ_ezVGQf4XBfik&e=

Mark

Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> Gregg, I welcome the opportunity to comment on communication, values,
> responsibility, etc, etc and language. In my way of cobbling life and
> matter together, starting from the Singularity/Big Bang, the cell as the
> first Niche Construction, cell-cell communication, cell-environment
> communication (epigenetics), 'First there were bacteria, now there is New
> York!', it would only make sense that language- body, oral- emerged to
> perpetuate the interrelationship between the inorganic and the organic. In
> the spirit of parsimony, it would make sense to consider the relationship
> between cell-cell communication and language as a continuum, in contrast to
> language as a human 'invention', which is anthropocentric and
> counter-productive IMHO. Suffice it to say that we now have a 'Tower of
> Babel', which we ToKers are trying to level in order to be able to find a
> common meta-language- a noble effort which I support wholeheartedly.
> Minimally, we will have solved C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures' problem.
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>   I like your comments about communication. In terms of human
>> communication, it jumps me into the concept of language games. I think we
>> can build better language games that are more effective at fostering
>> wisdom. That is the essence of the ToK/UTUA mission. Concepts like
>> justification, influence and investments are, IMO, useful tools for
>> understanding human behavior. And we need new, better and wiser tools to
>> dance with the changes in the new paradigm that we find ourselves in.
>>
>> Would love to hear others thoughts about communication, values,
>> responsibility and so forth.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
>> listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
>> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 4:16 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: On the possibility Integrating Human Knowledge
>>
>> Gregg:
>>
>> Welcome back and I like "the message is the medium" . . . !!
>>
>> When McLuhan decided to use that term, among the many things he had in
>> mind was the "medium" used in laboratories for growing colonies of
>> organisms -- or what we used to call "agar" when I was wearing a lab-coat.
>>
>> The challenge that everyone who has attempted to *integrate* Human
>> Knowledge has had, of course, is dealing with the one-and-the-many.
>> We know that both must simultaneously be "true" but how are they to be
>> reconciled?
>>
>> What is it that "unifies" and what is it that "separates" (and is it the
>> same thing)?  How do we deal with the "universal" and the "particular" all
>> under the same umbrella?
>>
>> The notion that it is *communications* which unifies and separates -- from
>> cell-to-cell to culture-to-culture -- seems to be where we're heading and I
>> like that path.
>>
>> "Communication" is a word based on "in common," which it shares with
>> "community" &c.  Within this etymology, there is both the recognition of
>> the "one" and the "many."  It also carries the meaning that there are many
>> "mechanisms" for communications and what cells perform is not identical to
>> the communications that cultures are founded upon (thus my interest in
>> Semiotics &c).
>>
>> All of which begs the important question of how are we going to
>> *communicate* in our "new paradigm" and what will this new approach mean
>> for our "community"?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. Under previous communications conditions, we tried to build "one
>> world."  That is over now, because those conditions have changed.  In
>> particular, I have been deeply engaged with China for the past 20 years.
>> China will never be a part of the Western attempts to make our
>> lives "global" (and we will never be a part of what they are doing.)
>> Two radically different *communications* approaches -- the Alphabet and
>> Ideo/pictographics -- developed in these two places 2500+ years ago (in the
>> Axial Age) and, as a result, two very different "cultures"
>> were produced.  And, yes there are others . . . <g>
>>
>> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > It is good to be back at my home computer after 12 days of "gluttony
>> > and sloth." I have been thrilled by all the insightful contributions
>> > to the list.
>> >
>> >   Corinne, thanks much both for your artwork and for the recent post
>> > about plants. Plant behavior became a point of fascination for me in
>> > figuring out psychology's language game. I also think the article
>> > highlights many of the things that John has been trying to say about
>> > how physiology and cell-cell communication is foundational to
>> > understanding our essences. At the same time, the nervous system is a
>> > "game changer" when it comes to the "fast" behavior of animals.
>> > Whereas plant behavior is complex, responsive to stimuli, and highly
>> > functional, I don't think we should call it "mental," and I think that
>> > we should be careful in using terms like 'see' and 'hear,' as in the
>> > title of the article. For us human primates, the term "see"
>> > is intimately tied to our subjective experience of vision. There is no
>> > evidence that plants have a subjective experience (AKA perceptual
>> > consciousness) of vision. They are clearly physiologically aware of
>> > light stimuli and respond accordingly. The relationship between
>> > functional behavior and the subjective experience of being, is, as
>> > Steve's review of William James will likely point out, crucial in
>> > trying to solve the language game of psychology. As slide 11 in the
>> > BIT key idea ppt highlights, consciousness does not equal
>> > behavior<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.greg
>> > ghenriques.com_bit.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5
>> > nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>> uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=7zOkydjiK47pYS4hoKM-38Lw7Z4O0O153QWaV-8u0ec&e=>,
>> although we can use the ToK System to understand how perceptual
>> consciousness is a subset of behavior.
>> >
>> > Thanks much to Nancy for her articulation of the development of human
>> > cognitive abilities and her evolutionary/Piagetian analyses.
>> > Nancy, I think both of your assumptions about evolutionary lineage and
>> > about lining up phylogeny with ontogeny in the way that you to
>> > understand the evolution of human thought highly valuable. I am glad
>> > to hear your connection to Merlin Donald. We have not spoken about
>> > that previously. Early in his book, Merlin Donald makes a central
>> > point: During the relatively short time of human emergence, the
>> > structure of the primate mind was radically altered; or rather was
>> > gradually surrounded by new representational systems and absorbed into
>> > a larger cognitive apparatus. (p. 4)  In the language of the ToK, what
>> > we became surrounded by were both the technological and linguistic
>> > environments that resulted in a dramatic shift in the flow of
>> > energy-information. The linguistic networks that formed were
>> > justification systems; narratives that provided the structure for our
>> > social lives and labeled Culture as the fourth dimension of behavioral
>> > complexity.
>> >
>> >   Mark, I have been very much enjoying reading up on the Center for
>> > Digital Life and Marshal McLuhan's work on media. I have found his
>> > analysis of mediums fascinating. In what might be an odd association,
>> > it reminded me a bit of Richard Dawkins' The Extended
>> > Phenotype<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>> > pedia.org_wiki_The-5FExtended-5FPhenotype&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7
>> > vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4
>> > -A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=dfNfUeDnjiTyyZYuh8x
>> > a4IXqvSBvXL3D4oWAmVhr5LI&e=> (and John's notions of Niche
>> > Construction). Certainly, as we radically alter our environment, we
>> radically alter ourselves. On the ride home from the beach yesterday, I
>> found myself inverting is his motto (the medium is the message) to "the
>> message is the medium." The inverted motto lines up directly with the key
>> insight of the ToK.
>> > That is, the mediums of cell-cell communication/genetic info (Life),
>> > neuro-mental-subjectivity (Mind), and
>> > linguistic-person-society-intersubjectivity (Culture) are the
>> > "conglomerates" that allow us to unweave the rainbow of behavior and
>> > see the dimensions that make us what and who we are.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, it seems to me that these are the kinds of
>> > interdisciplinary conversations that should be going on as we search
>> > for ways to integrate knowledge. As Joe commented, none of us has all
>> > the answers. But together we might be able to fashion a reasonable
>> > picture of the whole. I am reminded of the philosopher Oliver Reiser's
>> > opening call in his book The Integration of Human Knowledge (which I
>> > found had remarkable parallels to the ToK version of reality), which
>> > seems perhaps even more appropriate today as it was when he wrote 60
>> > years ago:
>> >
>> > In this time of divisive tendencies within and between the nations,
>> > races, religions, sciences and humanities, synthesis must become the
>> > great magnet which orients us all...[Yet] scientists have not done
>> > what is possible toward integrating bodies of knowledge created by
>> > science into a unified interpretation of man, his place in nature, and
>> > his potentialities for creating the good society. Instead, they are
>> > entombing us in dark and meaningless catacombs of learning (Reiser,
>> > 1958, p. 2-3, italics in original).
>> >
>> > Am happy to be back in the flow.
>> >
>> > 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.psychologytod
>> > ay.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9R
>> > SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uHKAWF
>> > aAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=iyFRFA9RrDTde63r0NoDqF9Q4vP1aP
>> > Gsb8-0WN1FbRs&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
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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