Gregg, I was rolling my concept out for the ToK moreso than for you because
we've been had several back-and-forths in the past. Suffice it to say that
we still use Newtonian gravitational math in day-to-day calculations,
knowing full well that there is an Ur-math in the form of gravity as the
distortion of the fabric of space-time. As for the utility of my concept
for psychology/sociology, for example my paper on the phenotype as agent is
helpful in understanding the effects of epigenetics on inter- and
transgenerational behaviors. For example, we know that maternal stress
raises cortisol levels in the fetus, leading to clinical depression in the
offspring- this may account for the behavior of the Russian people, under
the boot of the Czars, and then the Soviets, which may be where we are
headed in this country without a moral compass. Serendipitously, I heard a
piece on NPR about an adopted Roumanian child who became homicidal because
of lack of attachment from birth to age 7. It took a great deal of effort
to 'socialize' this person, but the parents and community finally succeeded
using some sort of regression to infancy approach. As a biologist, I was
thinking about experiments showing that feral animals can be 'socialized'
by treating them with oxytocin, which is much more invasive, but for the
sake of this discussion, it would have been an evolutionary biologic
approach given the roles of oxytocin in integrated physiology. I have tried
to independently merge my concept of evolution with the arc of history (see
attached) largely to show the value added in the cell biologic reduction of
evolution, which can be seen as the evolutionary basis for
socio-psychology. So I mention all of this to demonstrate my desire to meld
with the conventional descriptive paradigm in an effort to move forward. So
yes, your system and mine are radically different, but in my own defense,
EVERYTHING that I have said is founded on experimental evidence, which I
maintain is the only way to extricate ourselves from the conventional way
in which we see ourselves (see attached). You have not commented on that
principle despite my mentioning it on several occasions. I would appreciate
a response.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:01 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes, John. I know that. That is why your First Principles of Physiological
> Reductive system is NOT the Tree of Knowledge System approach, but instead
> is a completely different systematic Theory Of Knowledge.
>
>
>
> I have learned much from your approach.
>
>
>
> But as I think I have indicated in our many exchanges, you have much work
> to do if you are actually going to make it viable/useful at the level of
> psychology and the social sciences. Remember that *description precedes
> explanation*. And, despite all our conversations, I still don’t see how
> First Principles* describes* human psychology at the empirical level.
> Ergo, if does not have a language that describes the phenomena, it
> certainly is not up to explaining it, at least as far as this scholar of
> psychology is concerned.
>
>
>
> Also, please note that the whole point of the ToK is that it is NOT a
> continuation of the old ways, at least from where I am standing. That you
> see it as being is very telling. You are locked in to your view, and it is
> not easy for you to step outside of it and see the perspectives that others
> adopt. That is fine, I understand that you are deep into your pursuits and
> are following your vision where it takes you.
>
>
>
> But let’s just agree that the systems are different
> onto-epistemological-empirical views of the big picture and acknowledge
> that we have foundational disagreements. And we can just let it rest there.
>
>
> Fondly,
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2019 9:42 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System
>
>
>
> Dear Gregg and ToKers, I appreciate the effort to develop the ToK/UTUA
> system. However, you know that I think that this is merely extending the
> existing synchronic paradigm of tautologies and teleologies. The French
> Physiologist Etienne Roux has recently addressed the teleologic nature of
> physiology being described based on function, but doesn't offer an
> alternative, but I have offered a paradigm shift that would eliminate such
> Just So Stories, as I have said repeatedly. No doubt there were those who
> denied that the Earth is round (there are those who believe it to this
> day), but that would not have led to the WWW, for example, and me
> communicating with y'all in this mode. I have expressed the advantage of
> seeing our evolution from its unicellular origins (see attached), and have
> inserted that mechanism into your ToK 'map' at the Joint Points with
> explanations at each 'level' (see attached). I am sure that the ToK
> membership will feel much more comfortable with the descriptive
> perspective, but beware the downside of doing the same thing over and over
> again, expecting a different outcome. We must stop the insanity of
> destroying the planet, thinking that we have an exit strategy. And CRISPR
> and AI are just as absurd IMHO. I welcome your criticisms. Best, John
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi List,
>
>   Central to the ToK and larger UTUA project is the claim that our
> language/communication systems break down into relative incoherence as we
> shift from the natural sciences (i.e., physics into chemistry into biology)
> into psychology and the social sciences. The evidence for this claim is
> found in “the problem of psychology” which is the fact that the problem of
> psychology’s definition and subject matter delineation has never been
> solved.
>
>
>
>   My hope is one of the key pieces of foundational agreement for the TOK
> Society is to both understand this central fact, and why it is the case.
> The FACT that it is the case can be found in the fact that if there is
> anything psychologists agree on it is that there is not conceptual
> agreement that allows us to draw a circle around the center of the
> discipline. That is, unlike biology and physics, there is no subject matter
> center for the field. That is TRULY remarkable if you think about it.
>
>
>
> Why is this the case? According to the ToK and larger UTUA framework, the
> reason is in large part because modern Western Philosophical traditions
> attempted to solve the mind/matter philosophical conundrum in terms of a
> reductive/deductive foundationalism into either (a) matter; (b)
> mind/idealism or (c) both. This was a grave mistake. What is needed,
> according to the ToK is a naturalistic systemic metaphysics, rather than a
> reductive/deductive foundationalist approach.
>
>
>
>   Two attachments are shared to make this point. The first attachment is
> of a summary of a newly released book on humanistic psychology. I share it
> because it attempts to proclaim that psychology is (or should be) defined
> as the inner lived experience of persons. The “contained subjectivity” that
> is available only via introspection. And, BTW, would be lined up with much
> of what the representational qualia theory is concerned with, if you have
> been following the thread on consciousness between Brent, John and me. Of
> course, from my perspective this claim is deeply problematic for a host of
> reasons. If we take it seriously, it would mean observing a conversation
> between two people would not be “human psychology” because we would not see
> inside their heads. This is the logical/conceptual problem that the concept
> of mental behavior avoids.
>
>
>
>   The second attachment is a summary of a 2014 book by the philosopher
> Lawrence Cahoone from his book *Orders of Nature*. Although we developed
> our visions and arguments completely separately, we came to a very similar
> conclusion, made particularly clear in his depiction of his vision of the
> orders of nature on p 91 and shared in the ppt. I COMPLETELY agree with
> Cahoone that the task of natural philosophy is to develop a systematic
> metaphysical picture that sets the stage for a shared language system.
>
>
>
>   Together I hope these two attachments demonstrate the point. Psychology
> is hopelessly floundering around because there is no scientific
> *conceptual* system that can anchor it and that is up to the task of
> dealing with the complexity of the objective, subjective, and
> intersubjective dimensions of human experience. And the Cahoone book shows
> us why: Modern Western Philosophy was misguided in its focus on a
> Foundationalist Deductive-Reductive ultimate metaphysics and instead should
> have been systemic metaphysics that afforded the sciences from quantum
> mechanics to sociology a coherent descriptive ontology that would allow for
> an effective, consilient language system. The absence of such a ToK-like
> system is at the root of the profound confusion and fragmented pluralism
> that characterizes the current state of the social sciences. And it means
> with the ToK, we can finally solve the problem and start to bring clarity
> to the confusion.
>
>
> 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=RLCIO1zNeCPEOuCSCRI88ejTZ0os6gBdJtgqsUnk9Fs&s=eaevqa2_yHH9u47th7opcE9uDS_OH1rbHRI_H93LqW4&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=zHnNEnttOSMqdIcXOyFWfKKAO8ppXc9txTGL3yUMInM&s=T1bWV9qlGK1WSfvxieQ0li4Gzc0D67z6K6X3tXWHVvk&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