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=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