Hi all,
From BBC: Plants can see, hear and smell-- and respond:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond
"The rootedness of plants the fact that they are unmoving means they actually have to be much more aware of their environment than you or I do," says Chamovitz.
"We cannot know if carrots feel pain"
(We'll have to get going on this 3D food cloning/printing! Or might cloned-printed carrots also feel pain?)
Corinne
PS JMU wouldn't let me see Nancy's attachment-- it must have been a zip...
**********************************************************************
Dear Mark, John, Gregg and all who are following this conversation,
Mark, I am so glad that you start with Merlin Donald. I read his book back
in 1993 and it was
the catalyst for my own journey into the issue of how the mind evolved,
but I
went in a different direction.
I wanted to start at the beginning. How did the mind build up from very
simple animals to complex
ones? When I began to ask myself these questions I encountered
assumptions that psychology makes that are unfounded
and I believe are steering the field away from principles that would help
it to
develop an integrated theory. One of these misguided assumptions is that
learning
is equipotential. Psychologists talk about the learning of birds, dolphins,
rats and monkeys as if the learning were all the same. I think that the
issues of mind would become
much clearer if we understood that learning evolved within lineages. Our
lineage pathway goes from the chordate invertebrates, through the fish,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and primates to the hominins. If I am right,
this means that to understand human functioning we can safely ignore the
learning abilities of birds, new world monkeys and all mammals other than
Old
World monkeys and apes.
Why is this important? It is important because if we psychologists stop
looking at learning
as a ubiquitous phenomenon and start looking at it as something like
morphology
that runs in lineages, we have the hope of recognizing that the ability to
learn (not the information itself but the ability to learn certain
concepts) is
an adaptation that began to develop particular strength in our lineage.
I am focused on learning even when issues like consciousness and mind are
the ones of real
interest because I believe that that ability to learn can be use as a
proxy for
consciousness. The structures that evolved to support the ability to learn
are
the same structures that make up our inner experience of consciousness.
They
are two sides of the same coin.
As for when the mind evolved, like Gregg I see it evolving in grades
across evolutionary time. Different
from Gregg, I am not satisfied with the definition of mind as the set of
mental behaviorı corresponding
to the behavior of an animal as a whole mediated by the brain/nervous
system. In my opinion, it is not that this definition is wrong; it is just
that
it is too general to be useful. I use the ability to learn as well as
morphological change as the central markers of change on the lineage
pathway
leading to humans. The vertebrates up to the reptiles evolved association
learning; the mammals evolved declarative memory when this was added to the
association learning of the reptiles it created a more powerful kind
learning
the ability to quickly form associations between action and outcome. The
mammals also evolved a period of infant dependency and maternal care.
While all
animals in our lineage prior to mammals had to function autonomously at the
time of birth, the period of dependency/maternal care allowed the mammals
to
evolve more complex forms of learning post birth. This mechanism was
particularly exploited in the primate and hominins to allow them to add-in
more
complex learning abilities. As a result, the development of human children
contains the record of the evolution of learning abilities on our lineage
pathway. The next stage in the evolution of the mind began with the
evolution
of the apes between 20 million and 6 million years ago. The learning
abilities that evolved during
this period begin to appear in human children at 18 -24 months. The next
major
transition occurs with the evolution of the mid grade hominins (homo
egaster
and homo erectus) at around 1.9 million years ago. These species began to
show
the kinds of learning abilities that are in evidence in human children at
around 5 years of age. At around 800,000 years ago, hominin species begin
to
evolve significantly larger brains. For me, I use this change and the
appearance of Mode 3 and 4 stone technologies to mark the start of the
kind of
thought that appears in human children at around 11 years of age, (called
Formal Operations in Piagetıs scheme). I argue that these species could
organize tangible information within abstract concepts. Homo sapiens
evolved
about 200,000 years ago. As suggested by mode 5 technologies, they evolved
an
even more complex version of abstract thought, the kind that is manifest in
human children at around 13 years of age. By 50,000 years ago, they were
using
this kind of abstract thought to develop externalized memory systems as
reflected in the appearance of cave and portable art and counting systems
(Donald 1991, 1993). Both are abstractions of tangible information.
What I would dearly like to know from anyone in the group who is willing
to respond is: Where
does this argument not seem to make sense? And how much push back I will
get
around the two assumptions: One, that the ability to learn evolved within
lineages and two, that the development of the human child contains that
record
of the evolution of learning abilities on the lineage pathway leading to
humans? For me, this all seems self evident, but I have been steeped in it
for
so long, Iıve lost the ability to see the arguments objectively.
Cheers,
Nancy
On 2018-07-12, 8:10 AM, "tree of knowledge system discussion on behalf of
Mark Stahlman" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Gregg:
>
>This is where Merlin Donald -- now retired (and a friend of the
>Center), previously a well-regarded evolutionary neuro-psychologist --
>comes in. We'll discuss his book when you get back (and others have
>had a chance to read it, if they are so inclined).
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origin
>s-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnp
>nzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>O2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=m4nF8ExbJHWaGt0Ke
>mv1SCcFuZeUPo20fIrTN7HA8is&e=
>
>As it turns out, when I first met him 20+ years ago in the back of a
>campus bus at Rutgers, Merlin's life's-work began when he was in High
>School, where he was taught Marshall McLuhan about how technologies
>*change* our mentalities. He later read Julian Jaynes (for whom I was
>his last student) and then built his career on the combination of the
>two.
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origin
>-2DConsciousness-2DBreakdown-2DBicameral-2DMind_dp_0618057072&d=DwIDaQ&c=e
>LbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-
>jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=Yb44r1mRWTl
>qn3qmJrMdwOYcyivyJzspAc84XN4jow4&e=
>
>Mark
>
>P.S. Perhaps the best way to grok what I'm up to is to take a look at
>the online library for my Center. Donald, Jaynes and McLuhan (along
>with some others, including my two "godfathers") are on the "Basic
>Texts" list.
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center
>_index.php_research_library&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5
>nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8X
>CzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=W3FvXnFpuRTDRTLk3GKdItxQsS179RRNFWcKUlU3fmU&e
>=
>
>
>
>Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Cool conversations.
>>
>> One point about the ToK definitions of Life and Mind. Life, the
>> dimension of biological complexity, forms between 4.5 billion and
>> 700,000,000 years ago, probably starting on planet earth around 4
>> bil yrs ago (see Johnıs comments about lipids and SR/SO).
>> Multicelled plants emerged by 700 mil yrs.
>>
>> Mind, in the ToK language game, is defined as the set of mental
>> behaviorı corresponds to the behavior of an animal as a whole
>> mediated by the brain/nervous system. It begins to emerge 650 mil y
>> ago, and the whole of the nonhuman animal mental complexity is on
>> planet earth 5 mil yrs ago.
>>
>> It is important to note that my definition of Mind is different from
>> human self-consciousness. The primate Mind serves as a base out of
>> which human self consciousness, human language, remain giving and
>> Culture emerges. Culture is clearly in swing by 50,000 years ago. It
>> has been accelerating since, especially since agriculture, writing
>> and more modern developments.
>>
>> My last day at the beach. Tomorrow is travel, and then back in full
>> swing attempting to advance the project of promoting wisdom.
>>
>> Best,
>> G
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Nancy:
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by MIND . . . !!
>>>
>>> Many would like to say that a paramecium has "cognition" (which is
>>> then equated, in some sense, with MIND) -- but is that really
>>> something useful to say?
>>>
>>> You might like to read Merlin Donald's "The Origin of the Modern
>>> Mind" (only $6 in hardback, with shipping). In it he traces the
>>> changes in human "mentality' from our origins and, while, in some
>>> sense, it is all "mind," what we do with our own minds today would
>>> not have been possible before literacy -- which is only 2500 years
>>> old.
>>>
>>>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Orig
>>>ins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLb
>>>WYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-
>>>jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZNrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=mS0oag2BV
>>>_xZMUu5htW2Edjad1fuqR9qCv7vNnz7BZQ&e=
>>>
>>> The "evolution" in the subtitle isn't *biological* (in either the
>>> Darwinian or Larmarckian sense). Instead, it depends on what many
>>> call "neuro-plasticity" and the fact that out of perhaps
>>> 200,000,000 neurons in our neo-cortex, each with perhaps 20,000
>>> possible "connections" (making around 2 *trillion* possible links),
>>> we should note that some neurologists think only 100,000 or so
>>> actually matter in our lives. Accordingly, we aren't all the
>>> "same" -- going back a long ways.
>>>
>>> My guess is that it is the "endogenization" of our environment --
>>> particularly before puberty -- that largely "decides" what sort of
>>> a MIND we will have.
>>>
>>> Gregg generously starts his MIND at roughly 5.8 *million* years
>>> ago. Our species is typically thought to be roughly 200,000 years
>>> old, so, for Gregg, MIND isn't strictly "human" (let alone
>>> "modern") but it also isn't as old as LIFE (which he pegs at 700
>>> *million* years ago). That said, if Psychology is the study of
>>> "souls" (aka *psyche* in Greek), as per Aristotle -- not just the
>>> "modern mind" -- then it looks like we have some terminology to
>>> straighten out . . . <g>
>>>
>>>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wi
>>>ki_File-3AToK-5FSimple.jpg&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZ
>>>NrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=j6AYMod7CzZXsWl3-JWfaqURfNGnNysouCiySPFL
>>>4YE&e=
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Quoting Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>> Dear fellow TOKers,
>>>>
>>>> From my vantage point on my iPhone at the cottage on Georgian Bay
>>>> amidst my sonıs wedding and the arrival of my daughterıs first
>>>> child, I have been reading the current discussion, especially
>>>> between John and Mark, with considerable interest and some dismay.
>>>>
>>>> Interest because I think that the principles that govern biology
>>>> are the foundational to the principles will govern the material
>>>> that we social scientists work with. Dismay because I realize that
>>>> many of the concepts that John and Mark raise are simply beyond
>>>> me. They stem from my knowledge base that will never be mine. I
>>>> would retire from the field altogether were it not for the
>>>> suspicion that the way we are trying to build knowledge will not
>>>> work. We (and here I am speaking about the whole academic
>>>> enterprise) are focusing too narrowly on domain specific concepts
>>>> and missing the overview.
>>>>
>>>> We must find a way through this. I think that one of the things
>>>> that draws us together is the notion of Greggıs joint points. It
>>>> gives us a way of thinking about what weıre doing at a more
>>>> general level. It is certainly the thing that draws me to his
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand causality, it is fairly clear in the hard sciences
>>>> like chemistry and physics use causality to explain their
>>>> findings. It also seems to me that causality can be used in
>>>> biology because evolutionary theory creates an explanatory
>>>> framework. Causality really falls apart though at the Life-Mind
>>>> joint point and the Mind-Culture joint point. Here we get into
>>>> what I call list thinking. We can articulate a bunch of factors
>>>> that are contributing to the change but we canıt describe how
>>>> these factors systematically interrelate. Biology has the
>>>> potential to offer insights into the way that complexity develops
>>>> because it looks at less complex species and examines how they
>>>> become more complex. Many of us are interested in looking at that
>>>> very complex species, humans. Can biology help us social
>>>> scientists better comprehend the transition at the Life-Mind joint
>>>> point?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Nancy
>>>>
>>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>>>>
>>>><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> on
>>>> behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion
>>>>
>>>><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM
>>>> To:
>>>>
>>>>"[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Subject: Re: New Paradigms
>>>>
>>>> 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.wikipedia.org_w
>>>>iki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmm
>>>>eq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-G
>>>>ukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&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.amazon.com_Und
>>>>erstanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=Dw
>>>>IDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UO
>>>>pybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw
>>>>&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_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]<mailto:[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.wikipedia.org_w
>>>>iki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmm
>>>>eq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-G
>>>>ukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&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.amazon.com_Und
>>>>erstanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=Dw
>>>>IDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UO
>>>>pybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw
>>>>&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_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.wikipedia.org_w
>>>>iki_CoEvolution-5FQuarterly&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOd
>>>>n_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENa
>>>>nYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=Ry24gsV5__DzdGAibX51Oms8CNBP5pW4hg82
>>>>V-ObIQA&e=
>>>>
>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
>>>> edu] on behalf of Mark Stahlman
>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:04 PM
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>u>]
>>>>>>> on behalf of Mark Stahlman
>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:13 AM
>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RS
>>>>j
>>>> 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:TOK-SOC
>>>>>>>[log in to unmask]><mailto:mailto<mailto:mailto
>>>>>>>>:
>>>>
>>>>[log in to unmask]<mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIG
>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOC
>>>>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCI
>>>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCI
>>>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCIE
>>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCIET
>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCIET
>>>>[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]<mailto:TOK-SOCIET
>>>>[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]<mailto:mailto:TOK
>>>>[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
|
