Gregg, this kind of anecdotal example is akin to the difference between
Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's. Newton generated an equation to
describe the attraction of masses to one another whereas Einstein showed
how and why gravity bends light. In doing so, Einstein interrelated gravity
and Relativity Theory, providing a diachronic, mechanistic, across
space/time perspective rather than just a synchronic, descriptive view. I
would submit that this represents what I had referred to in my previous
email, that the science leverages the transition from the Explicate to the
Implicate Order.



On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Let me offer one quick follow up, based on a back channel question I
> received.
>
>
>
> To understand the difference between consciousness as functional awareness
> and response versus subjective phenomenology, consider the concept of
> “blindsight”. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Blindsight&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=ODoz8QDgOR0Om95Z5PssETnj_wzdE2T6_zx-jjf5uAc&e=> Blindsight is
> the case where someone, usually do to damage to the occipital lobe, is
> blind (i.e., has no experience of vision). However, what Weiskranz and
> other neuropsychologists found was that such patients do have some
> functional visual awareness, even though they have no subjective experience
> of vision. For example, an individual can be asked to “look at a room” and
> point to which side a box is located. The person responds, “I have no idea,
> I can’t see anything.” And the experimenter says, “I know, but take a
> guess.”  And the person points to the correct side with 90-95% accuracy.
> The reason is some visual information is being processed, it just is not
> manifesting itself in subjective awareness.
>
>
>
> This highlights the conceptual difference between behavioral functional
> awareness (i.e., the person can actually respond to objects in the
> environment) despite no subjective conscious awareness.
>
>
> Best,
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 7:36 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* RE: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> John,
>
>   If we have any hope in achieving clarity, we need to disentangle the
> meaning of the words we are using. First, though, let me be clear in that
> the question of whether humans are “good for the planet” is different than
> whether or not they have unique forms of consciousness. As I write in this
> blog, we “verbals” can obviously be viewed as a nightmare from the vantage
> point of other
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201203_verbals&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=2wiSy_NtUL4qWWua8EdrfHdmyUdt-kduW46aItfwHxA&e=>
> species. But, let’s face it, if an alien came and visited this planet, the
> behavior of one species would stand out as demonstrating radically
> different patterns than others, and it would not be the flies avoiding the
> fly swatters, but the people who constructed the tool and the way they talk
> about how annoying the flies are.
>
>
>
>   The question on the table pertains to “consciousness”. I am taking a
> scientific view of the concept. That means I am going to try and
> “objectively” describe it. Depending on how consciousness is defined, that
> can present a foundational problem. First, though, it depends on how it is
> defined. If you define consciousness in terms of “functional awareness and
> response,” then you are defining consciousness in terms of objective
> behavior. This is how you conceive of the term. That is, you *know *organisms
> are conscious by the fact that you can observe (i.e., take a video of) that
> they are “aware of their specific environments” and they respond
> accordingly.  Given that I am a “universal behaviorist,” I appreciate the
> value of this perspective.
>
>
>
>   However, there are other meanings of the term consciousness. One crucial
> meaning is “subjective phenomenology” or “what it is like to ‘be’
> something”. As I highlight in this blog on the conceptual problems of
> consciousness
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=9DN8D_kNWir1MN-LCc7lKZ5CBoNgoCOTGG9MDCzUVi4&e=>,
> subjective phenomenology carries the epistemological problem that we can
> never objectively observe another’s subjective experience (see problem 6).
> You can not take a video of my perceptual experience of being in the world.
> Except for the owner, everyone (or everything) else’s subjective
> phenomenology must be inferred. This relates to the philosophical problem of
> zombies <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plato.stanford.edu_entries_zombies_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cdR9JPGKCyVUM9luX-yLxsifof8skehk9y1DuJmPpRY&s=RXHssiFyk6albuVCjB-DtYjRV56RSzJnC_e9dXk-nT0&e=> (i.e., the
> possibility that no one or nothing else in the universe has a subjective
> phenomenology).
>
>
>
>   So, there is a “language game” problem here (which, BTW, it what I
> describe as the first problem of consciousness, recognizing the many
> entangled definitions and confusing issues). You mean consciousness in
> terms of physiological functional awareness and response that can be
> observed via a third person. I was using the term to refer to subjective
> phenomenology (which all the scientific evidence suggests is found in
> animals with brains—not bacteria!—and then I build off of that into human
> self-conscious reflective awareness and explicit intersubjectivity).
>
>
>
>   This has nothing to do with my being anthropomorphic. It just has to do
> with the concepts of science and observation and the unique epistemological
> and metaphysical problems associated consciousness as subjective
> phenomenology (which sets the stage for human intersubjectivity via
> language). IMO, your language system just glosses over these issues and
> then uses rhetoric about deck chairs, insanity, and the need to do things
> different, which are not exactly relevant. Bottom line, with all due
> respect, I don’t see how your First Principles of Physiology deals at all
> with the epistemological or metaphysical problems of subjective
> phenomenology. As such, it does not really deal with the heart of the
> problem of consciousness. That said, I do believe it help us conceptually
> understand the foundations of cellular functional awareness and response
> and thus is valuable in shifting and ultimately grounding our perspective
> (e.g., as you know, I have found the idea that the brain is the “skin
> inverted” to be a powerful conception of its origin and function).
>
>
>
> Best of intentions,
>
> G
>
>
>
> PS The ToK System, with its conception of energy as fundamental and
> depiction of the universe as an unfolding wave of behavior, completely
> agrees with Whitehead’s process philosophy as far as I can tell (although I
> am not an expert).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Marquis, Andre
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:51 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> I, for one, am enjoying the dialogues between Gregg and John!
>
> andre
>
>
>
> *From: *tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]
> >
> *Reply-To: *tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:23 PM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> Gregg, you are taking an anthropocentric position IMHO. I would submit
> that if you woke up in a fly's realm, but with your human attributes that
> you would rapidly succumb to the fly swatter absent the fly's skill set.
> All of the human qualities you enumerate are highly admirable, but they are
> what we humans use to do human things. And they have evolved from our
> bidpedal body habitus, freeing our forelimbs for specialized functions like
> tool making and texting, followed by language as another 'tool' needed to
> express ourselves while operating tools. Yes, we are probably unique in
> 'knowing that we know', but that has also resulted in our species being the
> only one that is destroying the planet, so that should give us pause.
>
>
>
> And yes, all organisms are conscious in their own idiosyncratic ways, in
> service to being aware of their specific enviornments, in turn in service
> to passing their genes from one generation to the next as the biologic
> imperative- that's why all species are engaged in evolution. Bottom line is
> that all of life exists in recognition of the Singularity as its origin as
> the template for our existence pre-Big Bang, the 'equal and opposite
> reaction' complying with Newton's Third Law of Motion, which we now
> identify as homeostasis as the reason that matter exists....without
> homeostasis there would only be energy. This is the basis for Alfred North
> Whitehead's "Process Theory". He intuited that matter is a transient state
> of energy, and that it is for this reason that only relationships matter
> (pun intended). I think that until we come to this realization we will
> continue to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a
> different outcome, which is a functional definition of insanity,
> recognizing that I am ironically responding to a psychologist (with the
> best of intentions on my part)....
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Yes, John, we have confirmed we disagree on this point. J
>
>
>
> You do agree that we humans have a different form of information
> processing than animals called symbolic, syntactical language, correct? And
> you agree that we humans are the only animals that have the self-reflective
> capacity, such that we know that we know, right? And we are the only
> creatures that develop science and attempt to map the Explicate v.
> Implicate order, correct? So, if consciousness is awareness (which is a
> point that I believe you have made), then it seems to me that there are a
> number of dimensions of awareness (i.e., self-conscious, reflective,
> linguistically explicit, logical analysis) that represents a big difference
> between we humans and, say, houseflies…or fish or snakes or ravens or rat
> or chimps or dolphins…but wait, are you saying all animals have the same
> level of consciousness? That would be a radical claim, at least as I am
> conceptualizing consciousness (note, I mean little “c” not your big “C”)
>
>
>
> You have your “diachronic versus synchronic deck chair” claim, which I
> continue to try to wrap my “evolutionary time oriented” mind around. Keep
> in mind I have my argument that the universe represents different levels
> and dimensions of complexity, with the different dimensions of complexity
> emerging as a function of different information-communication systems,
> Life-genes, Mind-nervous systems, Culture-human language, which I think you
> have trouble wrapping your mind around.
>
>
>
> Best of intentions,
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 1:32 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> As you well know Gregg, I respectfully disagree with the distinction
> between animal consciousness and human consciousness. I maintain that
> consciousness is derivative of physiology, and if that is correct, we don't
> distinguish the principles of physiology in animals and humans.....to the
> contrary, we study animal physiology to understand human physiology, not
> just for ethical reasons, but because the comparative anatomy, biochemistry
> and molecular biology inform us about the evolution of physiology. As for
> mapping the relationships between disciplines, it must be more than just
> the synchronic real-time 'rearranging the deck chairs'; it must entail a
> diachronic, across space/time transcendent perspective in order to factor
> out the artifacts of the human subjectivity about our origins and mechanism
> of evolution, starting with unicellular organisms, moving forward. Just to
> be clear, there are commonalities between how Mendeleev configured the
> Periodic Table of Elements and that for Evolutionary Biology as I have
> conceptualized it based on experimental data rather than inductive
> reasoning. This is an important insight because both chemical equations and
> the mechanisms of physiologic evolution offer the opportunity to transcend
> space/time, providing that essential diachronic view I have alluded to that
> is necessary in order to get to the fundament of Nature as the literal
> product of the Big Bang. Only then can we understand interdisciplinarity
> IMHO.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for these thoughts, Jason and John.
>
>
>
> One thing I would offer from a ToK System lens regarding the point about
> “behavior” and psychology and the social sciences, is that a major hurdle
> to any coherent, consilient dual major or interdisciplinary view is that we
> have lacked the appropriate map of the whole.
>
>
>
> For example, at the institutional level, it is absolutely the case that
> psychology focuses its lens on human behavior at the individual level.
> However, virtually all its foundational concepts regarding learning and
> neuro-cognitive maps are at the level of the “mental” (i.e., animal
> behavior and the idea that the mind is what the brain does). In other
> words, to have linguistic clarity, we need to split basic/animal psychology
> from human psychology and then place human psychology as the base of the
> social sciences.
>
>
>
> We will achieve more effective multi/interdisciplinary perspectives if we
> map out the relationships between the disciplines in a more effective way.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 7:39 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> Dear Jason, Gregg and TOKers, the 'silo-ing' of intellectual pursuits is
> overwhelmingly apparent in this thread. I have been involved in the
> initiative for what is being termed Interdisciplinarity for a number of
> years, contributing to the *Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity,* for
> example. I assumed that that effort was pervasive, only to realize through
> this discussion that clearly it is not. If I may share my own life
> experience, I was a Biology/English double major in college. Through that
> interdisciplinary approach I learned how to 'dissect' both a frog and a
> poem, literally. But the contrast was palpable in the sense that my poetry
> Professor would read a piece of poetry, 'dissect' it over the course of the
> lecture, but would never let us out of the lecture hall until he had read
> it again in its entirety because it didn't exist other than as a whole.
> Conversely, the frog would remain on the lab bench in pieces, and many of
> my classmates are your physicians, I might add. My learning experience was
> that the frog, like the poem, did not exist without reassembling it, which
> I have done as a cellular biologist/physiologist over the course of the
> last 50 years. It's far more difficult to see things both as parts and
> wholes, let alone teach it, but as Gregg had alluded to, perhaps we'd be
> better off learning through dual disciplines that complement one another,
> like Psychology and Sociology, IMHO.
>
>
>
> And not to get too meta, but I think the reason that we need to use a
> 'double major' approach is because we are only approximating the 'truth' in
> David Bohm's Explicate Order (*Wholeness and the Implicate Order*), so to
> have an informed perspective, we must see things through more than one
> lens. I have, for example, come to the realization that the reason we must
> control a scientific experiment is because what we are examining is only
> relative, not absolute, so we need to provide a 'context' or framework in
> which to do so.....in Bohm's ideal or Implicate Order, for example, there
> is no need for controls, if you get my drift. I offer these thoughts with
> the best of intentions.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:40 PM nysa71 <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gregg writes, " A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and
> psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures..."
>
> It's funny you should mention that. Over a decade ago, I started thinking
> that it was strange that there were these institutional "walls" between
> psychology and the other social sciences, and that it seemed so "early 20th
> century". I remember thinking that they're all dealing with human behavior
> --- with psychology dealing with individual behaviors, but the other social
> sciences dealing with the context within which individuals behave, (and
> those social structures being both reinforced and changed due to behaviors
> at the level of psychology).
>
> All of these fields have developed to the point where I sometimes wondered
> if it would make more sense to start thinking of universities offering more
> "general" bachelor degrees along the lines of "Psychology & Social
> Science", and then focusing on a specific disciple, (e.g., psychology,
> sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc.), in post
> graduate studies.
>
> At the very least, psychology undergraduates should be required to take
> some social science classes.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 10:35:01 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this, Jason. Neoliberalism and its critique is a major
> focus of a number of the major Div 24 scholars, with Jeff Sugarman leading
> the way. A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and
> psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures, values and
> processes that are operative. Rather they look at phenomena and clients and
> try to describe and explain what they see, with really appreciating the
> deep context.
>
>
>
> My favorite book on a related topic is Barry Schwartz’s The Battle for
> Human Nature
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Battle-2DHuman-2DNature-2DScience-2DMorality_dp_0393304450&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pXQ2SEX6BD7KGH3vPZgvrLZ7AAYVVT_vaq07aAJgoms&s=u3WdyySlG7vIl2KMErhZQBr88We_e0_390E8CwYOFEs&e=>.
> It reviews behavioral theory, evolutionary theory and economics and here is
> its summary:
>
>
>
> *Out of the investigations and speculations of contemporary science, a
> challenging view of human behavior and society has emerged and gained
> strength. It is a view that equates “human nature” utterly and unalterably
> with the pursuit of self-interest. Influenced by this view, people
> increasingly appeal to natural imperatives, instead of moral ones, to
> explain and justify their actions and those of others.*
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *nysa71
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:03 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> Interesting paper on psychology and neoliberalism:
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> This article draws attention to the relationship between neoliberalism and
> psychology. Features of this relationship can be seen with reference to
> recent studies linking psychology to neoliberalism through the constitution
> of a kind of subjectivity susceptible to neoliberal governmentality. Three
> examples are presented that reveal the ways in which psychologists are
> implicated in the neoliberal agenda: psychologists’ conception and
> treatment of social anxiety disorder, positive psychology, and educational
> psychology. It is hoped that presenting and discussing these cases broadens
> the context of consideration in which psychological ethics might be
> examined and more richly informed. It is concluded that only by
> interrogating neoliberalism, psychologists’ relationship to it, how it
> affects what persons are and might become, and whether it is good for human
> well-being can we understand the ethics of psychological disciplinary and
> professional practices in the context of a neoliberal political order and
> if we are living up to our social responsibility.
>
> Sugarman, J. (2015). "Neolberalism and Psychological Ethics
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_profile_Jeff-5FSugarman_publication_276140354-5FNeoliberalism-5Fand-5FPsychological-5FEthics_links_555c08af08aec5ac2232aa06.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vwLIeIntBrX9PS9a_NIXhc5NSW7hFU5gGxWKr_V1S8g&s=52cspoZeSdor9CUOfJ1rN27wy_0SO4T-PYmkx9W7nv8&e=>".
> *Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35,* 103 - 116.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=iiWzvnxkK4YfkZ4oQ0pdn8dM4P2AJsQIbk28dd0NP-8&s=BW_oa6NScD0OzFuutR4L_cjQSGxsCwWJZ7e6GImaE-I&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