John:

We have much work to do and I, for one, look forward to your  
participation in the upcoming discussions . . . !!

Your Facebook post from Feb 1, 2017 says that you are an immigrant  
from a Communist country (along with assorted "political" remarks &c).  
  Would you care to tell us a bit about your early life . . . ??

Mark

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

> Mark, I hope that we are 'kayaking' and not just 'yaking' which I don't
> think we are, but I liked the pun, so there.....again I will interject
> within your last email:
>
> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>> shit....You?
>>
>
> [The Editors at a couple of conventional Evolution journals have said so in
> more civil language. And I just assume they're keeping their finger in the
> dyke because there's more and more of us who think that Darwin was wrong.
> As for my colleagues, they're either politely hear me out or turn a deaf
> ear. I gave my homily to a group of MDs and PhDs who do developmental
> biology a few years back and a friend was sitting in the audience, so I
> asked him what he thought of the lecture. His PC answer was that what he
> heard was some saying 'brilliant', others saying 'huh?'. But I guess I hang
> my hat/head on the fact that I have published more than 80 peer-reviewed
> articles, which counts for something, at least in the realm of grant
> funding and patenting. And the fact that the model is predictive for dogmas
> in biology gives me courage to keep on keeping on. One of my first research
> Fellows back in the day challenged me to come up with some physiologic
> trait that would be predicted by the cell-molecular approach, particularly
> as it pertains to the evolution of endothermy. So we came up with the
> attached hypothesis as to why we males carry our testes on the outside of
> our bodies fyi.....that's never been explained before. Not even close. It's
> testable and refutable....]
>
> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is what
> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can tell,
> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
> quite conventional).
>
> [Well actually I just use cell biology as a tool. My formal training is in
> endocrinology/reproductive endocrinology, and my career as a funded
> investigator has been as a lung biologists. Besides which, I am a PhD,
> which I think gives me license to 'philosophize'. Lovelock and Margulis
> were geochemist and biologist, so why did they have license to hypothesize
> Gaia? Because, just like why dogs lick their genitals, because they could]
>
> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for a
> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.  My
> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the universe
> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists, for
> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>
> [I like Schrodinger's concept of negentropy, as expressed in What is Life?
> 1944. And the Reviewers seem to be OK with it too. As for my science being
> old fashioned, you might have said the same about Gallileo riffing on
> Copernicus. In point of fact, we do cutting-edge epigenetic research in my
> lab, funded by the NIH, so no, my science is anything by old fashioned.
> I've just looked at the data from a different perspective, kinda like
> Einstein, travelling in tandem with a lightbeam. I know that the physicists
> think that all is probability, but Einstein said that G_d does not play
> dice with the Universe......so he must have thought that some aspects of
> physics were deterministic, like the mass of a neutron, for example.
> Besides which, if ever get more widely recognized, I maintain that we got
> the how and why of our existence backwards, and since our system of logic
> is founded on our sense of self to a large degree, perhaps that's why we
> keep going through ups and downs as a society.......I maintain that the
> closer we get to the Implicate Order, the smoother the 'ride' will be. As
> for biology never making he leap to a probabilistic perspective, that's
> been tried by many (LL Whyte, Prigogine, Polanyi, Wilson) but they make a
> systematic error in seeing life as a 'snapshot', or synchronically, when in
> fact evolution is diachronic (see attached). Seen across space-time life is
> both deterministic and probabilistic depending upon what aspect of the
> process is being examined. Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology,
> but it has to be applied at the cellular-molecular level from the origin,
> not 1:1 realtime. The example I use is that of the effect of gravity, which
> refers all the way back to the origin of life as unicells. When the cell is
> dissociated from gravity experimentally the ability to communicate with the
> environment is lost, i.e. the cell is comatose]
>
> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous that
> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>
> [Well and my frustration with Gregg is that in his TOK the joints between
> the levels are mechanistic, if only he would see it as I do......he sort of
> does in that he refers to it as metaphysics, but it's not philosophy when
> you(I) apply the cellular-molecular template.]
>
> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present -- albeit
> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>
> [Yes, largely because the psychologist credo is that you can just talk your
> problems away, but I maintain that that's just kicking the can down the
> proverbial road. In reality, if we were to embrace a novel way of thinking
> about the how and why of our existence, particularly our mortality, which I
> addressed in my last give and take, that we would be able to move forward,
> but that's a 'bridge too far' for Gregg. When I get into this head space I
> think of Heliocentrism and The Enightenment.......we've had a reboot before
> by displacing our 'home' from the center of the Solar System. Now I think
> we need to do the same for ourselves by displacing ourselves from the
> center of the Biosphere in order to be better stewards of ourselves, other
> organisms, and the planet]
>
> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but look
> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>
> [I'm talking about a fundamental change in human logic.....I don't think
> that digitizing affects that...it just exacerbates the
> underlying/overarching problem IMHO. The problem with the Titanic was in
> the hull design, not the arrangement of the deck chairs]
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My guess is
> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you have
> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>
> [Dark Ages is a convention....and I don't appreciate the ad hominem stuff.
> I happen to know plenty about history, so I don't think that's my problem]
>
> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that -- in
> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>
> [To think that technology would affect human kind at the level I am going
> to is, in my opinion, ludicrous, and misses the whole point. I don't think
> that, for example, the invention of the wheel altered the trajectory of
> human consciousness, it merely affecting the rate of change]
>
> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told in no
> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out, that
> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.  The
> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question, which
> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>
> [1/0 ?]
>
> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing to
> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was the
> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in particular,
> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that other
> approaches will be required.
>
> [So picture yourself saying that science will never explain everything in
> 14th Century Florence, and then you are told that the world is
> round......does your statement still apply? I don't think so, but I don't
> want to sound dogmatic, just open minded and forward thinking]
>
> I honestly don't think you see what it is that I am saying with regard to
> my perspective. The idea, for example that we misconstrue consciousness as
> brain/mind rather than as our sense of being aware of our being because of
> the iterative process of internalizing the external environment and making
> it useful physiologically, the aggregate of that being Consciousness. That
> alone is a game changer to my way of thinking......Perhaps it would help to
> cite my co-author Bill Miller, who says that the concept we are promoting
> is 'like turning your sock inside out'.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>>> shit....You?
>>>
>>
>> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is what
>> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can tell,
>> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
>> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
>> quite conventional).
>>
>> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
>> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for a
>> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.  My
>> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
>> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the universe
>> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists, for
>> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>>
>> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
>> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous that
>> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>>
>> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present -- albeit
>> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>>
>> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
>> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but look
>> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
>> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My guess is
>> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you have
>> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
>> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>>
>> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
>> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that -- in
>> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
>> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
>> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>>
>> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
>> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told in no
>> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out, that
>> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.  The
>> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question, which
>> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>>
>> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
>> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing to
>> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was the
>> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
>> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in particular,
>> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that other
>> approaches will be required.
>>
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Mark: I will attempt to navigate through your last reply by interjecting in
>>> brackets....
>>>
>>> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the highest-level
>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>
>>> [I have a different take on culture, having interpolated Niche
>>> Construction
>>> into the unicell (Torday JS. The Cell as the First Niche Construction.
>>> Biology (Basel). 2016 Apr 28;5(2).), offering the opportunity to then
>>> integrate organisms within niches as ecologies, which scales all the way
>>> from the unicell to Gaia. Along the way, culture is a manifestation of
>>> exponential niche construction, or anthropomorphized institutions......so
>>> I
>>> would suggest that technological inventions 'facilitated' culture, all due
>>> respect. As for why physiologic stress is caused, perpetual environmental
>>> change is a Given; life must change accordingly or become extinct. In
>>> actuality, the ability of life to sense change in the environment,
>>> external
>>> and internal alike using homeostasis as its 'feelers' is how the cell(s)
>>> know that change has occurred, and because they are servoed to the
>>> environment, equipped with the capacity to change as I had described
>>> earlier, the organism is constantly in flux, but trying to maintain the
>>> equipoise that it generated at its origin as its 'Garden of
>>> Eden'.......like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast as
>>> she can to remain at rest, like a catalyst mediating a chemical reaction
>>> (literally), or the eternal Burning Bush, never burning up ]
>>>
>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one most
>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>
>>> [Len Hayflick, a preeminent cell biologist has stated that the amount of
>>> bioenergetics within the cell is finite (Hayflick L. Entropy explains
>>> aging, genetic determinism explains longevity, and undefined terminology
>>> explains misunderstanding both. PLoS Genet. 2007 Dec;3(12):e220). But to
>>> think that our lives are finite is missing the big picture point of
>>> epigenetics. We are actually immortalized by being the 'vehicles' for the
>>> transit of environmental information to the organism so that it can make
>>> the existential decision to either remain the same or change in sync with
>>> the environment. I have also considered the possibility that because our
>>> microbiome is 70-90% of our holobiont being, that unless we are cremated
>>> or
>>> buried in a concrete crypt, our microbiome goes back to the earth when we
>>> are buried, back into the aquifer, ingested by plants and animals and
>>> 'reincarnated' in others who drink and eat us. There's experimental
>>> evidence, for example, that when we are buried our microbiome leaves a
>>> 'footprint' called the necrobiome, indicating that our microbiome remains
>>> intact, so we live on through our microbiome!]
>>>
>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.  Indeed,
>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>> (without
>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>
>>> [In my reduction of biology/evolution I came to the realization that a)
>>> there are First Principles of Physiology- negentropy, chemiosmosis and
>>> homeostasis- and that the first two principles are deterministic, whereas
>>> homeostasis is probabilistic, conferring Free Will because we are free to
>>> be any of a number of states of being depending upon which one provides
>>> the
>>> least 'friction', i.e. allows for the cell to remain at equipoise. The
>>> atom
>>> is similarly in homeostatic balance, the proton and electron balancing one
>>> another. But based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the first three
>>> values
>>> for electron spin are deterministic, whereas the fourth is time-based and
>>> probabilistic. So both the animate and inanimate are both deterministic
>>> and
>>> probabilistic. I think that in both cases the probabilistic component
>>> accommodates Heisenberg, but in the case of life, it resolves the duality
>>> in an on-going manner as evolution.]
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>
>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions of
>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes"
>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>
>>> [All due respect, but I have suggested to Gregg that the 'joints' in his
>>> TOK are the mechanisms that interconnect the 'levels', so there is a
>>> causal
>>> explanation IMHO.....is this reasonable to your way of thinking....not
>>> trying to be a d___k about it because I have interjected a novel way of
>>> thinking about the nature of life that could re-establish causation,
>>> alleviating the angst of the probabilistic 'Cosmic Chill', supplanting it
>>> with causal "Cosmic Thrill' of knowing that we are stardust, a la Sagan.]
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>
>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>
>>> [Am I helping? or just moving the deck chairs? For me, the cell's eye view
>>> is enabling, but that's just me]
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric* technologies,
>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions" require
>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval of
>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>
>>> [I would agree that civilization is a higher level than culture,
>>> particularly if it further facilitates the ability of Man to 'evolve' in
>>> the face of environmental change as the 'rule of thumb'. Of course I hate
>>> that aphorism because as you probably know, it comes from the king of
>>> England ruling that you could only beat your wife with a rod no thicker
>>> than your thumb]
>>>
>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the Bible.
>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no way
>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
>>> cell-cell
>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began my
>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to University
>>> of
>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in the
>>> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>
>>> [I personally find religion to be the mother of all 'just so stories',
>>> particularly since stumbling on to the realization that life originated as
>>> an ambiguity and deception is the way we cope with that ambiguity (I know,
>>> I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating IMHO] In my head, there is a
>>> process by which we move further from belief and closer to knowledge using
>>> science as the leverage. BTW I don't think we'll ever get to the Implicate
>>> because it is an asymptote, but its the journey, not the destination that
>>> counts]
>>>
>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already living
>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This is
>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all of
>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture" from
>>> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain why
>>> that happened.
>>>
>>> [I'm reminded of the joke about the drunk at the end of the bar who yells
>>> out 'All lawyers are assholes', and a guy at the other end of the bar
>>> yells
>>> back 'I resent that remark. It is an insult to us assholes]. In that vein,
>>> I understand how civilization might default back to religion as we did in
>>> the Dark Ages, but I am more in favor of recognizing our fundamental
>>> relationship with the physical world, and that what we call G_d is the
>>> Singularity, which is a secular idea that overarches Original Sin......I
>>> hate that precept because it leads to a fear-based worldview like that of
>>> the Church or Communism. We know scientifically that fear literally breeds
>>> fear....that stress causes elevated cortisol in the mother, which gives
>>> rise to depression in the offspring, which then experiences elevated
>>> cortisol, etc etc etc. That downward spiral kills hope and creativity,
>>> fostering negative thinking and fear. So I would like to think that in the
>>> post-secular world we have the option of understanding our inner workings
>>> as a continuum with the Cosmos, and that the gift of life is in our
>>> ability
>>> to circumvent the Laws of Physics in order to invent and problem
>>> solve......that is the true nature of Man, if only we are open to what we
>>> already know, and can exploit for the betterment of our species,
>>> unctiousness aside]
>>>
>>> We makin' any headway? Or am I just spinin' my wheels? I ask because I see
>>> the light at the end of the tunnel......but it's useless without others
>>> willing to discuss a Plan C.....Plan A being Creationism, Plan B being
>>> Darwinism....I don't think that in general people are considered
>>> alternatives to A or B, assuming that we know all we know, and that
>>> there's
>>> nothing else, which is unfortunate. I have had some preeminent people tell
>>> me that I am basically full of shit....You?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
>>>> highest-level
>>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>>
>>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one most
>>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>>
>>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
>>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.  Indeed,
>>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>>> (without
>>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>>
>>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
>>>> of
>>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>>> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes"
>>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
>>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>>
>>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>>> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
>>>> technologies,
>>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions"
>>>> require
>>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval of
>>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>>
>>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the Bible.
>>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no
>>>> way
>>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>>> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
>>>> cell-cell
>>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began my
>>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to University
>>>> of
>>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in the
>>>> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>>> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>>
>>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>>> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already living
>>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This is
>>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
>>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all of
>>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture" from
>>>> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
>>>> why
>>>> that happened.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>> zon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular
>>>> _dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>> a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DB
>>>> i-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e=
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed in
>>>>
>>>>> the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for  --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
>>>>> *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its
>>>>> relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for
>>>>> instance) . . . !!
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of
>>>>> evolution
>>>>> is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and
>>>>> phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous
>>>>> receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of
>>>>> growth
>>>>> and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in
>>>>> homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life cycle
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell
>>>>> communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite.
>>>>> Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing
>>>>> the
>>>>> production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls of
>>>>> the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause gene
>>>>> mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those
>>>>> genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the
>>>>> homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will
>>>>> remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached,
>>>>> constituting what we
>>>>> think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress', that
>>>>> is
>>>>> how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for
>>>>> communism
>>>>> based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same
>>>>> mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish
>>>>> homeostasis,
>>>>> one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in order
>>>>> to
>>>>> fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I
>>>>> have
>>>>> attached
>>>>> paper of us on the topic fyi.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant)
>>>>>> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of which
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> in a private email).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation."  Instead, it was
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an Armageddon
>>>>>> that would end human biology once-and-for-all.  Marx was a hired-gun by
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually responsible
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> all this nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near"
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local
>>>>>> farmers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an
>>>>>> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd Coming.
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until roughly
>>>>>> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called the
>>>>>> "Axial Age."  Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all the
>>>>>> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> term.  This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>> to return to elaborate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1
>>>>>> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz.  All
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> due time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_
>>>>>> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>>>> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV
>>>>>> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology.
>>>>>> Also
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> topic for future elaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
>>>>>> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=
>>>>>> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for *destroying*
>>>>>> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to
>>>>>> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way of
>>>>>>> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I
>>>>>>> liken
>>>>>>>  it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v Einsteinian,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity is
>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large matter.
>>>>>>> ’tis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral
>>>>>>>> stint. I
>>>>>>>> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen
>>>>>>>> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung development
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the
>>>>>>>> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a
>>>>>>>> bastion
>>>>>>>> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own
>>>>>>>> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the
>>>>>>>> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and
>>>>>>>> chasing
>>>>>>>> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and
>>>>>>>> mundane
>>>>>>>> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given that a
>>>>>>>> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the death
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had
>>>>>>>> said,
>>>>>>>> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I just
>>>>>>>> hadda
>>>>>>>> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own
>>>>>>>> 'sanity'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I
>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through
>>>>>>>> metabolic
>>>>>>>> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each
>>>>>>>> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle. I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to
>>>>>>>> agriculture
>>>>>>>> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and greed
>>>>>>>> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to that
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone
>>>>>>>> leptin,
>>>>>>>> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of
>>>>>>>> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the
>>>>>>>> gut-brain
>>>>>>>> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin and
>>>>>>>> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a
>>>>>>>> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fat
>>>>>>>> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over the
>>>>>>>> gut
>>>>>>>> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the
>>>>>>>> CNS
>>>>>>>> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper (Cochran
>>>>>>>> G,
>>>>>>>> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J
>>>>>>>> Biosoc
>>>>>>>> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that
>>>>>>>> Ashkenazi
>>>>>>>> Jews
>>>>>>>> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing being
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading to
>>>>>>>> pathology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find it
>>>>>>>> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> b)
>>>>>>>> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our
>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> realization that what we think of as evolution are all
>>>>>>>> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a
>>>>>>>> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its
>>>>>>>> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen, which
>>>>>>>> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition.
>>>>>>>> BTW,
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but hasn't
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the
>>>>>>>> Cosmos
>>>>>>>> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be
>>>>>>>> viewed
>>>>>>>> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of
>>>>>>>> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in which
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it backwards,
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with Descartes
>>>>>>>> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain,
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's
>>>>>>>> Vitruvian
>>>>>>>> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The
>>>>>>>> Empathic
>>>>>>>> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a
>>>>>>>> step-wise,
>>>>>>>> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology
>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is buildable- I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic Table
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural sciences....what
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how to
>>>>>>>> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of course I
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on the
>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our salvation,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far as
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>> concerned......John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than
>>>>>>>>> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side) .
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW
>>>>>>>>> faculty.
>>>>>>>>> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only
>>>>>>>>> "ministers"
>>>>>>>>> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a PhD
>>>>>>>>> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of
>>>>>>>>> NSF-funding post-Vietnam.  Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>>> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and
>>>>>>>>> studying
>>>>>>>>> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career on
>>>>>>>>> Wall
>>>>>>>>> Street &c.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its
>>>>>>>>> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to
>>>>>>>>> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> quite a thing yet.  Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all*
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them
>>>>>>>>> (although,
>>>>>>>>> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the
>>>>>>>>> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka
>>>>>>>>> *entelechy*)
>>>>>>>>> and what Leibniz meant by "monad."  Have you had a chance to look at
>>>>>>>>> Leibniz in this way?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs
>>>>>>>>> translates
>>>>>>>>> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality"
>>>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>>> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying to
>>>>>>>>> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological
>>>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.")  Btw, this was Plato's
>>>>>>>>> "World
>>>>>>>>> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his most
>>>>>>>>> famous
>>>>>>>>> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with
>>>>>>>>> Leibniz.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown in
>>>>>>>>> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) --
>>>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>>> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being
>>>>>>>>> celebrated
>>>>>>>>> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta get
>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his
>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a "biological"
>>>>>>>>> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about
>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>> linked to "mutation") . . . !!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this
>>>>>>>>> and,
>>>>>>>>> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today,
>>>>>>>>> theirs
>>>>>>>>> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist
>>>>>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which
>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a
>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness") radically
>>>>>>>>> unlike
>>>>>>>>> our alphabetic one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a
>>>>>>>>> "home"
>>>>>>>>> since the 13th-century).  I remember one day when I was
>>>>>>>>> participating
>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited back).
>>>>>>>>> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in
>>>>>>>>> 307BC
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely
>>>>>>>>> disappearing.  Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and
>>>>>>>>> slandered
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> Bertrand Russell.  There is something psycho-technological about
>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as Spengler
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to
>>>>>>>>> "merge"
>>>>>>>>> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for
>>>>>>>>> "Singularity.")
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the
>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. I
>>>>>>>>>> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the cell
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism
>>>>>>>>>> integrates
>>>>>>>>>> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources'
>>>>>>>>>> .......or
>>>>>>>>>> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely
>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi John and Mark,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about each
>>>>>>>>>>> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the
>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often
>>>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>>> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons
>>>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>>>> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow
>>>>>>>>>>> dwell
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>> --Lonny
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> 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