First off, some minor things you probably already have an editor fo, but
anyway:

On the second page, you have this sentence:

”*A belief is a (mental) representation about a state of affairs that 2)
accurately corresponds to the actual state of affairs (i.e., is true) and
that the representation is 3) legitimized by logic and empirical evidence,
such that the description is judged to be apt and better than alternative
contradictory claims. “*

You meant *justified true belief*, or *knowledge* right?
It seems the definition of mere belief would stop after the word *affairs*.

Page 2, Second:

*“ Ontology refers to the conceptual claim that reality [Exists?]. Thus,
the idea that there is an ontic reality that exists independently of our
beliefs about it is an ontological claim.”*

*(My two cents: Ontology has always seemed more about how to properly model
being than being itself. This seems relevant on page 7, when this sentence
fails to click:*

“ However, scientific empirical epistemology does not address the issue
where the actual problem is, which is* at the level of ontological
reference points in ontic reality....” [huh??] I couldn’t appreciate your
work more on getting this right, but this sentence*

*Page 2, Third:*

“
*There are two broad categories of logical, which are deductive and
inductive.”*

*(*You mean logic, right? Also, I’m surprised no mention of abduction, but
I’m not the expert)

Page 5:

“...*Culture emerges as a novel complex adaptive plane of existence as a
function of information processing and communication systesm that link up
entities to operate on a higher order of organization.”*

Also, the below sentence in bold feels off (culture(s) evolve, or culture
evolve(s)? Or maybe a comma after justification. I’m not pretending to be
an authority here.)

“ *The ToK frames the Person-Culture dimension in terms of the dynamics of
linguistic justification, self-conscious reason giving, and large-scale
ideologies and institutional rule governing structures. As depicted,
Culture, as systems of justification evolve. They evolve from local
indigenous systems, to premodern formal systems, to modern scientific
systems.”*

*Page 7:*

*“We can refer to this as mind . It is different from mind and mind in that
mind3 both pertains to human [experience?] and exists on a different
complex adaptive plane, namely the Person Culture plane of existence.”*

*Page 11:*

*Typo:*

*“ Premodern formal systems of also give rise to another key development in
the evolution of justification systems, which is formal philosophy.”*

*Page 14:*

*Typo:*

*“ Bhaskar’s critical realist ontology bridges social and material
realities with his “four-planar social being” model, which includes the
material plane and transactions with nature, the interpersonal social
plane, the large-scale societal structures and institutions that frame
social interaction and the stratification of the embodied personality. The
lines up strongly with the Updated Tripartite Model. ”*

*Page 19:*

*Typo:*

*“ The ToK map of behavioral kinds is seen in the Periodic Table of
Behavior, which divides behavioral patterns of various entities according
to the levels and dimensions fo complexity that are operative.”*

Page 20:

“*The Unified Framework [is] a new kind of knowledge system.”*


Lastly,

Even though you’ve created a maximally coherent framework with such words
like Metamodern, and maybe the domain of philosophy of will adopt it, I
can’t see laypeople adopting this frame until they see it making emotional
sense or solving their mental and emotional problems.

I’ve been talking about similar concepts, and this most of all, to
laypeople for years, and they don’t see it in their own interest.

It seems like people have an extreme aversion to knowing themselves, and
while this feels like solace and redemption for me, it’s threatening to
others, at least coming from me. This has helped me also as a high power
and future to wonder, participate with, and create. I see data having to do
with this, perhaps rather soon.

Writers are sometimes said to be way ahead of everyone else when it comes
to “what it’s like” for people, but they rarely formalize their intuition.
If someone could map this framework to a rich, emotionally compelling
story, that would be something.

Jamie

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 9:00 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   So I am in the process of writing my book on the Unified Framework. This
> weekend I took the opportunity to sketch out in as plain of language as
> possible for those with some familiarity with the Unified Framework, the
> “Theory of Knowledge” project that is so crucial to the Unified Framework.
> This essay carries the key pieces of the argument that I will be making
> more formally in the book. If folks end up reading it and have thoughts I
> would welcome that. If you would like the essay in a word document, just
> back channel me.
>
>
>
>   As you will see, the basic framing is that the
> modernist/science/Enlightenment project had a profound gap in it that left
> it not being able to be up to the task of generating a successful
> synthetic, consilient scientific humanistic philosophy. The Gap is that we
> lacked broad frames of understanding that effectively addressed and
> clarified, in one system, the relationship between “matter and mind” and
> the relationship between social and scientific knowledge. Failing a proper
> perspective, we could not sort out the complicated issues pertaining to
> ontology, epistemology, and ontic reality and develop an effective,
> comprehensive descriptive metaphysics that allowed for the effective
> organization of scientific knowledge. The failure that stems from the
> Enlightenment Gap is seen perhaps most clearly in the problem of
> psychology. It is, of course, now being seen very consequentially in the
> meaning and mental health crises that stem from the current chaotic
> fragmented pluralistic state of our knowledge. The Unified Framework is
> offered as a system that resolves the Enlightenment Gap, thus setting the
> stage for an Enlightenment 2.0 grounded in a metamodern sensibility and a
> coherent descriptive metaphysical system that is actually up to the task of
> organizing human knowledge in a way that positions us to engage in
> effective sense making and seek wisdom in the context of the emerging
> digital landscape.
>
>
>
>   Love to hear thoughts if you have them.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
> ############################
>
> 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
>
-- 
-Jamie

############################

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