Hey Gregg,

Nice to hear from you. Again, the mammals, primates, and humans statement
was referring to Brandon’s earlier message (not to you, personally). I
understand where you’re coming from. However, if the K in TOK stands for
Knowledge, your reliance on conjecture is misleading.

I may not wholly understand the TOK/UTOK, but given recurring questions on
the forum, apparently, neither do you. You don’t explain the joint points,
or the culmination of the model, and even now, I’m unsure what questions
the TOK actually answers. I understand the model was intended as a
metastructure to engage discussion. However, by invoking physical reality,
you are beholden to certain rules. Despite declarations to the contrary,
none of us is entitled to our own model of science and reality.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_startswithabang_2021_01_26_the-2Ddream-2Dof-2Dstring-2Dtheory-2Dis-2Dan-2Dunlikely-2Dbroken-2Dbox_amp_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=74oPyOcVdcgGZV8CPnI6PBWWMH6wDzricHZEgDo5ktM&s=we079V3lTsuyu_3AYQ4dUxI9iGDeeQwhpcJDOeLQ1e8&e= 

You may be focused on exchanges you feel productive, and I don’t begrudge
you that. However, if productivity is measured in results, aside from the
number of discussions and publications, I don’t see much progress. You may
disagree, but reality has the final say.

Eric



On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Eric,
>
>   You have an interesting view and I have found some of your ideas, such
> as the focus on symmetry breaking, helpful. However, it has been made
> repeatedly clear to me that you just do not “get” the model of science and
> reality being offered by the ToK System and the joint points, nor the
> larger UTOK philosophy. The latest comment about when you said “mammals,
> primates, and humans are not the only organisms with minds, the alternative
> [to the ToK System] is more inclusive” is just the most recent example of
> obviously failing to grasp what I am saying. Thanks to Greg T for
> highlighting that.
>
>
>
> I am a busy guy and I need to be focused on exchanges that are productive.
> So, that is why I frequently don’t reply to your comments or questions. No
> disrespect, but I just need to be focused.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *easalien
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:32 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK RE: the place for Philosophy in the ToK system /
> knower vs known
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hey Greg,
>
>
>
> The articles I linked do not disprove the TOK; They were responding to
> Brandon’s assertion that the Brain—necessary, not sufficient—is preeminent
> in our determination of consciousness. Much of the TOK, I find agreeable.
> However, the inconsistent joint-point mechanisms and indeterminacy are
> easily resolved by viewing the TOK from a “top-down” perspective:
>
>
>
>
>
> Consciousness as a black hole analog treating Mind/Body Separation as an
> event horizon predicated on Memory, i.e. Relativity of Experience. Conforms
> to standard interpretation of physics, both Quantum Mechanics and General
> Relativity.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:12 AM Greg Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> What is this so-called "alternative framework"?
>
>
>
> And how do the articles (and book) you linked to disprove Gregg's ToK,
> especially the Six Principles of Behavioral Investment Theory, the joint
> point between Life and Mind, as posited in his 2011 book or thereafter?
>
>
>
> Greg Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 1:28 PM easalien <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hey Brandon,
>
>
>
> Your point is taken. However, given the brain doesn’t exist in isolation,
> it’s more appropriate to see it as an extension of biology than its own own
> separate existence. As a relatively recent evolutionary advancement, giving
> it the smallest region seems appropriate, ie more cell activity in the
> universe than brain activity. The historical consideration that identity
> resides in a single organ neglects the interconnectedness of systems,
> demonstrated by recent discovery of an independent nervous system in the
> gut:
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican.com_article_gut-2Dsecond-2Dbrain_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=74oPyOcVdcgGZV8CPnI6PBWWMH6wDzricHZEgDo5ktM&s=JlsjNbngFCdm4v27zpRTZZfwMSD2PfUhTtcOziqEyRo&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican.com_article_gut-2Dsecond-2Dbrain_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_xUDw0s4KHc-XnB5SULVDA2ieIrFH3jRfC8CseGxOSo&s=CZ5Xs4QP5ANQiQ90-H1yx2mUrchtf8VSUYXi3LgD8zU&e=>
>
>
>
> Gregg’s TOK is an accomplishment in its own right, and it’s initially why
> I reached out to him. However, it possesses some persistent problems that
> aren’t solved. The alternative framework remedies those theoretical
> shortcomings (as well as others, e.g., Quantum Gravity). As mammals,
> primates, and humans are not the only organisms with minds, the alternative
> is more inclusive.
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.smithsonianmag.com_smart-2Dnews_do-2Dcrows-2Dpossess-2Dform-2Dconsciousness-2D180975940_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=74oPyOcVdcgGZV8CPnI6PBWWMH6wDzricHZEgDo5ktM&s=GosRZAE9MgUP8iX9sX7jsE4St3iDNSlYgqI3QMzfpVw&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.smithsonianmag.com_smart-2Dnews_do-2Dcrows-2Dpossess-2Dform-2Dconsciousness-2D180975940_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_xUDw0s4KHc-XnB5SULVDA2ieIrFH3jRfC8CseGxOSo&s=6i0YxtbnESciO8tnF5hxkGwdmBu2ZhL5cdsMc05Ab5k&e=>
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nationalgeographic.com_animals_2020_12_honeybees-2Duse-2Dtools-2Ddung-2Drepels-2Dgiant-2Dhornets_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=74oPyOcVdcgGZV8CPnI6PBWWMH6wDzricHZEgDo5ktM&s=bgv2Q-J3iDPRNSejWwjU2IgMxJGaQ0A6hxbhjPfyo3Y&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nationalgeographic.com_animals_2020_12_honeybees-2Duse-2Dtools-2Ddung-2Drepels-2Dgiant-2Dhornets_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_xUDw0s4KHc-XnB5SULVDA2ieIrFH3jRfC8CseGxOSo&s=cM_5CUUynTuqDwaIrEUalnEWM1UegidHKb2wZ85YEVc&e=>
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pwb.princeton.edu_2020_11_02_weirdly-2Dmonkeys-2Dkeep-2Ddomesticating-2Dthemselves-2Dhuh_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=74oPyOcVdcgGZV8CPnI6PBWWMH6wDzricHZEgDo5ktM&s=FthufopEYIl421-rAYDS_bYC_O3_IscpQzdE5Ot76y8&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pwb.princeton.edu_2020_11_02_weirdly-2Dmonkeys-2Dkeep-2Ddomesticating-2Dthemselves-2Dhuh_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_xUDw0s4KHc-XnB5SULVDA2ieIrFH3jRfC8CseGxOSo&s=nzvTmc2RV4p89OXweR0aMptOogcIa05ctqj3W78yA7M&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> P.S. Instead of donuts, the model is more appropriately smaller circles
> resting on top of larger ones (insufficient shadowing showing depth)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:56 PM Brandon Norgaard <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Looks like this disk graphic could be seen as a perspective on ToK except
> that it has only in a small corner of the “biology” donut the word
> “brain”.  If that was expanded out to its own donut, with perhaps some of
> the major milestones in the evolutionary development of the mind (mammal,
> primate, human) then it would be more analogous to Gregg’s ToK.
>
>
>
> Brandon Norgaard
>
> *Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project*
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *easalien
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 30, 2021 2:38 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK RE: the place for Philosophy in the ToK system /
> knower vs known
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hey Andrea,
>
>
>
> I share similar concerns. The proliferation of narratives absent
> justification seems to be the metaphysical problem of our times. TOK falls
> into similar fallacy when employing its broad classifications. Obviously
> mathematics, physics, and science operate as subsets of philosophy.
> However, the lack of a consistent separating mechanism renders things fuzzy
> and circuitous.
>
>
>
> There’s an asymmetry in this case that applies more generally. For
> example, we can have philosophy w/o science, but can we have science w/o
> philosophy? As science requires a specific philosophical paradigm, the
> answer is no. There is an ordered dependence—similar to how biology
> requires specific chemistry—that can only happen chronologically.
>
>
>
> To address this, I’ve mentioned Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, e.g. Big
> Bang, on previous occasions. It’s a recurring physical process describing
> broken balances: why there’s something over nothing (Big Bang), matter over
> antimatter (Baryogenesis), and left-handed amino acids over right
> (Homochirality). If Mind is simply another broken symmetry (Memory),
> philosophy applies in the following manner (left margin):
>
>
>
>
>
> This is my own rendering of TOK using a “top-down” perspective.
>
>
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> According to your model, you cite “String Theory?” and “Parallel
> Universes?” as tentative placeholders. However, this doesn’t solve the
> initial problem of indeterminacy or address their respective shortcomings,
> i.e. Crisis in Physics. The problem with applying hierarchy to science
> occurs when, for example, atomic theory can apply to any arbitrary region
> of the universe or if humanity’s biomass surpasses Earth’s by becoming an
> interstellar species. The fact you had to list physics twice is precisely
> the problem of Quantum Gravity (how to incorporate singularities). TOK
> seems unable to address these concerns in its current iteration.
>
>
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 5:40 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
>
>
>   Great questions.  The ToK System maps (a) the ontic reality in the form
> of the four planes of existence (i.e., Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture) and
> it maps how (b) Modern, Empirical Natural Science (i.e., MENS Knowledge)
> maps reality, both in terms of how it (i) *currently *maps physics to the
> material dimension and life to the biological dimension and how it (ii)
> *should* map basic psychology to Mind and the social sciences to the
> Culture-Person plane of existence. This argument is bolstered by the PTB
> 12 floor depiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_the-2D12-2Dfloors-2Dof-2Dscience-2D9c2c485df315&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_Vp-d2ybIgsQdWHRDyTe518MRb7mOiDPwsszQ5V7hvc&s=cCYKLYugG9VXIVWql_S3XJEkVdi9lviwvS9eC21WJZI&e=>.
> This is central to my “Psychology Defined” argument, which explains that
> the institution of Psychology maps onto (1) basic psychology, (2) human
> psychology and (3) professional psychology.
>
>
>
>   Now, to your question. Philosophy *per se* is not depicted on the ToK
> System. Philosophy means many, many different things and thus represents
> lots of kinds/threads of justification. That said, we can locate it in the
> Culture-Person plane of existence. If we follow Lene Rachel Andersen’s
> Metamodernity classification scheme, which I am wont to do, we
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201910_5-2Dphases-2Din-2Dthe-2Devolution-2Dhuman-2Dcultural-2Dsensibilities&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_Vp-d2ybIgsQdWHRDyTe518MRb7mOiDPwsszQ5V7hvc&s=GkavJcdOhIPCG3k80D8DOsHgCrwa_n3O-rIjBCM66f4&e=>
> can divide the Culture-Person plane into four different epochs of
> justification systems or sensibilities: (1) oral-indigenous; (2)
> traditional, formal (pre-modern); (3) modern…which is when
> empirical/experimental science pops as a kind of justification system and
> (4) postmodern. Where is philosophy here? That depends on how you define
> it. But generally in (2). We have first the bronze age, then the axial age
> in this period. Modern philosophies generally have their roots in the Axial
> age.
>
>
>
> Now if we are concerned with MENS knowledge and want to understand the
> philosophy branch that lead up to that, we can trace that rather clearly.
> This is the Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian “Western Mind” lineage (see Tarnas
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thriftbooks.com_w_the-2Dpassion-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dwestern-2Dmind-2Dunderstanding-2Dthe-2Dideas-2Dthat-2Dhave-2Dshaped-2Dour-2Dworld-2Dview-5Frichard-2Dtarnas_251634_item_2353213_-3Fmkwid-3D-257cdc-26pcrid-3D475040327171-26pkw-3D-26pmt-3D-26slid-3D-26plc-3D-26pgrid-3D113312445778-26ptaid-3Dpla-2D987469527739-26gclid-3DCjwKCAiAudD-5FBRBXEiwAudakX2P42GuV-5FPLN1z5KYm8NvdPN1wUSqGnTcqibGufPbOGgsCM2N6d8yBoC7-5FAQAvD-5FBwE-23idiq-3D2353213-26edition-3D2363598&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_Vp-d2ybIgsQdWHRDyTe518MRb7mOiDPwsszQ5V7hvc&s=AhxFzoeQi9UlGnepsFCNR19Kkkb-z4wujqA0fcmGFfQ&e=>).
>
>
>
>
> Here we want to understand first the emergence of mathematics (see this
> Wolfram history for those who are really curious
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__soundcloud.com_stephenwolfram_a-2Dvery-2Dbrief-2Dhistory-2Dof-2Dmathematics&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_Vp-d2ybIgsQdWHRDyTe518MRb7mOiDPwsszQ5V7hvc&s=3ZJDsVPoIH5aAhsE_PawwXwgGkc3UNsZoYIdzo-5MC4&e=>).
> In the Greek tradition, we then get the Pythagoreans. They were crucial
> because what the Pythagoreans show is that they can use the language of
> math to decode features of nature. This is one of the first real advances
> that would become modern science. Then we get the Socrates, Plato,
> Aristotle jump. This is the birth of Western philosophy proper. What we
> get, in essence, with Socrates is the birth of formal epistemology. This is
> the analytic analysis of justification. He uses the development of the
> pre-Socratics and his famous method” to deconstruct the social-pragmatic
> processes of justification and shows how they are wanting. He is a wise man
> because he realizes he knows essentially nothing when he applies the more
> sophisticated methods of epistemology to the knowledge systems of the day.
> Then we get Plato, who claims to be able to climb out of the cave of
> appearances. He finds the ultimate forms of God that are the True essences
> of reality. This is the ontology of Platonic idealism. Aristotle disagrees
> and sees forms as a function of mapping the material universe. This is the
> ontology of Aristotle’s materialism. As such, what you see here is the
> birth of Western philosophy, in terms of formal epistemology and deep
> disputes about the ultimate nature of reality (materialism versus forms).
> This is the ground of justification that sets the stage for modern science.
>
>
>
> Modern science is different in how it works to frame the relationship
> between the subjective knower and the object of inquiry. Specifically, the
> processes of quantification, measurement and experimentation allow for a
> greater degree of “transcendent realism”. That is, a greater degree of
> objectivity, which in part is achieved by methods that factor out the
> unique “qualitative” “subjective” perspective of the specific, idiographic
> knower. I used to refer to this idea as the “anti-knower” function of MENS.
> Think here of “double blind” research designs.
>
>
>
> Here is a graphic depiction:
>
>
>
> One final point here re the relationship between the formal sciences of
> math and logic and the modern empirical natural sciences mapped by the ToK,
> you can see the distinction here:
>
>
>
> Note that the 0s and 1s that run down the center of the first diagram
> correspond to the formal sciences (i.e., the fact that they are mapped by
> the deductive and quantitative rules of logic and math)
>
>
>
> This is the snapshot. There is much more that can be said. It might be an
> interesting dialogos to do. That is, we could tape a conversation on these
> issues.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Andrea Zagaria
> *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* the place for Philosophy in the ToK system / knower vs known
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi ToKers,
>
> This morning, I found myself wondering about the place for philosophy in
> the ToK system. I recently read a Gregg's blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_the-2Ddistinction-2Dbetween-2Dthe-2Dnatural-2Dand-2Dsocial-2Dsciences-2Das-2Dfound-2Din-2Dthe-2Dvision-2Dlogic-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dtree-2Dea68ff57595e&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7i-ve2A8II8cn5SUPgGKwXsbU2-Q0FidQfOwpbCq4oU&s=KXYQukTNFANTsgFOZ0ANb72vIxfnGvgPLqna4pWyuKg&e=> that
> states that philosophy and history cannot be placed in the ToK system.
>
> I won't consider history and the humanities for now, but I have a need to
> somehow place philosophy in the ToK. If mathematics is a formal science
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Formal-5Fscience&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7i-ve2A8II8cn5SUPgGKwXsbU2-Q0FidQfOwpbCq4oU&s=a3LPMzMigmmK-wzRaLTKz0sN2VOR3ODTTP7RkjQj_7w&e=>
> which encompasses all ToK "planes of complexity" from physics to culture
> (it is actually the language of science), what is the place for philosophy?
> Epistemology and philosophy of science (not philosophy per se, but an
> important branch of it) can be considered as the lens through which the ToK
> can be seen? Are they "external" to the system, are they a product of
> knowledge (created by the knower) that can not be directly figured out in
> the system of the known?
>
>
> As you may guess from my last question, I have an intuition that this
> issue is   entangled with the relationship between the known and the
> knower, which is one of the few ToK topics I still can not get my head
> around. So I have a first explicit question about the place for Philosophy
> in the ToK system which has in it a second implicit question about the
> relationship between the knower and the known. Gregg or others: if you have
> relevant literature/blogs/videos about the relationship between the known
> and the knower from ToK's perspective I'd really appreciate it. I read
> something about here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_the-2D10-2Dcore-2Dprinciples-2Dthat-2Dframe-2Dthe-2Dutok-2Dgarden-2Dphilosophy-2D6358e996bd1f&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7i-ve2A8II8cn5SUPgGKwXsbU2-Q0FidQfOwpbCq4oU&s=saK7Ug210052NJ5n-29ZwafXiaIHM-HP2EZTFZYf1rc&e=> and
> in other ToK's essays but I did not understand it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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