Regarding who, how, what, and why we educate, you need to know that there's
a 'box' in order to think
outside of it......
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> John:
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I remember McCarthyism and shudder at it potential resurgence.
> Your experience with training pediatricians is similar to mine with
> medical students and pathologists.
> For most of them, it appears to be good minds which were somehow “turned
> off.”
> I suspect the metaphysics of our educational system at all levels.
> By the time they are in higher education, and especially graduate
> education, the harm is done.
> The concepts of life-long-learning and autodiactic approach to life are
> mere platitudes.
> I broaden you suggestion of a new paradigm to include who, how, what, and
> why we educate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044 <(503)%20631-8044>
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:12 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Waldemar, I am an immigrant from Eastern Europe. I grew up under
> Macarthyism in New York, being berated by my neighbors for being a
> 'communist', so that was another bad era in our history. But having a
> common enemy in the atheist Soviet Union forced us to act more cohesively
> as a people, particularly after the launch of Sputnik pointed out the
> scientific gap between the US and USSR. I was the academic beneficiary of
> that realization, entering science as a way of advancing society by
> 'knowing what we don't know'. I have continued that quest for my entire
> career, seeking to understand why discoveries in biology and medicine are
> usually serendipitous and counterintuitive. It is only over the course of
> the last 20 years in applying what I have learned about developmental
> physiology that I have been able to understand the process of evolution
> from its origins. However, in training Pediatricians in the scientific
> method to publish original research for their Neonatology Boards, I have
> run up against a brick wall, the students rejecting evolution as a way of
> understanding physiology......sad but true. The epitome of the implosion of
> the american educational system for me is that when the cost of higher
> education is comes up, it is about how much one can earn, not that it
> provides a life-long way of becoming an autodidact. Of course if you read
> Kurt Andersen's "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: a 500-year
> history", he attributes Trump's rise to power to the fundamentalist
> religious origins of this country. So whether it was fighting atheist
> communism or our internal 'enemies' once the Neocons had defeated the USSR,
> it comes down to belief systems. Unfortunately, Darwinism is a belief
> because there's no way to test Natural Selection or Survival of the
> Fittest. Thats' why we need to move on to a different paradigm for
> evolution theory.
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Fantasyland-2DAmerica-2DHaywire-2D500-2DYear-2DHistory-2Debook_dp_B004J4WNJE_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1515027576-26sr-3D1-2D1-26keywords-3Dfantasyland&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9GIezYDUa5Mwg-Z7i__WtfoXkcGLpsygkwML29tcalM&s=rsiQuaqSGgLVD3rHzfjrDTkNJoWGzvMA9T-s2VXzdYU&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Fantasyland-2DAmerica-2DHaywire-2D500-2DYear-2DHistory-2Debook_dp_B004J4WNJE_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1515027576-26sr-3D1-2D1-26keywords-3Dfantasyland&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9GIezYDUa5Mwg-Z7i__WtfoXkcGLpsygkwML29tcalM&s=rsiQuaqSGgLVD3rHzfjrDTkNJoWGzvMA9T-s2VXzdYU&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Fantasyland-2DAmerica-2DHaywire-2D500-2DYear-2DHistory-2Debook_dp_B004J4WNJE_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1515027576-26sr-3D1-2D1-26keywords-3Dfantasyland&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9GIezYDUa5Mwg-Z7i__WtfoXkcGLpsygkwML29tcalM&s=rsiQuaqSGgLVD3rHzfjrDTkNJoWGzvMA9T-s2VXzdYU&e=>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:06 PM, [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> Thank you for the notice of the NYT piece on Higher Ed’s Low Moment. I
>> have had the unfortunate opportunity to watch that unfold during my
>> academic career. I suggest that what is occurring to academia, in this
>> regard, represents the end point of a process whose roots lie in Primary
>> and Secondary education in the United States. Another outcome of this
>> unfolding is, to me, the election of the current president and the painful,
>> daily observation of the associated mental and behavioral dysfunction
>> (which is meant as a clinical observation and not a political statement).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Waldemar
>>
>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> 503.631.8044 <(503)%20631-8044>
>>
>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2018, at 6:32 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Happy 2018 List!
>>
>> Thanks to John for those comments about the academy. I totally agree that
>> new visions of and approaches to knowledge are needed for 2018 and beyond.
>>
>> Thanks to Parisa for her suggestion that I throw a piece of the UTUA
>> puzzle out there for folks to chew on and respond to. This suggestion
>> allows me to move the list into its next phase, following the
>> introductions. My thinking was that we would now start to be focused on a
>> topic that is relevant. I can start us off with a topic or two and then
>> other folks (hopefully) might be interested in taking a topic and leading a
>> discussion on it for a while. (Of course, folks are free to post ideas or
>> questions about any topic at any time).
>>
>> There were a few possibilities I was considering. For example, I was
>> considering walking folks through the “iQuad Entrance,” which was, in many
>> ways, the proximal spark that resulted in igniting the list. But that is
>> pretty long and complicated, so I was thinking that something more
>> straightforward might be better to start this process. So, let’s begin with
>> one of the most central concepts in the ToK/UTUA framework, that of
>> *behavior*.
>>
>> As the psychologists on this list know, “behavior” has a long history in
>> our field. It is one of the early subject matters of psychology; indeed,
>> for behavioral psychologists like Watson, psychology was defined as *the*
>> science of behavior. But, as those familiar with the ToK perspective
>> are aware, this is odd because behavior, at least as it is used in many
>> contexts, is much broader than the focus of psychology. For example, it is
>> not uncommon for scientists to talk about the behavior of atoms, cells, and
>> societies. This point suggests there is something wrong with defining
>> psychology as the science of behavior.
>>
>> The trouble with the concept becomes clearer if we try to classify
>> examples of behavior. Take a moment and consider the extent to which the
>> following events are examples (or not) of behavior. How would you rate them
>> on a scale from 1-5, from definition not behavior to definitely being
>> behavior?
>> (a) a person decides not to go to the movies if it is raining;
>> (b) a beetle is swept away by the current in a river;
>> (c) a spider spins a web;
>> (d) a plant bends toward the sun;
>> (e) geese fly in a V formation;
>> (f) a person’s heartbeat speeds up following a nightmare;
>> (g) algae swim toward food;
>> (h) a rabbit’s fur grows over the summer season;
>> (i) an electron bounces off a magnetic field.
>>
>> Levitis, Lidicker, and Freund (2009) empirically demonstrated that
>> scholars in the behavioral sciences did not have consensus on the extent to
>> which these were examples of “behavior”. They end their article with the
>> following definition of behavior as “the internally coordinated responses
>> of whole living organisms (individuals or groups) to internal or external
>> stimuli, excluding responses more easily understood as developmental
>> changes”.
>>
>> The ToK/UTUA frame adopts a different approach. Tomorrow I will explain
>> what that is. For now, I will simply point out that behavior is one of the
>> most central concepts in all of science. And the Levitis article
>> empirically demonstrates that scientists do not have a good working
>> conception of it. So that is good evidence that this is an important issue
>> to consider and get clear on. The ToK offers a unique perspective on the
>> concept because it divides the universe into four different dimensions of
>> behavioral complexity. Tomorrow I will show how that leads to a new
>> taxonomy of behavior, called the *Periodic Table of Behavior*. This will
>> be a key map in our language game, as it will set the stage for how we
>> consider and talk about the behavior of objects, of organisms, of animals
>> and of people. If this group can achieve consensus on how to think about
>> behavior writ large, that will be an important step in the development of a
>> shared language. So, more on the Periodic Table of Behavior tomorrow.
>>
>> Switching gears, I have been wondering if it might be useful to develop a
>> “test” that one can take to assess one’s familiarity with the ToK/UTUA
>> system. I am attaching a draft of 30 multiple choice questions designed to
>> be at three different levels of knowledge about the system. I would welcome
>> thoughts or feedback about the utility of such an instrument. And I would
>> welcome your own questions if you have suggestions. And I can send answers
>> if you want 😊.
>>
>> Thanks to you all. Here is to hoping for a great 2018.
>>
>> Best,
>> G
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D5edWTlxY3sthn52IxWiVP_tWBFnxLGGledPEfr31hI&s=n0ghnNE8nesV2hfth7GcSx61iiUPYFW9LHyD-ByH0-Q&e=>
>> for Windows 10
>>
>> *From: *JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent: *Sunday, December 31, 2017 2:50 PM
>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>> *Subject: *Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>
>> Dear ToK Listers, just a heads up/New Year's wish from me.....there was
>> an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today by Frank Bruni, entitled "Higher
>> Ed's Low Moment", subtitled "In 2017, America's colleges found themselves
>> on the defensive". The most striking statistic was the result of a recent
>> Pew survey that 'sent shock waves through the world of higher education.
>> Asked if colleges were having a positive or negative effect on America, 58
>> percent of Republicans and conservative-leaning independents said
>> negative. That was up form just 37 percent two years earlier". I find
>> resonance in such sentiments when my peers ask me why I bother to try and
>> determine the cause of disease instead of just making drugs that mask the
>> symptoms......and I tell them that that's not what I got into biomedical
>> research for some 50 years ago. I still think it is feasible to cure
>> disease, and continue to work in that direction, more at the theoretical
>> level nowadays, trying to point out to the medical community that defining
>> disease as the absence of health is archaic in this day and age, for
>> example. But in general I sense a malaise even in the 'Ivory Tower' with
>> regard to creative thinking, which I think is due to confusing knowledge
>> with Information, thinking that there's nothing new under the Sun. I gave a
>> lecture at a prestigious Evolutionary Biology meeting a few years back and
>> was told by one of the leaders in the field of experimental evolution that
>> all that I had said was in Waddington's "Strategy of the Genes". Of course
>> that wasn't true because Waddington had merely described what I had
>> provided mechanisms for, which is the same as the difference between
>> Newton's description of gravity as the attraction of bodies, whereas
>> Einstein explained that gravity was caused by the distortion of the fabric
>> of space-time, offering the opportunity to connect gravity with the other
>> forces of the Cosmos. That's like Mark Twain's comment that the difference
>> between the almost right word & the right word is really a large
>> matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
>>
>> As we move forward with the ToK I hope that we will create lightening!
>> Happy 2018!
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonderful discussion.
>>>
>>> Chance, I thought your analysis was profound and right on target.
>>> Perhaps I can piggy-back off of it and add the following proposal.
>>>
>>> How about we call conventional justification systems “level 1”? This is
>>> the wikiality level of social norms and practices that legitimize the
>>> conventional worldview. As exemplified in the Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes social
>>> psych experiment, it is very fluid and responsive to issues of power,
>>> influence, tradition, social equilibrium and the like. And, as shown by all
>>> the remarkable diversity of worldviews, it is almost endlessly variable.
>>> But, it usually operates according to social influence and the interests
>>> and investments of those in power (until they lose power, and some other
>>> group justifies what is real and good).
>>>
>>> Then, there are more sophisticated, reflective, academic justification
>>> systems, like “science”. Let’s call conventional science a “Level 2”
>>> justification system. The levels here refer to the Explicate – Implicate
>>> dimension that stretches from regular, conventional understanding all the
>>> way to viewing the ultimate reality. Science is a much more systematic,
>>> self-corrective justification system than conventional reality. However,
>>> science has evolved to be a process and a method, a fragmented body of
>>> knowledge and an institution such that it is hard to operate from a
>>> scientific justification system in a broad way, only in the relatively
>>> narrow domains of scientific inquiry. Thus, one can operate from a very
>>> sophisticated perspective in quantum mechanics, but that does not, at the
>>> present, connect in any meaningful way to the Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes
>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> I would like to think that we, on this list, are wondering if there is a
>>> level 3 justification system. That is, can we pull all the
>>> effective/accurate level 2 systems together and see them from a coherent
>>> “meta” view? The ToK/UTUA Framework proposes to be a new kind of scientific
>>> humanistic philosophical justification system that can do this. It is a
>>> proposal to see and operate from the whole scientific humanistic landscape,
>>> from quantum mechanics to how humans justify ingroup-outgroup processes.
>>>
>>> I would also like to say that we can envision what be next, as a level
>>> 4. Examples here would be of “seers” who can get a glimpse of the ultimate
>>> reality beyond the effective organization of level 2, which is what the
>>> ToK/UTUA framework offers as a level 3. For example, John Torday on this
>>> list has a vision of the universe that includes a continuum of
>>> consciousness and an awakening of agency that offers a picture that is
>>> really beyond the ToK/UTUA framework, at least in terms of the nature of
>>> the implicate reality it proposes.
>>>
>>> Of course, no human has (or could ever have) a view of the ultimate,
>>> ultimate reality (remember, there are 130 billion stars in each galaxy and
>>> 100-200 billion galaxies in our universe and maybe many universes—boggles
>>> the capacity of our limited minds). That would be level 5 into 6 and so
>>> forth into God or the Buddhist concept of Emptiness whatever the ultimate,
>>> implicate reality is.
>>>
>>> So, maybe we can use the scale or level of justification approach to
>>> frame where justifications are. That is, are they (1) conventional, (2)
>>> post conventional scientific/advanced, (3) meta-theoretical whole, and (4)
>>> transcendental/mystical (or whatever word would capture the vision)? And I
>>> would think about the levels in terms of size, scope (or breadth and
>>> depth), and in terms of Craig Shealy’s famous reflective aphorism. *Everyone
>>> is full of shit, just to different degrees and different levels of
>>> awareness.*
>>>
>>> I would also add that this has implications for our real world. Our
>>> political/conventional justifications have lost their anchors, have become
>>> split and polarized and now we are seeing a massive and unhealthy tug of
>>> war and chaotic ineffective leadership. Science is too fragmented and now
>>> to polarized to lead toward a healthier meta-justification. Maybe a
>>> wholistic, big TOK could work if it was articulated and shared and marketed
>>> in the right way. I do believe people are confused and looking for sources
>>> of wisdom.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> G
>>>
>>> Sent from Mail
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=crYwr9TKglOtSHlTrLo6q74HG6J4Ko93jk6nhMJP6no&s=_hhYal_hU2mqoIvQ_i1DmE3QOVdyoXeI_kuHEwkzH2A&e=>
>>> for Windows 10
>>>
>>> *From: *Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent: *Friday, December 29, 2017 10:00 PM
>>>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject: *Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>>
>>>
>>> Waldemar:
>>>
>>> I am happy to define the concept and am glad that you asked. For me,
>>> meta-reality is the intentional awareness that we each exist in a personal
>>> Plato's Cave, and that, at the justification level of complexity, reality
>>> is defined by what a powerful majority agrees it is.
>>>
>>> The famous Brown-eyes/Blue-eyes experiment conducted by Jane Elliott
>>> illustrates the way in which humans can rapidly attach personal meaning to
>>> arbitrary features and then organize their behavior around the new symbolic
>>> meaning with intense focus and drive. In her experiment, she was able to
>>> get blue-eyed young children to bully the brown-eyed children by claiming
>>> that blue-eyed children were better. Then she flipped the script and said,
>>> "Turns out that brown-eyed kids are better," and the Brown-eyed children
>>> began to bully the blue-eyed children.
>>>
>>> The adult version of the first half of this kind of experiment was, of
>>> course, replicated in Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment, where even
>>> Zimbardo himself allegedly became lost in the fantasy of the experiment in
>>> his role as the prison warden.
>>>
>>> More colloquially, back in 2007 I met the woman who coined the term
>>> "wikiality" for the Colbert Report, a show that was on Comedy Central for a
>>> while. It is the idea that cultural reality is popularly determined, with
>>> the mechanism of wikipedia's community editing feature used as the
>>> metaphorical basis for the term.
>>>
>>> In reference to the Bohm frame mentioned earlier, our desire to better
>>> determine the implicate (deeper, actual process) versus the explicate (our
>>> folk understanding) version of what happening in any given situation should
>>> be enhanced by the awareness of this phenomenon of wikiality, or, in UTUA
>>> terminology, the Justification Hypothesis.
>>>
>>> I am curious about your reaction to either the concept or my attempt to
>>> define it, and am wondering if anything above was interesting or
>>> controversial.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> -Chance
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM, [log in to unmask] <kok
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chance:
>>>>
>>>> I am the novice here.
>>>> Please, would you define what you mean by “meta-reality?”
>>>> I am not questioning you, I just want to understand.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Waldemar
>>>>
>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>>> 503.631.8044 <(503)%20631-8044>
>>>>
>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Happy Holidays, ToK group!
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, I was excited to experience the depth content in this thread
>>>> so far. I found myself wanting to jump in and dialogue at several points
>>>> within each email, and I imagine others may share the same wondering about
>>>> where to start and what to focus on.
>>>>
>>>> *Parisa*, It's good to hear from you! I imagine many have personal
>>>> ambitions, interests, and agendas, and my own for this thread is to read
>>>> the perspectives of others who are aware of and sensitive to a meta-reality
>>>> frame of being. I get a great happy *charge* when I'm around other
>>>> people who think and question at this particular level.
>>>>
>>>> What makes this thread special beyond the shared perceptual frequency
>>>> is the unknown yield from the technical level of discussion. If the goal
>>>> is to get a clear and effective model of how the Universe works, then the
>>>> better get at sharing information and insights between one another, the
>>>> faster the model will come into focus and become internalized.
>>>>
>>>> *Allie*, I thoroughly enjoyed your process message. I felt a
>>>> hesitancy to reply at first because I became aware of the different roles
>>>> we have acted out in our time together as students. I usually rely on "in
>>>> the moment" facial cues and energetic feel to determine what role I take,
>>>> and so email can be a challenge for me when engaging in process over text
>>>> and with an audience I am growing to become familiar with. That said, your
>>>> message about how I might respond to your presence reminded me of the
>>>> Edward Bradford Titchener club, which was an exclusive group created in the
>>>> early 20th century for male psychologists to informally share research
>>>> ideas, smoke cigars, and build friendships. My understanding is that a
>>>> female psychologist fought to gain acceptance into the club, which
>>>> henceforth became more inclusive. I also liked your comment about the
>>>> exchange frame, as I have read that women are more prepared to adopt a
>>>> relational and communal perspective on reality due to the intense
>>>> experience of childbirth.
>>>>
>>>> *Garry Brill*,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote that:
>>>>
>>>> *Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover
>>>> objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for
>>>> understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior
>>>> and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their
>>>> constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture,
>>>> relationships, and experiences.*
>>>>
>>>> I continue to struggle with exactly what you wrote, and I think this is
>>>> one of the challenges that Gregg's theory faces in terms of its
>>>> accessibility. The implication is that we as humans are, literally, making
>>>> all of us this up. And yet I'm also typing symbols on keys that are
>>>> sending frequencies into outer space, a google machine learning algorithm,
>>>> and then to you. So clearly science is moving ahead with or without us. *To
>>>> me, that means that, more than ever, the institutions of
>>>> knowledge themselves must be studied with the awareness of the mechanism
>>>> and bias you describe above*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Chance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Parisa Montazeri <000000c357f84f4e-dm
>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Team ToK!
>>>>>
>>>>> My name is Parisa and I'm a former (but perpetual:) student of
>>>>> Gregg's.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm working as a contract clinical psychologist with the US Air Force
>>>>> (in England).
>>>>> We work most with trauma, anxiety, and/or depression; but, what I
>>>>> think is neat, and hopeful, is that no matter the diagnosis, there are
>>>>> common things that connect us all. In that: Power - the feeling of being
>>>>> competent, purposeful, and effective in our work and our ability to provide
>>>>> resources and safety; Love - being able to have relationships where we can
>>>>> laugh and love and feel loved and that we belong, and then to also be free
>>>>> of such connections. Meaning: Freedom - knowing life is a huge
>>>>> interconnected system, but also wanting to be free of this to some degree;
>>>>> feeling autonomous and that life is not just a series of obligations.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all transparency, Love, Power, and Freedom are also what I did my
>>>>> dissertation on (Gregg's *Influence Matrix*), but I happen to believe
>>>>> in them and see them play out each day. I'm also interested in the
>>>>> mind-body connection, and how approaches such as functional medicine guide
>>>>> us to view people as whole and complex system that can heal (vs. diagnoses
>>>>> and symptoms). We live in a giant system, but we also are a giant system
>>>>> (inside:).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always appreciated Gregg giving us ways to conceptualize, whether
>>>>> it be cases, people, or the world. ToK/UTUA promises to be the ultimate in
>>>>> a grand way to think about... well... everything. But where do we start?
>>>>> Isn't a grand theory of everything a kind religion for scientists? In that,
>>>>> a narrative for how things have come to be, what are place is in the world,
>>>>> etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a more concrete goal here? Do we think people will stop
>>>>> fighting and hurting each other as much if they had more of a bird's eye
>>>>> view of things? Or is stopping discontent not even the goal; but, rather,
>>>>> the goal is to not feel so alone if we understood how we're all connected
>>>>> in a larger narrative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy Holidays gang, and I'm glad to be a part of this!
>>>>> :) Parisa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 24, 2017 3:48 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy Christmas Eve, TOK!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope everyone has a good holiday. Thanks, Ali, for your personal
>>>>> introduction. For those on this list who are not clinicians, we
>>>>> clinicians often make a distinction between "content" and "process" talk,
>>>>> with content being about whatever topics are at hand and process being
>>>>> about the "how" of the relationship exchange, as in "How am I feeling? What
>>>>> is my place in this? What are the implied power dynamics?; How would I like
>>>>> it to go?" etc. Given that many of us are clinicians, I am glad that you,
>>>>> Ali, have opened up this kind of talk for us with your introduction. I
>>>>> think it is very appropriate to the scientific and humanistic enterprise in
>>>>> which we are engaged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to many interesting content and process discussions
>>>>> going forward!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>>>>> Professor
>>>>> Director, C-I Doc Program
>>>>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>>>>> 216 Johnston Hall
>>>>> MSC 7401
>>>>> James Madison University
>>>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>>>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>>>>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>>>>
>>>>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Kq54PUhd_Z5nHDQ0vuzgGzuUZ0BuJL5xM_9bP7cJ-_M&s=1yvMwQFh4UqmFFso1Rd9ZY2PJZoIn3hUEJ2BiOKZ0Mw&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D9RO4Gbw932rIbRvrSZrouvc_ZmbJ3xfGhGt_-KA9k4&s=AXwZUVS4uAIm-6H-RScoDRId1D3AE6nMAkRigmXVLFU&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kenny, Alexis Catherine
>>>>> - kennyac (Dukes)
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 23, 2017 2:04 PM
>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>>>>
>>>>> ToK Society,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good winter afternoon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find myself leaning toward writing in more of a stream of conscious
>>>>> style as a new/young mother and "non-traditional" psychology graduate
>>>>> student at James Madison University's Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why so many identifiers you may ask? Because I'm an
>>>>> interpersonally-detailed individual I suppose...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious (not sensitively curious or curious in a loaded manner in
>>>>> a way that could potentially make people (men?) feel uncomfortable,
>>>>> but just curious) about the space I take up in this conversation as a
>>>>> young woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I have found a professional home as a clinical psychologist
>>>>> in-training, I will be forever informed by and grateful to my humanities
>>>>> education (English and Spanish undergraduate majors, and a master's
>>>>> degree in Theology).
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, being a new parent has transformed my world as a human being,
>>>>> a complicated and beautifully-laden metamorphosis centered
>>>>> on relationality and the significance of its "exchange frame."
>>>>>
>>>>> So...identifiers, that's right. I share some of mine with you as I
>>>>> think they pigment the way in which I shall color this conversation with my
>>>>> (as is everyone's) uniquely tinted paintbrush.
>>>>>
>>>>> As student of Gregg's (and a participant of this listersev), I imagine
>>>>> myself as a Macy's Day Parade balloon handler, a little person holding
>>>>> tightly onto a rope attached to an entity so large and so grand, that for
>>>>> me to keep my feet on the ground requires creative effort; efforts usually
>>>>> driven by a need to make the intellectually abstract meaningful from a
>>>>> certain relational role at a particular moment in time (a mother
>>>>> entertaining her child with finger puppets, a therapist trainee unpacking a
>>>>> salient dream with a client (could use your help here Chance!), a wife
>>>>> trying to support her husband's professional development, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> I do hope that my introduction does not throw conversations already
>>>>> being had, my intent is not to stymie "thought progress" by any means.
>>>>> Rather, I want to know you all (while acknowledging and honoring the
>>>>> limitations a part of such virtual and content-specific exchanges), and
>>>>> look forward to working together as we take the fruits of intellect and
>>>>> share its sustenance with all others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Merry Christmas (for me) and Merry ____________ (for others)!
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmly,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ali
>>>>>
>>>>> *Alexis (Ali) Kenny*, M.A.
>>>>> Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Candidate
>>>>> Division 52 - International Psychology: Membership Committee, Student
>>>>> Representative
>>>>> James Madison University - Harrisonburg, VA
>>>>> email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *De:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> en nombre de Henriques, Gregg -
>>>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> *Enviado:* viernes, diciembre 22, 2017 8:53:24 AM
>>>>> *Para:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>> *Asunto:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>> I would like to offer a quick reply to Gary, because he raises and
>>>>> important point about "factoring out language games". The meaning of this
>>>>> was not fully articulated in my opening. I was meaning in a "weak sense";
>>>>> that is, by using the Justification Hypothesis to see how processes of
>>>>> justification emerge and picture provided by the ToK, then one can account
>>>>> for the (many) of the biases and blind spots that drive language games. I
>>>>> agree that a strong meaning would (such that there would be no language
>>>>> games, would be confusing and not workable). As I have been clear in
>>>>> my writing (e.g., Henriques, 2011), I see my system as a "justification
>>>>> system," as are all human linguistic propositional systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also say that I would place the ToK/UTUA framework at large
>>>>> in the language game of philosophy, as opposed to science, per se. I just
>>>>> started to listen to the book, The Story of Philosophy (
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DP&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Kq54PUhd_Z5nHDQ0vuzgGzuUZ0BuJL5xM_9bP7cJ-_M&s=fcAk38BwFvc3vyNx38ajFfkelWxi4ScteVhb2DSv7Wg&e=
>>>>> hilosophers/dp/0671739166
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DPhilosophers_dp_0671739166&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=3a7MTuLlKxLp5jq-LjQ8RthsKQd3XlvAgsggwK9yvIA&e=>).
>>>>> It opens with a call for philosophical thinking that is very much in the
>>>>> spirit of this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>>>>> Professor
>>>>> Director, C-I Doc Program
>>>>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>>>>> 216 Johnston Hall
>>>>> MSC 7401
>>>>> James Madison University
>>>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>>>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>>>>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>>>>
>>>>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Kq54PUhd_Z5nHDQ0vuzgGzuUZ0BuJL5xM_9bP7cJ-_M&s=1yvMwQFh4UqmFFso1Rd9ZY2PJZoIn3hUEJ2BiOKZ0Mw&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=7D7WPOcAqQcEB1QRY_sfyHdz1CVeG6y0Ud8kIs3E7J4&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of nysa71 <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 22, 2017 8:08 AM
>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello ToK Society,
>>>>>
>>>>> My name is Jason Bessey. I've been interested in the ToK (since it was
>>>>> first brought to my attention by Steve Quackenbush) and been corresponding
>>>>> with Gregg about it for over a decade now since I was a Psychology
>>>>> under-grad. I have a general interest in the social sciences, and have been
>>>>> particularly interested in macroeconomic issues in recent years. I hope to
>>>>> learn from this group and contribute to it, at least in some small way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy Holidays,
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, December 21, 2017, 4:59:24 PM EST, Gary Brill <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings ToK-Society List,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is Gary Brill, recently retired from the Rutgers psychology
>>>>> faculty. I've been interested in the Tree of Knowledge System for several
>>>>> years and have been following its development into the UTUA framework and
>>>>> Metaphysical Empiricism.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Gregg knows, I have strong enthusiasm for the potential of these
>>>>> ideas, but I also have a number of questions and objections. For now, I
>>>>> will limit my comments to an important theme in Gregg's opening
>>>>> introduction to the list (one that Chance McDermott also touched upon in an
>>>>> earlier posting): the notion of "factoring out human language games."
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg states that factoring out language games will leave behind the
>>>>> "picture of the universe offered by the Tree of Knowledge System." But if
>>>>> science (along with religion, law, societal customs, etc.) is a
>>>>> justification systems and if justification systems are language games (as
>>>>> stated in the opening introduction), then "factoring out language games"
>>>>> factors out science itself. Nothing is left behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the ToK/UTUA must be conceptualized as situatied
>>>>> *within* the language game of science. And if that is the case, then there
>>>>> still remains the need to address various tough criticisms of the
>>>>> scientific approach to psychology, criticisms that have been leveled both
>>>>> by philosophers (e.g., Charles Taylor) and theoretical psychologists (e.g.,
>>>>> Brent Slife, Frank Richardson, and many others).
>>>>>
>>>>> Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover
>>>>> objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for
>>>>> understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior
>>>>> and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their
>>>>> constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture,
>>>>> relationships, and experiences.
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider the ToK/UTUA a very good attempt at framing things within
>>>>> the science language game, but I don't see how it can be justified on the
>>>>> basis of it being what is left when language games are factored out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Gregg for establishing this group and happy holidays to all,
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>> ############################
>>
>> 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 <UTUA Test.docx>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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-bi
>> n/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
|
