Gregg writes: "Jason, do you get the sense that Pepper incorporates a theory of the metaphysician into his analysis?"
Sure. The metaphysician has to select a root metaphor, if only implicitly. An interesting psychological question --- or perhaps psycho-epistemological question --- is why would someone select one metaphor over another, even if only unconsciously? What makes one root metaphor more preferable than the other?
The ToK isn't a metaphysical theory. It's a psychology theory. And any psychology theory (or any scientific theory) is necessarily grounded in a set of metaphysical assumptions whether the theorist recognizes that or not.. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.
Associating each World Hypothesis with each of the four dimensions in the ToK is simply a Formistic approach, (i.e., it's metaphor of similarity).
~ Jason On Thursday, February 8, 2018, 6:16:52 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
#yiv1826624611 #yiv1826624611 -- _filtered #yiv1826624611 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1826624611 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1826624611 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1826624611 #yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611MsoNormal, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611MsoNormal, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 a:link, #yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1826624611 a:visited, #yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611msonormal0, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611msonormal0, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611msonormal0, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611msonormal0, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611msonormal, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611msonormal, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611msohyperlink {}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611emailstyle19 {}#yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611msonormal1, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611msonormal1, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1826624611 p.yiv1826624611msonormal01, #yiv1826624611 li.yiv1826624611msonormal01, #yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611msonormal01 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611emailstyle191 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1826624611 span.yiv1826624611EmailStyle30 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1826624611 .yiv1826624611MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv1826624611 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1826624611 div.yiv1826624611WordSection1 {}#yiv1826624611
Jason writes: ~~ I don't think it's a question of whether or not "the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK". I think it's more along the line of "Which world hypothesis is the ToK-as-a-whole grounded in, if only implicitly?"
~ Jason, do you get the sense that Pepper incorporates a theory of the metaphysician into his analysis? I don’t. Although he recognizes that such knowledge is about knower-known relations, he does not have a theory of both knower and known that he is operating from. That is the beauty of the ToK.
So, I think it is a good question to ask. And, I see the various metaphors as reflective of human cognition, which in turn are a function of the different dimensions of complexity.
The ToK is bigger than the separate world hypotheses…
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 7:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
Gregg writes: "I kept asking myself whether the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK or not."
~~ I don't think it's a question of whether or not "the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK". I think it's more along the line of "Which world hypothesis is the ToK-as-a-whole grounded in, if only implicitly?"
Gregg: "First, it absolutely is clear to me that impulse that drove the construction of the ToK was an organismic impulse."
~~ Interesting. Steve, as I recall, thought of it as consolidated mechanism. Should make for an interesting discussion! (Though Hayes, in a paper from years ago, saw the ToK as Organicist, as well.) From an Organicist perspective, my first thought is that I wonder if the joint points could be conceptualized as the "integration of conflicting fragments", which 'leads inevitably into conflict and contradictions with other fragments", only to have those conflicting fragments be integrated at the next joint point. Jack C. Anchin's, "The Critical Role of the Dialectic in Viable Metatheory: A Commentary on Henriques' Tree of Knowledge System for Integrating Human Knowledge" might be particularly relevant here.
~ Jason Bessey
On Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 2:12:58 PM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear TOK list,
I want to begin by again thanking Steve for his tour of world hypotheses. It was very well done and extremely informative. And very useful for considerations regarding moving toward a “Big” Theory of Knowledge.
Here I will offer some general thoughts.
I believe the taxonomy that Pepper provides us regarding the 8 world hypotheses and common and refined knowledge is very useful. Fundamentalism and radical skepticism are, IMO, clearly inadequate knowledge systems. My inclination is to “punt” on animism and mysticism, meaning that I consider these “insufficient” rather than inadequate. What I mean is by this is that I feel one could have hope for the universe being revealed to operate in such ways, but we do not have sufficient knowledge to justify such hopes.
I found much resonance with how Pepper talked about knowledge systems in general with the argument I make that knowledge systems consist of metaphysical frameworks that organize empirical facts. The discussion of world hypotheses was a discussion of fundamentally different metaphysical frameworks.
The ongoing thoughts I kept having throughout the season was the relationship between the ToK/UTUA framework and the various world hypotheses. I kept asking myself whether the world hypotheses could be assimilated and integrated into the ToK or not. And what Pepper would have thought of the ToK.
Here are some preliminary thoughts.
First, it absolutely is clear to me that impulse that drove the construction of the ToK was an organismic impulse. That is, logical coherence, integration of fragments into a whole that could account for the absolute is an excellent description of the project that was guiding my impulse to construct the system.
Second, I saw some very direct linkages between the various world hypotheses and the way the ToK carved up the world. The language and frames of mechanism very clearly line up with the Matter dimension of complexity. I would argue that physicists would, by and large, adopt a mechanistic view of the universe. That is how they model parts, wholes and the causal change process. I was listening to the book, The Future of the Mind, by theoretical physicist, and it was just obvious to him that the mind was a machine—there was just no other way to think about it.
Contextualism, on the other hand, lines up very clearly in my mind with the dimension of Culture. The importance of history, who is justifying what is needed in a pragmatic sense is very much akin to this view. I think that most post modern positions are contextual, and that truths are framed by knowers with goals.
Formism, for me, corresponds primarily to mathematics. At least, mathematics is a form of transcendant formism. Recall that there was also “categorical formism.” For me, this corresponds to perceptual categories, which I see as Kantian like categories, which corresponds to Mind.
Organism clearly aligns some with the dimension of Life. It is important, as Steve appropriately notes, to be careful in exactly how one interprets each root metaphor and to not do so too literally. But none the less, I see a clear correspondence along the lines of the following:
Mechanism…. Dimension of Matter
Organism Dimension of Life
(Categorical) Formism Dimension of Mind
Contextualism Dimension of Culture
Transcendent Form Mathematics
Interestingly, Jason Bessey also saw this line up. Although I think care must be taken in not jumping to conclusions, I do believe that there is fruit to be gained from considering the notion that there are different world hypothesis because there are different dimensions of complexity in nature that behave in different ways.
A final consideration I will share is one that Steve and I had some exchanges about. I see the Garden of UTUA as a larger system than the ToK. The work that spurred the generation of this list was the “iQuad Proof.” One of the things that I was very struck by in doing that work was that my frame had shifted from an organic/coherence way of thinking to one that was more deductive and linked to mathematics (transcendtal forms). In the opening on the iQuad proof ppt, I argued that there were a number of different conceptions of the truth that were embraced by the Garden.
I have attached the slide. I am struck by the idea that the world hypotheses have different notions of truth and that these might relate to different “entrances” into the Garden.
Thanks again for this tour, Steve,
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steven Quackenbush
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 3:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stephen Pepper's "World Hypotheses"
The season finale of Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses is attached.
############################
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] 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
|
