Joe:
Agreed. Nearly three years ago, my Center started to try to think
through a *new* psychology that could deal with these problems --
overwhelmingly (and obviously) being *caused* by the shift in our
communications technologies. We call it the DIGITAL paradigm (as I
have detailed in answer to Waldemar's question.)
We have called it "Intentional Psychology" and its focus has been on
understanding *perception* under changing technological conditions,
building on the work of Marshall McLuhan and John Deely (among
others). As it turns out, perception is mostly treated as a "black
box" by today's psychologies and, IMHO, that is at the root of our
inability to grapple with today's growing mental health epidemic.
Gregg, on the other hand, has correctly separated "sensation" from
"perception" in his "architecture of the human mind." His approach is
what drew my interest to these ToK investigations. Distinctions of
this sort are fundamental (and also quite rare, nowadays).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_search-3Fq-3Dgregg-2Bhenriques-2Barchitecture-2Bhuman-2Bmind-26rlz-3D1C1GGLS-5FenUS326US326-26tbm-3Disch-26source-3Diu-26ictx-3D1-26fir-3DNjQrAnFWv-2DPSgM-25253A-25252CbzSXNrEinWDVQM-25252C-5F-26usg-3D-5F-5FE6cMxq7G3TP3yPvyOeqJcOdHAns-253D-26sa-3DX-26ved-3D0ahUKEwiyg5Cei6bcAhWSdd8KHd8xBAAQ9QEINDAC-23imgrc-3DNjQrAnFWv-2DPSgM&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ewCiYb557BO28PSYaFgV6Rlpkv588rNn_c964GEr-zQ&s=rNiSHr_j0NzFY5OjKjNdR39b5F1FZcV6ZQsLUL_uMcc&e=:
I was also drawn to the fact that it wasn't always this way (indeed,
before PRINT messed us up) by a random comment made by C.S. Lewis in
his discussion of language. He noted that we once considered the
"inward wits" to be more important than the "senses." This led to the
discovery of Ruth Harvey's book on the topic (and much additional
research on what might be called "medieval psychology.")
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Inward-2DWits-2DPsychological-2DRenaissance-2DInstitute_dp_085481051X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ewCiYb557BO28PSYaFgV6Rlpkv588rNn_c964GEr-zQ&s=PgsP1TuvgTbIK8Y8KG4PGocV54-87ymrqf1g48hIw78&e=
"Medieval" psychology was built on Aristotle's "De Anima" (via Albert
Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas &al) -- the 4th-century BC
"teaching text" that my Center is now teaching a Summer School class
around (for perhaps the first time in 500+ years). As it turns out,
Sigmund Freud was taught this "faculty psychology" by one-time
Dominican priest Franz Brentano at the University of Vienna. His
focus on "repressed memories" and his final "map" of the Ego, Id, and
Superego were his attempts (without crediting the source) to bring
this older psychology into the modern-age.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Soul-2DMemory-2DRecollection-2DAristotle_dp_1888009179&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ewCiYb557BO28PSYaFgV6Rlpkv588rNn_c964GEr-zQ&s=JIvAESN5EgAH57003jlmmeYtNs8kWH3twGt37PNUQ1A&e=
The "inward wits" are what many have called the *interior senses* and
there are exactly four of them: the common sense (or "sensus
communis"), imagination (favored by TELEVISION), memory (favored by
DIGITAL) and, finally, what was called "cogitative reason." This last
faculty was specifically distinguished from its counterpart in other
animals, known as "estimative reason."
Very little has been done on the topic of "interior senses" in the
past 100+ years. If humans are to be "modeled" as-if they are
computers, then all you need to know is the "input" (i.e. senses) and
the "output" (i.e. behaviors.) I attended the first of my ALI World
Congresses two years ago, in part, because Mark Barker -- who wrote
his PhD on the topic (alas, not yet published) -- was speaking, at my
invitation. He is literally one of only a handful of modern scholars
who even know the history of this topic, let along how it applies to
our current psychological crisis.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cogitativepower.blogspot.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ewCiYb557BO28PSYaFgV6Rlpkv588rNn_c964GEr-zQ&s=CZ-uWwbeTdSYKaZYFTatYsvZipL-hGxdvtNohb3R6V4&e=
Yes, we have much work to do . . . !!
Mark
P.S. In late-2016, I agreed to give a TED-X talk on all this (because
my son works with one of the local organizers). Things were going
great until Trump was elected and the TED-X people lost their minds --
cancelling my presentation on the eve of dress rehearsal. The lead-in
was supposed to be Vernon Reid's prescient 1988 "Cult of Personality,"
starting with Malcolm X's "talk right down at a level everyone can
understand" (and I had even invited him for the show.)
The "craziness" has only gotten more intense since then, as shown
daily on *television* (and in our private lives). Without a new
approach -- that can shift the "blame" from confused people to the
*massive* changes in their environment -- I fear that many lives will
be irreparably damaged (if not lost). Yes, at the end of the Living
Colour music video, the children first gesture the "sign of the cross"
and then shake their head and turn off the television (which is what
every child also confronts today).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D7xxgRUyzgs0&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ewCiYb557BO28PSYaFgV6Rlpkv588rNn_c964GEr-zQ&s=ygx1HPT4nb2jXdlcGtmoZZjKP4Arr4sL-q73JIjeHlU&e=
Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
> Thanks Mark. Salient points, one and all. I'm not being at all
> original here in arguing that the digital/online revolution (and
> consistent with your broader thesis about technology as a driver) is
> the single most important cultural, evolutionary change since
> industrialization. I believe, in fact, that it's the most important
> "revolution" since we learned to develop syntactical language. Since
> we are cultural beings and justifying animals, the fundamental shift
> -- in which I'm directly participating at this very moment! --
> involves the explosive production and use of information that's
> shared instantaneously & unfiltered. The students outside our
> academic dean's office and student advising, without exception,
> routinely spend all of their spare time on their portable devices. I
> casually studied a small town where we were driving through and
> noticed that among the pedestrians, literally every single person
> had a device up to one's ear or with their eyes cast down in front
> of them. Same thing on the subway in London, England last week.
>
>
> Just as significant, and where we reconnect with biology and
> psychology, the research I'm reading directly implicates this
> tech/cultural shift in actual neurological changes in the brain. We
> are rewiring ourselves. This is where I can't help but think that
> John's basic thesis has some validity, especially in terms of the
> epigenetic and behavioral expressions in our environments that
> directly affect how human beings process and share information. I'm
> afraid I just don't have any grand model yet in mind that shows
> exactly how all of this works. But I can tell everyone here on this
> list with the highest confidence that I'm seeing a geometric
> expansion of stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues
> in the last few years among our students that happens to coincide
> with the fact that children introduced to iphones a decade earlier
> (I'm obviously oversimplifying) are entering universities. The
> number of medical accommodations at my university went from 200 in
> 2016-17 (our highest ever) to 1,200 (yes, a six-fold increase) in
> 2017-18. I had one student the year previously come to me in the
> last month of school asking to withdraw, but 8 students making that
> request this past April (in effect, losing the credits/academic
> value of the entire year). It's a cultural tsunami. Everyone I know
> in higher education is dealing with these problems, including my
> alma mater at the University of Virginia. A colleague of Gregg's did
> a clinical placement there, where she learned that 51% -- an actual
> majority -- of first-year students indicated that they needed or
> would benefit from mental health counseling. Hence I'm looking at
> this list as a means of both delving into the big questions AND
> hopefully helping us all to deal with the immediate problems like
> the mental health crisis we're seeing among young people attending
> our universities.
>
>
> Yours kindly, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mark Stahlman
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Interesting Parallel Discovery
>
> Joe:
>
> I hear you! Marshall McLuhan converted to Catholicism in 1937 (at the
> age of 25), moving into what was then called the "Catholic
> Renaissance" in the Anglophonic world -- spearheaded by those like
> G.K. Chesterton and Hiliare Belloc (or "Chesterbelloc" as G.B.S. Shaw
> called them.) Of his six children, only the oldest, Eric, kept his
> faith (and of his four children, none have.) This is the result of a
> series of paradigm-shifts -- with profound effects on our *perception*
> (not "sensation," as correctly separated by Gregg), which is the
> psychological faculty that underlies the impact of "symbols."
>
> In the midst of all this massive technological change, Max Weber (of
> "cultural determinism" fame), suggested, in his 1917 "Science as a
> Vocation" lecture in Munich, that the world had become "disenchanted"
> and, even though the Churches remained, all that was left were our
> "personal daemons." He didn't know it but he was talking about the
> effects of ELECTRICITY (beginning in the mid-1800s.)
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Science-5Fas-5Fa-5FVocation&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=FJRqVR5ShDza30DV9fLt7e2XxG1ipma68i1PxkSJ6ho&e=
>
> This translated into the sweeping urge for "mysticism" (and
> hallucinogenic drugs &c), or what philosophy calls "phenomenology"
> (and "existentialism" &c.) The Catholic Church was also caught up in
> all this, supporting a Jesuit examination of the "psychology of the
> mystics" in Louvain (yes, also the task William James was engaged in,
> as was Carl Jung), along with the theological expression of
> "personalism." This trend is what drove Vatican II, as well as the
> naming of a series of mystics as "Doctors of the Church" and,
> ultimately, making the Mass quite irrelevant to your children (among
> many others.)
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Psychology-2DMystics-2DDover-2DWestern-2DPhilosophy_dp_0486436942&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=ezmWkY70BMswUWdNZswmWhfP51YdQZ9vThMdOjYVjP0&e=
>
> Who needs it when you can just pop an "entheogen" . . . ??
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entheogen&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=IPgvtwRmY8TqOk5xINjtsRAS539uoQSRVHLhk52XWlE&e=
>
> But that was then and this is now. The question is what will the
> *current* paradigm-shift -- from fantasy-inspiring TELEVISION to
> memory-inducing DIGITAL -- bring to us (i.e. how will it compel us to
> "evolve")? Yes, "evolution" (in this case technological evolution,
> which is the basic driver of change in human "behaviors and attitudes"
> that most ignore), marches on. That's what I'm spending my time here
> trying to help us all sort-out . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. This Friday, Brian Kemple (a Center Fellow and John Deely's
> semiotics PhD), will be presenting a paper at the ALI World Congress
> in Huntington, LI. It is titled "Mediated Disclosures: Human Persons
> and Their Technological Environments." Btw, my presentation will be
> called "Alchemy and the Robots."
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.aquinasschoolofleadership.com_events&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=Y1wCNIEi0kGlAAY2MrIMQ9_bp5si97Nke4CPcoITYRM&e=
>
> P.P.S. Thanks for the heads up on Eva Jablonka's "Evolution in Four
> Dimensions." Interestingly, she says "And everyone will readily agree
> that our symbol-based culture is changing through time: we only have
> to think of what has happened to technology during the last hundred
> years to be convinced." (p. 190) However, treating this as "symbol
> systems," while academically acceptable, is putting the cart before
> the horse, in *causal* terms.
>
> Alas, McLuhan does not appear in the book and, as best I can tell, no
> one else dealing with "technological evolution" and its effects on
> humans does either (plus "semiotics" is only mentioned once and T.
> Sebeok is the only semiotician referenced). After all, these are
> biologists and perhaps the editors at MIT have forgotten about Leo
> Marx and his 1994 "Does Technology Drive History?" . . . !!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Technology-2DHistory-2DDilemma-2DTechnological-2DDeterminism_dp_0262691671&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=VQVCOPLP5L_BcFxkBDu99qj9lT0ImhUhkhNqfrNNxog&e=
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi folks. Second email, mainly in response to John's comments and
>> references. A bit lengthier, so feel free to ignore if this isn't of
>> interest. I'm still learning and processing John's perspective, so
>> forgive me if my response seems a bit facile. While I'm not (yet)
>> convinced that Mind and Culture can be "reduced" to John's
>> biological explanatory approach and modification of Darwin --
>> especially as a recovering "cultural determinist"(!) -- I'm
>> impressed with the arguments John has advanced and some of the
>> research I've been reviewing. Regardless of where any of us land on
>> these issues, I think it's extremely helpful to be challenged in our
>> thinking.
>>
>>
>> The salient point I want to make here is that I'm seeing now the
>> relevance of what John's arguing about epigenetic phenomena and even
>> the behavioral manifestations that can be transmitted
>> inter-generationally, but not through standard genetic
>> interpretations obviously. There are several innate characteristics
>> of species that are transmitted genetically, but even there we have
>> evidence of environmental influences. How that information gets
>> translated back to the source (biologically speaking) certainly
>> deserves to be examined far more seriously and extensively. I'm
>> looking at Jablonka's work on this too, and have a fascinating book
>> I've been perusing entitled Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic,
>> Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of
>> Life. Despite the human genome project and the aspirations, I think
>> we understand better than ever that it's not simply a matter of
>> encoded genes passing on discrete, hard-wired information that then
>> produces behavioral expression. It's far more complicated, with
>> interactive elements and environmental feedback mechanisms at the
>> very least among non-human species. It gets even more complicated
>> with more advanced species like primates and then even further with
>> the cultural species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>>
>>
>> In short, with respect to humans, while both genes and culture can
>> transmit latent information, the symbolic systems that humans use
>> are far more flexible and, er, "adaptive," than genetic systems. Yet
>> I appreciate too the implications of culture & physical envt as
>> having direct links to biological phenomena and perhaps even to
>> John's argument about cell-cell communication. My struggle remains
>> that in light of both the vastness and mutability of symbolic
>> systems, there's no obvious or even necessary transmission of fixed
>> ideas, habits, or patterns that will be passed down automatically
>> from one generation to the next. The Catholicism in my family, for
>> example, which lasted for several generations, effectively has ended
>> with me (in fact, while respectful of their dad shuffling off to
>> mass on the occasional Sunday, our five adult boys have zero
>> interest in attending!). And while my wife adamantly opposes tattoos
>> for both religious and aesthetic reasons, that hasn't stopped four
>> of the five boys from getting them. How this ultimately has a
>> genetic basis, however, goes well beyond my aging brain. But I'm
>> trying! For me, though, that's where the justification hypothesis
>> and the J-I-I dynamic helps me understand behavioral variation in
>> credible, testable ways -- even if I remain unclear on how these
>> cultural phenomena relate to John's paradigm. Yet perhaps we will be
>> able to come up with an ever-more integrated theory of complexity
>> that allows us to map these multiple levels onto one another and
>> concretely measure the feedback measures of mutual influence (and
>> here I'm thinking of John's lovely comment about his experience
>> while driving back from the beach last week!). As a mathematician
>> friend of mine commented when I was sharing some of what we're doing
>> commented: "Joe, I'm not sure how we could ever subject all of this
>> to Monte Carlo simulations!" Yet, to his credit, we're going to keep
>> trying! We still need a better model though, so that's one of the
>> grand objectives I hope we'll all keep working on here. Respectfully
>> yours, -Joe
>>
>>
>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>
>> Associate Academic Dean
>>
>> King’s University College at Western University
>>
>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>
>> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>>
>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439F
>>
>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ______________________
>> eiπ + 1 = 0
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:56:18 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Interesting Parallel Discovery
>>
>> Joe, see Jablonka E, Lamb MJ, Lachmann M (September 1992).
>> "Evidence, mechanisms and models for the inheritance of acquired
>> characteristics". J. Theor.
>> Biol.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_J.-5FTheor.-5FBiol.&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hP66pxXomUz9Ben-8k0p5WMCEqosNlDQBW352dlsox0&s=g0IHqzkX2WaUgzmW8-a_IMuHMa_a__Vr5Q9Gen0Mitw&e=> 158
>> (2):
>> 245–268.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:57 PM,
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> John:
>>
>> Thank you for your reply/response. I understand the Storr article
>> and thank you for providing that link. I remain (so far) skekptical
>> that epigenetic “marking” is a permanent feature hereditarily.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Waldemar
>>
>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> 503.631.8044
>>
>> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:18 AM, JOHN TORDAY
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Waldemar, thanks for the correction regarding workers and drones. As
>> for the persistence of epigenetic inheritance, if the perturbation
>> persists the trait will also persist. And it can become
>> a true DNA mutation under physiologic stress if the insult persists
>> based on the effect of Radical Oxygen Species on gene mutations
>> (Storr, S.J., C.M. Woolston, Y. Zhang, and S.G. Martin. 2013. Redox
>> environment, free radical, and oxidative DNA damage. Antioxid Redox
>> Signal 18:2399–23408). It's also referred to as the Baldwin
>> Effect. John
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Waldemar Schmidt
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> John:
>>
>> A minor correction, if you will.
>> Honey bee drones are not sterile and don’t collect nectar and pollen.
>> That task is performed by the “worker” bees - who, presumably,
>> collect the environmental conditions leading to epigenetic changes.
>> Epigenetic influence on genetic expression is time limited, as
>> opposed to “genetic” information, does not seem to last more than 4
>> generations.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Waldemar
>>
>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> 503.631.8044
>>
>> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2018, at 8:01 AM, JOHN TORDAY
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joe, I haven't read The Singular Universe, but have read Smolin's
>> book The Life of the Cosmos, in which he uses Darwinian evolution
>> theory to explain Black Holes and other Cosmologic phenomena. I
>> found that quite remarkable both because we Biologists haven't been
>> able to explain the mechanisms of biology using Darwinian evolution,
>> and because Smolin is merging the animate and inanimate into one.
>> Oh, and btw, are you familiar with the 'dust up' between Einstein
>> and Bergson circa 1922, Einstein insisting that time isn't real,
>> Bergson stipulating that time is essential to understanding
>> physiology? At any rate, my 'aha' moment occurred when I realized
>> that time is an artifact of descriptive biology. That is to say, in
>> the emerging discipline of epigenetic inheritance, previously known
>> as Lamarckian, the organism is an agent for collecting epigenetic
>> data, which it carries back to its germ cells- egg and sperm-
>> modifying them 'epigenetically' by changing the way in which DNA is
>> translated into RNA and protein, beginning with the zygote, or
>> fertilized egg, the embryo, the offspring, the life cycle, and back
>> again to the zygote. In other words, it is the unicellular state
>> that is being selected for, which is striving to maintain its
>> identity in an ever-changing environment by modifying its offspring
>> to interface with the environment in order to collect epigenetic
>> 'data' to inform the unicellular state of the organism. It's what is
>> called the Red Queen phenomenon, like the character in Alice in
>> Wonderland who is 'running as fast as she can to remain in place'.
>> This perspective on the biologic imperative as 'stasis' is
>> counterintuitive, yet once it is realized it explains why it is that
>> we must return to the unicellular state over the course of the life
>> cycle, for example. Mechanistically, the cell cytoskeleton exists in
>> three discrete states- homeostatic, mitotic and meiotic. Those
>> states are determined by a specific gene, Target of Rapamycin, which
>> is interconnected with all of the structures and functions of the
>> cell, controlling which state the cell exists in. Seen in this way,
>> time is an artifact in biology, as it is in physics, both of which
>> are striving to attain the Singularity that existed prior to the Big
>> Bang. Biology recapitulates its 'Big Bang' from one life cycle to
>> the next; physics does so through the expansion and contraction of
>> the Universe.
>>
>> Just as a reality check, the same thing occurs in a bee hive, the
>> queen bee maintaining the genetic and epigenetic 'history' of the
>> colony, the sterile drones flying off daily to nominally collect
>> pollen to make honey, all the while providing epigenetic data to the
>> queen in the process; at some point in that cycle the hive will
>> eventually 'collapse', the queen flying off with the epigenetic data
>> from the current environment to recreate the hive elsewhere. There
>> are other well-known examples like the slime mold Dictyostellium
>> switching between the amoeboid and colonial forms depending on how
>> much food is available, and Turitopsis dorneii, the so-called
>> 'immortal' jellyfish, thought to be death-less because under stress
>> it reverts to its adolescent form, as if it had found the 'fountain
>> of youth' NOT. In reality it's just figured out a way to collect
>> epigenetic information by changing forms, but the underlying
>> principle of interacting with the environment to obtain epigenetic
>> data is a constant in all of these conditions. We do the same,
>> chucking our bodies at the time of death, but our microbiomes (the
>> bacteria that represent 70-90% of our bodies), which is informed
>> through epigenetics over the course of our lifetimes, lives on! It's
>> been documented as the 'necrobiome', which goes back into the soil
>> (unless we are cremated or put into a concrete bunker), back into
>> the water supply where it can be assimilated by the flora, eaten by
>> the fauna, and re-constituted. The microbiome of the mother is
>> located in the uterus, where the child will ingest it when it exits
>> via the birth canal at the time of birth!
>>
>> Aha moment indeed! I think that if we were to understand the actual
>> mechanisms of biology we would be less anxious about our lives,
>> being able to put things into perspective....just sayin'. John
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Joseph Michalski
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> I understand everyone has busy intellectual agendas, but I thought
>> I'd share an interesting parallel discovery from the past weekend
>> (beyond the recent discovery of neutrinos from a distant galaxy!).
>> My wife and I were flying back from England, reading next to each
>> other on the plane. I was reading Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin's The
>> Singular Universe and the Reality of Time as part of my efforts to
>> understand the cosmos and our broader TOK mission. My wife, who's a
>> Sufi Muslim, was reading Sadegh Angha's (41st Sufi Master) The
>> Hidden Angles of Life in her efforts to understand the cosmos from a
>> religious worldview. Here's what we were reading at the same time
>> from our respective books:
>>
>> Joe, the scientist, read on p. 8: “If, however, everything is
>> time-bound (a key argument of the book), that principle must apply
>> as well to the laws, symmetries, and constants of nature. There are
>> then no timeless regularities capable of underwriting our causal
>> judgments. Change changes. It is not just the phenomena that change;
>> so do the regularities: the laws, symmetries, and supposed constants
>> of nature.”
>>
>> Farnaz, the spiritualist, read on p. xi: “(T)he laws of physics are
>> fundamentally and essentially variable (for example, there is much
>> evidence and documentation that most of the constant principles of
>> nature and those influenced by gravity are in fact not constant).
>> Existence itself is in motion.” (emphasis in the original)
>>
>> Just some food for future thought. If I arrive at any great insights
>> from all of this, I'll be happy to share. At the same time, perhaps
>> others on the list have had their own "a-ha" moments in terms of
>> understanding the evolving nature of the universe, the constancy of
>> change, and the implications that nature's laws might best be viewed
>> from a cosmological, historical perspective. Yours kindly, -Joe
>>
>>
>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>
>> Associate Academic Dean
>>
>> King’s University College at Western University
>>
>> 266 Epworth
>> Avenue<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=>
>>
>> London, Ontario, Canada
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=>
>> N6A
>> 2M3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=>
>>
>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>
>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> ______________________
>>
>>
>> eiπ + 1 = 0
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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
|
