TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

July 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 14 Jul 2018 02:16:03 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (169 lines)
Gregg:

Welcome back and I like "the message is the medium" . . . !!

When McLuhan decided to use that term, among the many things he had in  
mind was the "medium" used in laboratories for growing colonies of  
organisms -- or what we used to call "agar" when I was wearing a  
lab-coat.

The challenge that everyone who has attempted to *integrate* Human  
Knowledge has had, of course, is dealing with the one-and-the-many.   
We know that both must simultaneously be "true" but how are they to be  
reconciled?

What is it that "unifies" and what is it that "separates" (and is it  
the same thing)?  How do we deal with the "universal" and the  
"particular" all under the same umbrella?

The notion that it is *communications* which unifies and separates --  
from cell-to-cell to culture-to-culture -- seems to be where we're  
heading and I like that path.

"Communication" is a word based on "in common," which it shares with  
"community" &c.  Within this etymology, there is both the recognition  
of the "one" and the "many."  It also carries the meaning that there  
are many "mechanisms" for communications and what cells perform is not  
identical to the communications that cultures are founded upon (thus  
my interest in Semiotics &c).

All of which begs the important question of how are we going to  
*communicate* in our "new paradigm" and what will this new approach  
mean for our "community"?

Mark

P.S. Under previous communications conditions, we tried to build "one  
world."  That is over now, because those conditions have changed.  In  
particular, I have been deeply engaged with China for the past 20  
years.  China will never be a part of the Western attempts to make our  
lives "global" (and we will never be a part of what they are doing.)   
Two radically different *communications* approaches -- the Alphabet  
and Ideo/pictographics -- developed in these two places 2500+ years  
ago (in the Axial Age) and, as a result, two very different "cultures"  
were produced.  And, yes there are others . . . <g>

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi All,
>
> It is good to be back at my home computer after 12 days of "gluttony  
> and sloth." I have been thrilled by all the insightful contributions  
> to the list.
>
>   Corinne, thanks much both for your artwork and for the recent post  
> about plants. Plant behavior became a point of fascination for me in  
> figuring out psychology's language game. I also think the article  
> highlights many of the things that John has been trying to say about  
> how physiology and cell-cell communication is foundational to  
> understanding our essences. At the same time, the nervous system is  
> a "game changer" when it comes to the "fast" behavior of animals.  
> Whereas plant behavior is complex, responsive to stimuli, and highly  
> functional, I don't think we should call it "mental," and I think  
> that we should be careful in using terms like 'see' and 'hear,' as  
> in the title of the article. For us human primates, the term "see"  
> is intimately tied to our subjective experience of vision. There is  
> no evidence that plants have a subjective experience (AKA perceptual  
> consciousness) of vision. They are clearly physiologically aware of  
> light stimuli and respond accordingly. The relationship between  
> functional behavior and the subjective experience of being, is, as  
> Steve's review of William James will likely point out, crucial in  
> trying to solve the language game of psychology. As slide 11 in the  
> BIT key idea ppt highlights, consciousness does not equal  
> behavior<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_bit.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=7zOkydjiK47pYS4hoKM-38Lw7Z4O0O153QWaV-8u0ec&e=>, although we can  
> use the ToK System to understand how perceptual consciousness is a  
> subset of behavior.
>
> Thanks much to Nancy for her articulation of the development of  
> human cognitive abilities and her evolutionary/Piagetian analyses.  
> Nancy, I think both of your assumptions about evolutionary lineage  
> and about lining up phylogeny with ontogeny in the way that you to  
> understand the evolution of human thought highly valuable. I am glad  
> to hear your connection to Merlin Donald. We have not spoken about  
> that previously. Early in his book, Merlin Donald makes a central  
> point: During the relatively short time of human emergence, the  
> structure of the primate mind was radically altered; or rather was  
> gradually surrounded by new representational systems and absorbed  
> into a larger cognitive apparatus. (p. 4)  In the language of the  
> ToK, what we became surrounded by were both the technological and  
> linguistic environments that resulted in a dramatic shift in the  
> flow of energy-information. The linguistic networks that formed were  
> justification systems; narratives that provided the structure for  
> our social lives and labeled Culture as the fourth dimension of  
> behavioral complexity.
>
>   Mark, I have been very much enjoying reading up on the Center for  
> Digital Life and Marshal McLuhan's work on media. I have found his  
> analysis of mediums fascinating. In what might be an odd  
> association, it reminded me a bit of Richard Dawkins' The Extended  
> Phenotype<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_The-5FExtended-5FPhenotype&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=dfNfUeDnjiTyyZYuh8xa4IXqvSBvXL3D4oWAmVhr5LI&e=> (and  
> John's notions of Niche Construction). Certainly, as we radically  
> alter our environment, we radically alter ourselves. On the ride  
> home from the beach yesterday, I found myself inverting is his motto  
> (the medium is the message) to "the message is the medium." The  
> inverted motto lines up directly with the key insight of the ToK.  
> That is, the mediums of cell-cell communication/genetic info (Life),  
> neuro-mental-subjectivity (Mind), and  
> linguistic-person-society-intersubjectivity (Culture) are the  
> "conglomerates" that allow us to unweave the rainbow of behavior and  
> see the dimensions that make us what and who we are.
>
> Ultimately, it seems to me that these are the kinds of  
> interdisciplinary conversations that should be going on as we search  
> for ways to integrate knowledge. As Joe commented, none of us has  
> all the answers. But together we might be able to fashion a  
> reasonable picture of the whole. I am reminded of the philosopher  
> Oliver Reiser's opening call in his book The Integration of Human  
> Knowledge (which I found had remarkable parallels to the ToK version  
> of reality), which seems perhaps even more appropriate today as it  
> was when he wrote 60 years ago:
>
> In this time of divisive tendencies within and between the nations, races,
> religions, sciences and humanities, synthesis must become the great  
> magnet which
> orients us all...[Yet] scientists have not done what is possible  
> toward integrating
> bodies of knowledge created by science into a unified interpretation  
> of man, his
> place in nature, and his potentialities for creating the good  
> society. Instead, they
> are entombing us in dark and meaningless catacombs of learning (Reiser, 1958,
> p. 2-3, italics in original).
>
> Am happy to be back in the flow.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
> ___________________________________________
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> 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=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=iyFRFA9RrDTde63r0NoDqF9Q4vP1aPGsb8-0WN1FbRs&e=
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2