Gregg,

Appreciate the response. Maybe I should’ve clarified my former statement: I
don’t mean to be contrarian for its own sake. I’m just trying to understand
like you are. I will look through these materials and give them the
attention they deserve. Thanks.

Eric

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Eric,
>
>
>
>   You say you don’t mean to come across as contrarian and yet you
> consistently do. You might reflect some on that.
>
>
>
>   To address your two questions, first I suggest you look through the
> attached book, *A Guide for the Perplexed
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_A-5FGuide-5Ffor-5Fthe-5FPerplexed&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=OF30l7b4z4medjEexN7E-VnOx6ZgrylWGtkRIxZQdBA&e= >*. It is
> designed to be an easy read. Check out pages 15-27 and you will see one
> source for the A + B + C + D analysis.
>
> Here is the particularly relevant portion:
>
> It also can be connected to Wilber’s Great Nest of Being, as he
> elaborated in The Marriage of Sense and Soul. And other places. Like
> Aristotle’s scales of nature
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Great-5Fchain-5Fof-5Fbeing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=Mx3JFE26IKdWou9vuEu0Ofph9hFn7IolebRrRUy_TY4&e= >. If you want a more
> up-to-date analysis of these scales/level/layers/orders, see Cahoone’s The
> Orders of Nature
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Orders-2DNature-2DLawrence-2DCahoone_dp_1438444168&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=GE898h65su-TEk_nt0QGucsxpRRAjypcZe5gVkdodc8&e= > (I
> have the pdf I can share). The argument that Matter, Life, Mind, and
> Culture emerge out of an implicate order of “pure” Energy-Information which
> represent distinguishable variable clusters and this is mapped by
> scientific knowledge is central to the entire UTOK project. See, e.g., the
> original ToK Manifesto I wrote more than 20 years ago
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_the-2Dtree-2Dof-2Dknowledge-2Dsystem-2Dmanifesto-2Ddc29b7edab4b&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=f02ruSQ5x560Qd6mCkEQI20YrIaiI8VnLKlic3iSFlk&e= >.
>
>
>
>
> As for my argument about mind and the need for an up-to-date descriptive
> metaphysics that maps it into the five domains depicted by the Map of Mind,
> I strongly recommend you watch my two educational videos on the *Problem
> of Psychology and Its Solution*.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1Jn1l5-2D-2Dy9MrkphbRLirXgAbYCNwj5uEI_view-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=1tGe3pFD9-7C76EV9KaQZTrN4nDU0nUS53t4tBVSqCw&e= 
> (Part I)
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1NPbgaR1rsnAxWdkTV4idNTv0qtx6ty7H_view-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=eRVV0p67D6LqjiCB1GKiHMux_JLHJeb_SKR3KSPSo8c&e= 
> (Part II)
>
>
>
> I also recommend you watch the series I did with John Vervaeke on Untangling
> the World Knot of Consciousness
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202012_untangling-2Dthe-2Dworld-2Dknot-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=WtfUAFl059YxQkt_-IMTDqWtCcKQyrHM4nR_Ka1j7CI&e= >.
> The last four episodes spell out precisely this argument, building off of
> John’s 4P/3R metatheory of cognition
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202101_john-2Dvervaeke-2Ds-2Dbrilliant-2D4p3r-2Dmetatheory-2Dcognition&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=hjX9nFO_1ULGsp4KilDthdPy0kj20t1IGzD-8jmntCk&e= >.
>
>
>
>
> I know it will take some time, but if you really want your presence on the
> list to have a different feel to it, I encourage you to make the effort.
>
>
> Regards,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *easalien
> *Sent:* Monday, April 12, 2021 8:20 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hey Gregg,
>
>
>
> Can you explain what Z + A + B + C + D + X actually means? Do these
> variables correspond to reality?
>
>
>
> I don’t ask these questions to be contrarian. It just seems your making
> enormous assumptions based on scant evidence. For example, how do you
> justify splitting the mind into 3 (or 5) separate parts?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 7:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, friend. I am glad you like it. I found your description
> enriching.
>
>
>
> I am definitely keen on the idea that I fell into the problem of
> psychology precisely because there was a massive hole in our naturalistic
> thinking, which can be specified by the Enlightenment Gap. It is obvious
> that the Enlightenment failed to give us a coherent naturalistic scientific
> philosophy that was aligned with human subjectivity and purpose (i.e., the
> human self, soul, spirit). That was because they had the wrong ontological
> picture. The right ontological picture is pretty clear to me these days.
> Let me lay it out for you. I know, Chance, you know much of this already.
> But what follows is a slightly new, simplified version that you might find
> worth reading through.
>
>
>
> First, there is an “Energy-Information Implicate Order” that Matter
> emerges out of. It does not have the same kind of space-time causal
> properties as macroscopic matter. Let’s call this “Z”. At the Big
> Beginning/Big Bang, we see that Energy-Information Singularity transforms
> and differentiates and this is the beginning of the classic material world.
> Here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqq3YDfui-2DtI&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gxXSO6A79Z_BVV4glb5ybXMg022tHHohr_wqIzvZdFI&s=wYY_m39VX2-T2zJzD7ACOBnlAvRUPpRfG6XJfkf5ai8&e=>
> is a nice easy to follow 15 minute video on the first three minutes. This
> change reaction gives rise to the first dimension of complexification on
> the ToK, represented as “Matter”.
>
>
>
> We can call Matter “dimension A”. The macroscopic “explicate order” arises
> out of the Energy-Information implicate order. How this happens can be
> framed as the “reality-measurement-emergent” questions/problems that makes
> interpreting quantum mechanics so difficult. The intersection of the
> Energy-Information and the Matter dimension is nevertheless clearly framed
> by quantum mechanics and general relativity. The foundation is quantum
> relativistic field theory, which shows that we can think of material
> particles and forces as emerging out of fluctuations in the
> Energy-Information field. The cohering of particles and forces give rise to
> macroscopic objects with entangled histories. This is the atomic universe
> and above at the macroscopic scale. The emergent phenomena include things
> like atoms and chemical molecules, and stars and galaxies and, of course,
> space and time as we experience them (in contrast to their “shape” at the
> implicate order). So now we have *Z* + A. The physical sciences map *Z* +
> *A*.
>
>
>
> We then get Life. Life is a fundamentally different kind of emergence
> because it involves the “epistemic” process of knowing. By knowing I mean
> that cells process information and communicate in networks to generate a
> novel complex adaptive plane. The biological forms and processes represent
> a different kind of causal process. That is why there is a shape-break on
> the ToK. The new Life cone is the new living epistemic process involves the
> way living things “know” about the external reality. We can call Life
> “dimension B”. So now we have *Z* + A + *B*, with B mapped by biological
> sciences
>
>
>
> We then, of course, have Mind, which we can call “dimension C”. Once
> again, we have a fundamentally different kind of “epistemic” process. This
> time, via animal sensory-movement relations that give rise to the animal
> behavioral dimension of activity, which the ToK innovatively characterizes
> as “Mind”. Way too much conceptual grammar is devoted to “the mind” and way
> to little is devoted to seeing Mind in nature. As someone who is deeply
> knowledgeable about ethology, I know you get this. But I am just spelling
> it out. Of course, this evolutionary model allows us to clearly frame
> neurocognition into subjective conscious experience in animals. Behavioral
> Investment Theory gives the metatheory. The Map of Mind1,2,3 gives the
> metaphysics, framing Mind1 as neurocognition and Mind2 as subjective
> conscious experience. Now we have* Z* + A +* B* + *C*. C should have been
> mapped by the basic psychological sciences, but the problem of psychology
> emerged because the Enlightenment gave us the wrong grammar to talk about
> “the mind”.
>
>
>
> Finally, we get the talking mind of human persons, Mind3 and the Culture
> that Mind3 produces. The Culture-Person plane is “dimension D”. The network
> of evolving systems of justification that function to coordinate people in
> socio-ecological arrangements through time. It is the clear way the ToK
> carves nature at the *B* to *C* and then *C* to *D* “joint points” that
> it affords us a new and proper way to think about the animal-mind,
> culture-person relationship. So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D*.
>
>
>
> Then we get the evolution of analytic justification into transcendent
> knowing. This is the process of: (1) knowing about knowledge; (2)knowing
> about reality and (3) knowing about the knower. Knowing about knowledge in
> the West starts with the Greek and the Pythagoreans into Socrates into
> Plato and Aristotle. They give us the birth of philosophical reflections
> that attempt to climb out of the socially constructed “cave” and see the
> forms of the world as they are. Then we get knowing about reality via
> modern empirical natural science, which gives us the correspondent approach
> grounded in math and method.
>
>
>
> Then we get knowing about the knower via UTOK. Let’s call this *X*.
>
>
>
> So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D* + *X*.
>
>
>
> We can depict this on the scale of time by complexification as follows:
>
>
>
> [image: A][image: D][image: X][image: Z][image: B][image: C][image: Time
> since beginning of Matter][image: Z]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Z* = Energy-Information Implicate Order
>
> *A* = Material-Object Explicate Order of Complexity
>
> *B* = Living-Organism Order of Complexification
>
> *C *= Mental-Animal Order of Complexification
>
> *D* = Cultural-Person Order of Complexification
>
> *X* = Metaphysical Scientific Knower that Observes/Describes/Explains
> Behavior Change
>
>
>
> Contextualized in the Tree and the Garden, the iQuad formulation is about
> developing a logos approach to nonduality, such that it represents the case
> where observer equals observed. Thus, it is the special case where
>
> the onto-epistemology of ontic-epistemic relations of observer/observed
> nonduality can be represented as *X* = *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D. *
>
>
>
> This could be called “The Nondual Singularity Theory of Observer (Psyche)
> = Observed (Behavior)” or something like that…
>
> Big love, brother.
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:33 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John
>
>
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> I resonate with the mission statement:  *"We are seeking a coherent,
> naturalistic ontology that can revitalize the human soul and spirit in the
> 21st century"*
>
>
>
> It appears to me to be dense, precise, and uplifting.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> -Chance
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:04 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   I am working with Christian Gross to set up the “UTOKing with Gregg
> Podcast”. We will be formally announcing it Monday, and the first episode
> will be released on Thursday. Apropos of Voices with Vervaeke (I was John’s
> first guest), John is the first guest. Given the discussions on the list, I
> thought I would share the two minute clip as a preview (thanks to Christian
> for finding and selecting this clip).
>
>
>
> Here it is:
>
>
>
> * UTOKing with John Vervaeke - Clip.mp4
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1kmAvCL4gVWCF75ooXrdMHSl4awuj2Zrw_view-3Fusp-3Ddrive-5Fweb&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=AYFX0kB-9msai7Cux39UQ5sMlWA0a5jcO5wReMl34TA&s=AOMThfpnVBKU99d0Djl5uQKCCN80cV3jK1AaDX-LVgs&e=>*
>
>
>
> And this is the quote we are speaking about, which frames the clip and
> much of the discussion:
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
> ############################
>
> 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