TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

May 2020

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 May 2020 19:13:11 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:

Looking forward to this podcast and the punchline at 20 minutes.  :-)



> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:24 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi TOK List,
> 
>  
> 
>    Central to the Unified Framework is the idea that we need a new way of talking about mind and behavior, in relationship to, say, biology and matter. The technical term for this is that we need to upload a new “descriptive metaphysical operating system” for our categories and concepts.  
> 
>  
> 
>   The Tree of Knowledge theory of knowledge provides the necessary definitional system. However, it can be a hard language to learn. Why? The reason is because it plays with our fundamental conceptual categories that we were raised with. Unfortunately,  the way we were taught to think about the fundamental categories was WRONG (as in incoherent, inconsistent, etc). So, we need to unlearn how we think and then relearn if you are going to “grok” the system. And that is very hard to do. Historically, I have too often just tried to tell people in the abstract what the right way to think and talk is based on the unified language system.
> 
>  
> 
> But that generally does not go over well for a host of reasons 😊.  I know need a new approach to pedagogy.
> 
>  
> 
> I was clicking around several well-being sites, including Richie Davidson’s Healthy Minds. I then happened upon one of the researchers there who studies depression. (Fun fact, I have been following Richie Davidson’s work for a long time because my cousin Jeffery Henriques was a researcher there a couple of decades ago)
> 
> Anyway, I found a podcast that I wanted to share with interested parties. Keep in mind that this podcast is from an excellent and leading edge researcher who is at a leading edge center for studying the mind, emotion, the brain and well-being:
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.artofmanliness.com_articles_podcast-2D585-2Dinflammation-2Dsaunas-2Dand-2Dthe-2Dnew-2Dscience-2Dof-2Ddepression_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2W2-El8h6RNUDlmfcF0scJJT8DMdmHeP5VvTlkBCwKg&s=DaNfwvHCVqDVmibM7b_77PH4eJYnoEbuvTEUgnYB_qc&e=
> 
>  
> 
> Now here is the punchline. Listen to the first 20 minutes or so of the podcast and how the interviewer and the researcher talk about what depression is. They have profound difficulty. Why? Because the lexicon our modernist society operates off of is a Cartesian matter versus mind dualist category system. That is what we all grew up with in the West.
> 
>  
> 
> Now, the researcher rightfully points out that the mind versus body dualism is wrong and that it is “both” and that that split is sort of/kind of part of the problem. But the researcher, despite his clear expertise and knowledge and the fact that he is working at a cutting edge place, DOES NOT have the right descriptive metaphysical system.
> 
>  
> 
> This brings me to my ultimate point, folks. We need to upload a new grammar for our foundational concepts and categories. It means we need to “unlearn” some of our most basic ways of sense making and then relearn them. If we do this, we will be able to answer very clearly things like “what is depression? (for a longer analysis, see here)” What is ‘the mind’ and what are mental processes (i.e., domains of Mind1, Mind2, and Mind3)? What is behavior? What is a person? What is scientific knowledge relative to conventional pragmatic knowledge? And what is the actual situation we find ourselves in in the 21st Century and what do we need to do to ensure that we do not topple over into Global Civilization Collapse?
> 
>  
> 
> After all, a global civilization collapse would be very depressing, no?
> 
>  
> 
> Just some thoughts I am mulling over today…
> 
> 
> 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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2