I wonder that your concept of justification systems might be roughly
similar to my schema class from the scales of individual to national scale
(where they become justice systems)? Anyway, we can have a conversation,
but the earliest for that would be early next week. I will message you off
list.

Cory

On Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:28 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Very helpful, Cory. I appreciate your analysis here. You are correct in
> several points you make.
>
>
>
> Maybe we should set up a zoom to go through this? I would appreciate you
> walking me through your classification system.
>
>
>
> Also, I can explain my use of behavior more clearly. You are correct that
> I collapse structure into it, which makes it potentially a bit confusing. I
> am actually working on explaining that right now, so your feedback is
> timely. (Behavior defined as is change in object field relation, which
> includes the structure of object in the concept)
>
>
>
> Furthermore, I can explain the difference between “Culture” and “Society”,
> which is key to understand regarding my language system. To do that, we
> need to be clear about what Justification Systems Theory revealed.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I would welcome a zoom chat. If we do, we should probably schedule
> at least two hours, as it seems there is lots to discuss.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Cory David Barker
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:05 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: 12 floors of Science
>
>
>
> Feedback:
>
>
>
> *1. The periodic table of behavioral complexity is not behavioral*
> because it does not describe the dynamics of processes. You should call it
> the periodic table of structural complexity because it describes what
> things are, not what they do. Save “behavioral" complexity for when you get
> around to making a process model, and then you can put them side by side
> and fit them together. If you proceed with using the word “behavioral”, and
> you do not precisely describe behavioral processes, behaviorists are going
> to reject it.
>
>
>
> *2. Part group and whole is incorrect.* It is entity, relation, and
> relation between relations as overall system (synthesis of new whole making
> next higher rank scale entity). For example, subatomic particles, atoms,
> and molecules all exhibit entity, relation, and relation between relations
> (new whole). If you conflate them as being only one or the other of part,
> group, or whole, your model will be rejected by anyone who has accurate
> prior knowledge of the history of gestaltism in its various expressions.
> The literature is unanimous about it, google mereology, holarchy, systems
> theory. Renditions are usually something to the effect of entity, actions,
> system, then system is a new entity for the process to repeat at the next
> scale of building blocks. I call them static, dynamic, multinamic in an
> effort to use terms that can encompass all expressions of them as much as
> possible.
>
>
>
> *3. Culture is not a universal class of the same order as matter, life,
> and mind*. It is a subset of building blocks close to the middle of the
> universe scalarity that matter, life, and mind share in common. It is
> between interspecific relations (sodalities) and socio. Then it goes
> province, nation, internation, and then biosphere or anthroposphere or
> whatever word you want to use. It keeps going to interplanetary and inter
> solar and so on. Semiotics/memetics/meaning and schematization of phenomena
> are the other universal classes in which culture derives. We can observe
> this because culture does not exist at all the building blocks that
> semiosis and schemas do, but semiosis and schemas thread before, through,
> and beyond culture. In fact, exaggerating culture as a universal class is
> an error many authoritarian nations exhibit – trying to universalize a
> culture to the scale of nation. Any attempt to universalize a culture or
> culture of beliefs to a national level will result in disaster.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, science does not have a special place above culture anymore
> than anything else that exists at and beyond its scale. Science is the
> result of using 2 or more paths of detection to corroborate evidence, using
> the *scientific method*. The scientific method is more of a way of using
> faculties in a sequence to derive information about phenomena, than it is
> an emergence of culture. Since science is fundamentally an orientation of
> faculty in sequence, science can exists independent without culture in a
> single person. Therefore, science is not of culture, but it can *be *cultural
> insofar as people come together who do science.
>
>
>
> In order to correctly propose ToK as science, you need to use the
> scientific method to corroborate your facts using objective evidence.
> Failure to do so, will result in the scientific community seeing this as in
> incorrect usage of the word “science,” and ToK will not be accepted as
> the foundation for any future metaphysics of science. This is because
> scientists who’s career to do the scientific method professionally, won’t
> build on models that are not grounded in scientifically verifiable facts
> with multiple paths of detection.
>
>
>
> *4. There are more than 12 floors. There are at least 33*. Below I post a
> table from my master thesis. This defines more detailed the “floors” from
> subatomic particles to the cosmic web. Culture is an instantiation of
> ethnos. “Floor” zero is where our skin meets the air. I count inward (-)
> and outward (+) from there. I think there was like 33 in total that we are
> currently aware of. You will notice that each level has the steps of part,
> relation, and system that create the next higher rank for all universal
> architecture classes across all the “floors”. E.g. Ethnos has relationship
> with other ethnos which synthesizes into societies, and then societies have
> relation with other societies, and the relationships between the
> relationships results in provinces. The same principle is true for atoms
> relating relationships to make molecules, or super start clusters relating
> relationships in galaxies. This is how to use entity, relation, and system
> properly. It gives us precise concision for accounting for how the building
> blocks of entities are assembled in our representations.
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dareassociation.org_documents_BarkerTable.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=20tIfg3gqaIgJ-mDnb7FpotusszKFJuya5s9zpPKRoA&s=K9WG96THdrfXVeTIDOxLLAsRqMgjOeKuK_Qyi9mT5lM&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dareassociation.org_documents_BarkerTable.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kHlgJ7oehQ6arPM8-uAev8VioTL9M_gj0IBJ0auM7Tw&s=SstW-PbzIc9FolS8zSZwagmJzGhkFvuChVNMIZ0zPdY&e=>
>
>
>
> I attach a colored version that is easier to read in addition to the APA
> style link, Additionally, I attach a table I made that demonstrates culture
> as a subset of the floors. It was for an academic paper I coauthored on
> immigration. I made these years ago, my current architectonic model is way
> simpler and cleaner. The problem with this older model, is that some of the
> floors have sub-floors, so there was so many sub-scales that I had to find
> a way to compress it down into something more manageable (which I figured
> out). Anyway, you can get the basic idea from these.
>
>
>
> I am open to any errors you find in my own work. I am always looking for
> how to improve universal modeling.
>
>
>
> Cory
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On May 7, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   I am continuing to plug away on my book, The Unified Framework. I am in
> the thick of Part III, where I am laying out how the Unified Framework
> defines science, behavior and the three domains of mental processes.
>
>
>
>   I would love feedback on what follows, if it strikes anyone’s fancy:
>
>
>
>   I am almost done with Chapter 8, which makes the case that behavior is
> the central concept in modern science (whereby modern science is a
> particular kind of system of justification that emerged via Galileo,
> Descartes and Newton). Here is a summary statement of the chapter, “A
> central thesis of the Tree of Knowledge theory of scientific knowledge *is
> that behavior is a concept that bridges the ontic reality represented by
> the dimensions of Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture with modern scientific
> justification systems, characterized as ontological theories of reality
> justified by scientific epistemology*.”
>
>
>
> Here is a schematic representation of the central thesis:
>
>
>
> <image003.png>
>
>
>
> (Note, those who are familiar with Plato’s Justified True Belief theory of
> knowledge should see parallels here).
>
>
>
> I am now in the process of working on the subsequent chapter, which spells
> out the Periodic Table of Behavior. The PTB maps scientific ontology into a
> 3x4 behavioral levels by dimensions taxonomy.
>
>
>
> This gives rise to the “12 Floors of Science” representation that is
> attached.
>
>
>
> There is a lot to unpack here, but it basically is showing that the ToK
> offers two novels conceptions about the nature of scientific knowledge that
> leads to a novel prediction about how scientific knowledge should be
> organized if the central thesis about behavioral complexity and its linkage
> between ontic reality and scientific onto-epistemology is valid.
>
>
>
> The novel conceptions from the ToK are:
>
>    1. The concept of behavior, defined as change in object field
>    relation, provides the foundational conceptual grammar for modern science
>    as a kind of justification system that emerges in 16thCentury, and is
>    most clearly associated with Galileo’s theories of matter in motion and his
>    antipathy toward Scholastic metaphysics. Modern science is an “empirical
>    natural behavioral justification system” and that these are the commitments
>    that defines its epistemology and ontology, and the way it frames/reveals
>    ontic reality
>    2. The linkage between scientific onto-epistemology and the ontic
>    reality is such that behavioral patterns operate in nested holarchies that
>    exhibit identifiable frequencies of behavioral change per unit of time that
>    can be categorized across four dimensions of behavioral complexity and
>    three levels of object-field analysis, as represented by the PTB.
>
> <image004.png>
>
> The novel prediction that follows from 1 and 2 is:
>
> Modern scientific knowledge of the natural world should be organized based
> on these behavioral frequencies. It is a novel prediction in that no one
> has proposed a general ontology for scientific knowledge and its
> relationship to ontic reality.
>
>
>
> Consider, for example, this representation of the hierarchy of the sciences
> that is on Wiki
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Science&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kHlgJ7oehQ6arPM8-uAev8VioTL9M_gj0IBJ0auM7Tw&s=YsVte3zFeNTD9XUx2wN6vCZJVO-oBPDQVtH7qGGOlC0&e=>.
> It places them on a horizontal dimension of “scale/size”, but does not map
> this in relationship to behavioral complexity, except to note “some kind of
> hierarchy” that moves from chemistry into biology into psychology and the
> social sciences, somehow.
>
>
>
> <image005.jpg>
>
>
>
> This confusion about what we might call the vertical dimension is what the
> PTB, as an extension of the ToK System, clarifies with the attached 12
> floors of science.
>
>
>
> Note *that IT IS THE DESCRIPTIVE METAPHYSICS OF BEHAVIORAL COMPLEXITY
> THAT THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC* *ENTERPRISE* failed to solve/resolve.
>
>
>
> This is one of the central reasons why we are so confused and why we need
> an Enlightenment 2.0 revolution.
>
>
> 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 <12
> Floors.docx>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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