John:

Fascinating comments (and I'm sorry that I wasn't at the conference) . . . !!

> I am suggesting that, in the Mind and Culture dimensions, it is  
> necessary to add to our data and information before effective  
> knowledge/wisdom/vision/change strategy and tactics may be  
> formulated and deployed.

Let's see.  How long has this been going on?  And, what approaches  
have been previously taken?

Aristotle wrote about all these topics 2000+ years ago.  On the Soul.   
Nicomachean Ethics.  Politics.  Rhetoric.  &c.  So, these are indeed  
"perennial" issues.

But, so far, despite all this time, all the experience, all the effort  
by some of the smartest people who ever lived, no one has accomplished  
any breakthrough in understanding -- relative to Aristotle -- based on  
adding "to our data and information" (as those are typically defined.)  
  So, perhaps that is the wrong approach . . . ??

In Feb 2013, I was invited to the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) at  
the Pentagon to provide some "scenarios" re: future US elections,  
based on the "data and information" gathered in the 2012 election.  I  
told them (pretty much) what would happen in the years to come.

I said that we have shifted into a new technological *paradigm* and  
that by 2016 it would be evident that the two major US political  
parties would be fractured and have lost control of the process.  I  
added that an "Internet candidate" (who was *specifically*  
anti-television) would be elected to the complete surprise of the  
pollsters.

On the eve of the first 2016 primary in New Hampshire, Jeff and I  
published an article describing why -- for strategic reasons -- Trump  
would win the election.  Before a single vote was cast.  On election  
night I threw a party.  It was evident by 9PM that what we had said  
had been correct.  And, yes, as far as I can tell, we were the only  
people who said it.

My career was largely on Wall Street (after many years designing  
hardware and software.)  I was somewhat famous for making predictions  
that had an "uncanny" way of coming to pass.  My girlfriend says, "He  
can see around corners."  Those investors who followed my advice made  
lots of money.  Some made 1000x their initial investment.  Those were  
the days (before the robots took over that business.)

The same process is involved and, truth be told, it has little to do  
with "data and information."  Instead, my particular success is based  
on "pattern recognition" (as McLuhan called it, borrowing a phrase  
from early A.I. research) -- which is to say the ability to recognize  
"forms" and to understand their "dynamics."  The key to all this is  
*formal* cause.

No one should be surprised by Trump.  Or Brexit.  Or Italy's 5 Star  
Movement. &c.  They are *all* part of the same pattern of DIGITAL  
taking over from TELEVISION as psycho-technological environments.

But, when the focus is on "data and information" (as those are  
typically defined), everyone seems to have been surprised.  Why?

As the famous cartoon puts it, "They were looking for their carkeys  
under the streetlamp -- because that's where the light was."  But  
that's not where the "carkeys" were lost, so they will never be found.

We have (largely) "lost" our ability to understand the processes which  
underlie our lives.  Even grown hostile about it.  Why?

It's time that we set out to remember what we have -- let's just say  
since the invention of the Printing Press -- forgotten.  And  
approaching these topics with the same approach taken in physics (for  
example) will not help us achieve our goals . . . <g>

Mark

Quoting [log in to unmask]:

> Gregg:
>
> I write to comment based upon your Property Quadism argument and  
> Frank Ambrosio’s recent comment labelled “Philosophical Questioning  
> as a Rhetorical Strategy.”  Both deserve careful consideration and  
> reflection, especially in light of our recent TOK Society Conference.
>
> Your Property Quadism remarks are enlightening.  Although I have  
> studied, considered, and re-considered your ToK system multiple  
> times over the past decade, these recent comments serve to further  
> clarify, particularly in light of where we might be going in the TOK  
> Society.  With regards to the TOK Society mission, The Four  
> Dimensions of Behavioral Complexity provide a means by which to  
> classify or categorize “knowledge in general” into segments which  
> may be considered separately, though they be components of a whole.
>
> For instance, although we have much more to learn, our current  
> perception of cosmological events, such as the Big Bang, at least  
> seem to provide rational answers to some of the long-standing  
> questions – even if we are not fully comfortable with their  
> implications.  In terms of Matter, we are a bit more comfortable  
> with the knowledge we have acquired.  And, for the most part, we  
> have used the Matter data/information/knowledge in wise fashions.   
> Granted, we continue to struggle with the management of  
> fission/fusion capabilities and are stumbling badly with climate  
> change and how to use that knowledge beneficially.  Similarly, in  
> Life we are progressing well and, as with Matter, we are principally  
> using information/knowledge wisely and continue to acquire pertinent  
> data.
>
> But things are different with the remaining two dimensions.  We  
> struggle with Mind and Culture.
>
> It is not surprising that the TOK Conference ended with the  
> identification of Mind & Culture dimensions as commanding attention.  
>  In these arenas, a paucity of data, information and knowledge, a  
> seemingly limited knowledge-to-wisdom transition, and a very  
> worrisome and almost complete absence of wisdom-to-vision-to-change  
> flux was recognized as alarming and attention riveting.
>
> However, it would be erroneous to think that the Mind & Culture  
> dimensions’ problems will be addressed by somehow “providing” more  
> wisdom so that vision and change will come forth as some sort of  
> product in a stoichiometric equation.  That is to say, that the  
> Mind/Culture problems will be more satisfactorily addressed by the  
> acquisition of fundamental data and information.  In this way, the  
> induction of Mind/Culture knowledge, wisdom, vision, and change will  
> be enhanced.
>
> For argument’s sake, consider the following example as proof of  
> concept, or at least circumstantial supportive evidence:
>
> The political/social substance of the USA has been, and continues to  
> be, disrupted by the election of the current President.  (Note: the  
> current President is not the cause of the problem – rather the  
> situation imposed by him is emblematic of a greater conundrum).
> The nature of the force or forces which have resulted in the current  
> USA socio-political status are widely discussed and described but  
> poorly understood and inadequately characterized.
> At present, there are neither convincing nomothetic nor idiographic  
> characterizations which explain how it is that the USA devolved to  
> this dilemma.
>
> In the USA, we may refer to the current structure in power as  
> Trumpism.  While this is a useful shortcut it is misleading and  
> ignores the reality of a worldwide surge of what may be termed  
> economic nationalism – which is recognizable as a “new” face of  
> authoritarianism, if not nascent autocratic nationalism.  Although  
> the means by which this multinational trend has erupted is unclear,  
> it is naïve to assume that this resurgent totalitarianism has  
> occurred simply because the populace failed to learn or has  
> forgotten about the 20th Century and two world wars.
>
> Without understanding the genesis and nature of this worldwide  
> misdirection, providing a “knowledge solution” is unlikely.  In  
> order to provide, for instance, the American (USA) voters with the  
> tools with which to distinguish between philosophical differences it  
> will be necessary to fully understand how and why they have recently  
> failed to do so in large numbers.
>
> Of course, Trumpism is just an example of how the path of DIKWVC  
> (data-information-knowledge-wisdom-vision-change) process may be  
> subverted.
>
> In short, it is wise for the TOK Society to consider carefully the  
> data-information-knowledge acquisition formula as essential steps in  
> fomenting the wisdom-vision-change sequence.  We need to reconsider  
> what, why, and how a person (or groups of persons) acquire  
> “knowledge” (ie, apply a theory of knowledge) in order to make  
> maximally effective applications thereof.
>
> And such a metaphysical theory of knowledge will have to apply to  
> each of the Four Dimensions of Behavioral Complexity.
>
> I am suggesting that, in the Mind and Culture dimensions, it is  
> necessary to add to our data and information before effective  
> knowledge/wisdom/vision/change strategy and tactics may be  
> formulated and deployed.
>
> Best regards to all,
>
> 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 Aug 4, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx  
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>>
>>   To start the process of consolidation, I thought I would offer  
>> some thoughts on the Theory Of Knowledge provided by the ToK/UTUA  
>> Frame.
>>
>> Let me throw the following out there and see if there are any  
>> questions or reactions or concerns:
>>
>> The Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System gives rise to a new position on  
>> the philosophy of mind and reality, and the relationship of mind  
>> and matter.
>>
>> The ToK System is offered as a Metaphysical-Empirical system. A  
>> metaphysical system refers to the concepts and categories that  
>> Human Persons (HPs) use to build knowledge systems about reality  
>> and their place in it. It is empirical in the sense that it  
>> organizes both findings offered by science and organizes common  
>> experience as a human-being-in-the-world.
>>
>> The philosophical view offered by the ToK can be fruitfully labeled  
>> “Property Quadism (PQ).” PQ refers to the fact that the ToK posits  
>> four ontologically distinct dimensions of existence that have  
>> qualitatively different emergent properties. These four dimensions  
>> are called: Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture.
>>
>> <image005.jpg>
>>
>> PQ is a substance monist position. That is, in contrast to  
>> Cartesian Substance Dualism which posited that Matter and Mind were  
>> two different essential substances, PQ asserts the existence of one  
>> fundamental substance, called “Energy.”
>>
>> However, PQ does admit a form of strong emergence  
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Emergence&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CPsYNbfJkioQnI1GcBba7X48oV_ZiAcKar8YrA728V4&s=TwG6Jq6kcQaFiIXsvj9xfytrUQAeh1ak3C-BG6QV_g0&e=> (to be defined later), which provide the framework for Life, Mind, and Culture. Fundamental to the emergence of these dimensions of behavior complexity is the concept of information, especially information processing and communication. Information processing (data translation, computation, storage, and output control) and communication between information processing systems are centrally involved in the emergence of the higher dimensions of complexity following Matter (i.e., cells communicating through chemicals, animals through signals, and persons via language are central causal phenomenal that cannot be explained via matter mechanics  
>> alone).
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> The original state of the universe is called a “pure Energy  
>> singularity,” and the universe itself is an unfolding wave of  
>> behavior that has emerged since the “Big Bang.” Energy is the  
>> ultimate substance, and it is the ultimate common denominator. That  
>> is, everything that is real exists as a derivative of energy and  
>> exists as energy in some form.
>>
>> The Big Bang is the term that describes the first phase transition  
>> of the universe, which is the transition from an undifferentiated  
>> pure energy singularity into a differentiated state of material  
>> complexity.
>>
>> Material complexity consists of matter, which can be conceived of  
>> as chunked or frozen bits of energy, force, space and time.  
>> Material behavior refers to changes on the dimension of matter.
>>
>> The Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics represents a map  
>> of the behavior of particles and forces. General Relativity  
>> provides a framework for understanding the large-scale shape of  
>> space and time and the distribution of matter within it.
>>
>> This conception of the concepts of Energy, Matter, Space, and Time  
>> is consistent with the current conceptions of modern physics, the  
>> goal of which is to mathematically map these behavioral processes.  
>> The general concept of “behavior,” defined as change in  
>> object-field relations is the central metaphysical concept used by  
>> physics, and human scientists more generally to objectively map  
>> reality.
>>
>> <image006.jpg>
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> Let me stop here. Questions, concerns or disagreements with this so far?
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> ############################
>> 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  
>> <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