Tokers:

Reading Gregg's "draft blog" a couple of points jump out at me . . .

1) We are the West -- not the East (or anything else.)  Gregg is  
correct that the crucial "frame" for the West is Christianity.  Yes, I  
say "is" not "was." Before Christianity, as in pagan Rome and Greece  
&c, it was a different civilization.  Without Christianity (for which  
Talmudic Judaism and Islam are offshoots -- all being "people of the  
Book"), it is no longer the West.  I am a Catholic and will be going  
to church a few hours from now.  For those reading this who are not  
Christian all of this presents a problem.  Perhaps a serious one.  Can  
you even relate to your own civilization?

2) Science (in the West) set itself up -- from its "modern" 17th  
century beginnings -- against the Catholic Church (but not  
Christianity.)  It was intended to "reform all of the world," as the  
title of the 1612 Rosicrucian "Fama Fraternitatis" manifesto tells us.  
  This implied the need to eliminate Aristotle, since his work had  
been incorporated by the Church starting in the 13th century.  This  
development of a *new* techno-paradigm in the West was the product of  
the Printing Press in the 15th century.

3) In the 20th century, under the influence of the *electric*  
paradigm, science declared victory (in the West) -- at precisely the  
moment that Oswald Spengler wrote his "Decline of the West."  This  
meant not just victory over Catholicism -- which had been "defeated"  
by PRINT as a techno-paradigm centuries earlier -- but also of  
Protestant Christianity.  Max Weber called this the "disenchantment of  
the world" in his 1917 lecture "Science as a Vocation."  The "New Age"  
is, of course, what came next.  Yes, drugs were involved.  Pagan drugs.

4) Among the many outcomes of this situation of deep civilizational  
confusion/collapse was the push for "one world" (i.e. the elimination  
of civilizations.)  It surfaced after WW I as the League of Nations  
and then morphed into the United Nations and World Federalism &c after  
WW II.  It relied on the Rockefellers to fund it -- the UN  
headquarters was actually first meant to be built next to their  
homestead in Pocantico Hills -- whose progenitor, John D. Rockefeller  
Sr. (the world's first "billionaire") was such a devout Baptist that  
he build his house (now a must-see museum called "Kykuit") around a  
church organ (that his grandson, Nelson, tore out to replace with  
"modern" art.)

5) One of the other things funded by the Rockefellers was "systems  
theory" -- which has now morphed into "complexity" and "emergence."   
 From the beginning, this was meant to be the "glue" that would hold  
everything (that was falling apart) together.  It was the theory  
behind "one-world."  The Society for General Systems Theory (now IIGS)  
was initially organized at the initial 1954 meeting of the Center for  
the Advanced Study of Behavioral Science (CASBS, as Stanford) --  
which, in some ways, was an early version of what Gregg is trying to  
do.  Yes, we've been down this road before.

6) In the 1950s, it looked like there was a *new* "synthesis" that was  
coming together.  The World Council of Churches had religion taken  
care of (with the Catholics, who refused to join, disabled by Vatican  
II.)  Henry Kissinger (a creature of Nelson Rockefeller, who was  
supposed to become President in 1964 but his girlfriend, Happy,  
refused to get an abortion) had pulled together the outline of the  
"New World Order" (through what was called the "Special Studies  
Project," which then became the staff of JFK's "Camelot.")  He even  
got China to sign-up (or so he thought) when he and Nixon met with Mao  
and company.  They "owned" Japan and Germany.  Venezuela was their  
plantation.  They had deeply penetrated the Soviet Union (which is why  
the Wall came down, against which the Russians are now fighting back.)  
  They had the CFR and the Brits (now called "Five Eyes," aka the  
"Deep State.")  No one could get in their way -- or so they thought.

7) In the 1980s, Samuel Huntington (with whom my Center's co-founder  
studied at Harvard), came up with a "rival" theory to the dominant  
one-world, new-world-order scheme.  Instead, he proposed that there  
are multiple civilizations on earth and that they are inherently  
"clashing." He presented all this to the Council on Foreign Relations  
(with the help of Center Fellow, Tom Lipscomb, who had become a member  
via Herman Kahn, after whose Hudson Institute the Center is modeled)  
and was tossed out on his head.  Kablam! Instead, F. Fukujama  
presented his acclaimed "End of History," reflecting the mood of  
victory following the fall of the Berlin wall.  George H.W. Bush  
celebrated the millennium at the pyramids in a ceremony that was  
supposed to symbolize humanity coming full-circle.  Alas, he was  
wrong.  They were all wrong.

8) Sam was right.  The West is *not* the whole world.  There was not  
going to be a "new world order" run by the West.  It is only one among  
many civilizations and, since it had jettisoned its own Christian  
principles, it wasn't even a civilization "on the rise" (if it could  
survive at all.) It was in decline and due to be overtaken by other  
civilizations -- most importantly China (where I've been engaging now  
for 20+ years.) Arnold Toynbee, who had spent his life writing his "A  
Study of History" (explicitly responding to Spengler) had made it  
clear: Without a "great religion" at its core, there can't be a  
civilization.  Far from taking over the world, the West was on its  
last legs.  Kaput.

9) Of course, that didn't stop those who were still on a "mission."   
The Department of Energy funded the Santa Fe Institute (and still  
does), in the hopes that "complexity" would become the ultimate  
"theory of everything."  Bomb designers -- hearkening back to how Leo  
Szilard had provoked the atom bomb in the hopes that it would end all  
wars (following a suggestion by H.G. Wells in his 1914 "A World Set  
Free") -- would now design a *new* civilization to replace the old one  
(and it would no longer be based on Christianity.)  But today, with  
$300M+ spent on this bold plan, they have utterly failed.  "Chaos  
theory" (as "Complexity theory" was originally called) has failed to  
explain anything.  And it never will.  Aristotle could have told you  
that.

10) In the face of this collapse, two other civilizations have stepped  
in to pick up where the West left off.  China is now on the rise and  
we call it the "East Sphere."  So is what we call the "Digital  
Sphere," which wants to scrap humanity and replace it with "perfect"  
and "immortal" machines (yes, that's where Kevin Kelly and Ray  
Kurzweil &al fit in.) As a result, we now live in a world composed of  
Three Spheres: East, West and Digital.  The Center for the Study of  
Digital Life is the *only* organization in the world focused on  
understanding this dynamic.  Yes, it's exciting out there on the edge.

11) Naturally, this new "three-body problem" (btw, the name of an  
excellent Chinese science-fiction trilogy by Cixin Liu) causes a great  
deal of "anxiety."  For those living in the West, it seems like  
everything is going down the toilet and, in superficial "historic"  
terms, that is correct.  All the dials point towards a fiery crash.   
Danger Will Robinson! The current homosexual scandal in the Catholic  
Church (itself caused by the same collapse of confidence in the West  
50+ years ago, aka Vatian II) only adds to the sense to impending  
doom.  Is the 2nd coming immanent (as Teilhard de Chardin believed)?   
Are we living in the times of the Anti-Christ?

12) All this calls for a *new* psychology.  We are already in a period  
of massive psychological disturbance -- for which all the previous  
"treatments" are woefully inadequate.  As Talking Heads put it, the  
world has turned into "Stop Making Sense."  None of the "brands" out  
there can deal with this situation -- not Humanistic (which came out  
of the last counter-culture), not Behavioral (which was born out of  
early psychological warfare), not psychoanalysis (also an "electric"  
anti-Christian approach), not Cognitive (which equates humans with  
computers so they can be "programmed.")  None of them even attempts to  
pull all this together.  Clearly, something new is needed.

13) Whatever new psychology develops to deal with the "depression"  
that results from living in a dying civilization -- including the  
hopes for colonies on Mars &c, so we can start over again -- it will  
need to deal with the following reality: the robots are taking over  
"work" and the humans will be left with a lot of time on their hands.   
H.G. Wells wrote about this in 1895 with his "The Time Machine."  In  
it he predicted that humanity would "evolve" into two "species": the  
Morlocks (i.e. today's robots) and the Eloi (i.e. today's "whatever"  
humans.)  Wells was a protege of T.H Huxley (which is how he became  
"godfather" to his grandsons, Aldous and Julian) who, in turn, was a  
protege of Darwin (actually, known as "Darwin's Bulldog.)  As things  
are currently "trending," humanity looks like it is heading towards  
becoming the "energy" that feeds the robots.  Giving the machines  
their "maintenance" back massages.  "Machines with Loving Grace,"  
indeed.

14) Dealing with a humanity (in the West) which has comprehended its  
own demise -- while watching the rise of other humans, living in other  
*spheres* (aka "civilizations") -- has now become our challenge.  What  
is to be done (as V.I. Lenin once asked)?  What is happening today is,  
in cultural terms for the West, an 8.0 on the Richter Scale.  This is  
the "big one" (as they refer to California falling into the ocean.)   
The West has been dominant on earth since PRINT launched its collapse  
400+ years ago.  That collapse was accelerated by ELECTRICITY 100+  
years ago.  Now we are DIGITAL -- what prospects for the West does  
that imply . . . ??

Mark

P.S. The entire point of "What Makes Us Different?" is to distinguish  
us from the robots -- not other animals.  To the extent that we allow  
"systems theory," "complexity," "emergence" &c to shape our "language  
games" about humans, we have already lost that battle.  Humans have  
nothing in common with computers.  I was a professional computer  
architect for a decade and I know what makes them tick.  Humans do  
*not* "process information."  We do not have precision in our  
memories.  We do not have "inputs" and "outputs."  Phooey on all that  
-- if we want humanity to survive (which, to be sure, some clearly do  
not want to happen, thus CRISPR.)

P.P.S.  In the East, the "equivalents" to Plato and Aristotle in the  
pre-West (later expressed as Augustine and Aquinas as the Christian  
West took over from pagan Rome) are Confucius and Laozi (i.e.  
"Daoism.")  The Central Party School in Beijing -- which had taken up  
the "Sinicization" of Marxism from 2004-11, which led to the 2nd World  
Congress on Marxism I attended this past May at Peking University --  
is now teaching these foundational Eastern sages to the next  
generation of cadre taking over the Communist Party of China (CPC.)   
Along with the Eastern "equivalent" of the Bible, the Yijing (i.e. "I  
Ching")!  Just imagine St. Thomas Aquinas being mandatory for all  
undergraduates at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, plus Oxford, Cambridge,  
the Sorbonne and University of Berlin.  Heaven help us.

Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:

> Excellent Gregg and Chance. Note in editing the blog before final  
> posting that the special issue is "Humans: Why we're unlike any  
> other species on the plant". For me, the 'answer' to that question  
> links back to the "emergent" aspect of the Mind-Culture joint point.  
> It's not merely that there increasing information complexity  
> associated with the development of "behavior", but rather that there  
> are fundamentally different types of behavior associated with the  
> ToK. I am not persuaded either by any specific theories or the body  
> of scientific evidence currently available that the answer lies in  
> reductionism. I'm not ruling out that general hypothesis, but rather  
> simply more inclined to follow the logic of emergence at this point  
> until convinced otherwise. Best regards, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg -  
> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 11:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: draft blog of what makes us different
>
>
> Dear list,
>
> I spent some time this morning crafting a draft of a blog on What  
> Makes Us Different. It ended up being a bit more expanded than I  
> originally anticipated. My original focus was to paint the ToK/JH  
> picture. But what emerged was a five page summary of the “puzzle  
> pieces” of our uniqueness, drawn from the Sept 2018 Scientific  
> American special issue that Joe shared. In reading through it, I  
> decided it was good way to summarize the current state of knowledge  
> of the puzzle pieces that make us different.
>
> I am sharing it here because I think it is a great topic for our  
> list. I would welcome any suggestions or recommendations or additions.
>
> If we as a group have a sense of these puzzle pieces, then I think  
> discussion about the central missing piece, the Justification  
> Hypothesis (framed by the ToK metaphysical definitional system and  
> the BIT formulation of the evolution of the animal mind) can be  
> productively had.
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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