Thanks, John. This is helpful.

So, for clarity, John sees the ToK as a good description of our current conventional knowledge systems, and sees a mechanistic, reductive line from his First Principles that can (sort of) collapse the dimensions. John and I not infrequently engage in some back channel to try and sort out where the overlap is and where the real difference is in our positions. Unfortunately, I am not super well-versed in cell physiology. And John is still learning exactly how the ToK System describes the behavior of animals and persons, so it can be challenge. But the systems are connected and deeper connections are being explored.

I hope that helps to correspond the two for some folks.
G

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JOHN TORDAY
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A proposal for the list

Dear Gregg and ToKers, I agree that it is important to stipulate which 'frame' we are using in our posts. I for one find it of value to align myself with those of us interested in a 'reboot' for our understanding of origins (ontology) and causation (epistemology) as the basis for a paradigm shift. Perhaps that is overly ambitious, but IMHO we need to try to do so both because the current paradigm for knowledge and understanding is facing the onslaught of Informatics, for lack of a better way to term the problem. In that context, information and knowledge are being conflated, the former overwhelming the latter, largely due to the absence of 'authority'.Exploring why authority has disappeared would be of value because I personally think it was due to the failure of the current paradigm for knowledge acquisition. If we are to regain the process of information gathering in service to knowledge we must determine the principles involved that are enabling. What Gregg has offered in the ToK is a road map; what Joe has offered is a challenge and focus for the future of education; what I have offered  is a way of recognizing how to transition from the description of our very being a la the ToK to the mechanism that form the 'joints' in the ToK, generating a continuum from the Singularity/Big Bang to Consciousness as a challenge to our way of thinking about our condition as humans.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear List,

  I have spoken with some folks, and I would like to offer a proposal. Please share reactions if you have them.

  My proposal is that our contributors frame their responses a bit so that the audience can be clear about knowledge system they are operating from. This request was triggered by Lonny’s reply to the behavioral selection post. As I back channeled him, when I read it, like Jamie, I was quite confused. It was definitely not the ToK/UTUA language system (i.e., it characterized the meaning/empirical reference of mind, life, feeling, etc. very differently). It became immediately clear in our back channel exchange that, indeed, Lonny was operating off of a different metaphysical system/language game. That is fine, of course, but if it is not clear, it leads to confusion for the audience…very much along the lines if someone started speaking French.

  My exchange with Lonny made explicit what has become, I think, a bit of an issue for the list. That is, we are seeing lots of posts (which is good) from individuals who are speaking from a number of different systems (which is ok, but can be confusing). John’s First Principles of Physiology and Mark’s McLuhan x Aristotle positions are two that are prominent. Jamie’s Moral Apex is another (although it is not necessarily different from the ToK/UTUA). With Lonny in the mix, plus the ToK/UTUA frame, that is potentially five different systems of thought. That is a lot to keep track of, increasing the likelihood of audience overload and tuning out.

  I propose a few things. First, I think it will help the audience if the poster is clear what frame they are speaking from. Second, I think it is fine that we have different version of reality that folks are operating from. We are exploring (big) Theories Of Knowledge, after all. It is also the case, however, that the ToK/UTUA frame is the “center of gravity” that has served to attract the group as a whole. So, I think it would make sense if that was considered the “default” and we should be primarily oriented to it and if one is using a different frame, be clear about it in relation to the ToK. I would also welcome more in-depth exploration of the ToK/UTUA in relation to other frames or problems in general. For example, I thought Joe’s comment about universities could have been a great “in” to explore what the ToK/UTUA frame is getting at.

  In terms of examples about what I mean, I already mentioned that it would have helped out if Lonny had started out his email via an articulation of his position. Another example that came up yesterday was the response by Mark to the entropic brain article, which he responded to by  saying, “it need not concern us too much.  No, physics (and math) is not where understanding begins.” I did not know who the “us” was, and, as such, it did not sit quite right. However, if we knew the “us” meant Mark’s paradigm that emphasizes McLuhan and formal metaphysics, then the “us” is clearer. It is an interesting paradigm, no doubt. But that is the frame over on his list (Center for Digital Life), and it is not the ToK/UTUA frame, which as I mentioned to him in my brief reply, is fundamentally about the assimilation and integration of knowledge systems. (The article about brain, mind and entropy is very much connected to the ToK/UTUA system. Indeed, the article was conceptually anchored to the Friston’s free energy principle<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Free-5Fenergy-5Fprinciple&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7lMGMz-u-QHlkeoUF8x5hX5O1GBhZ9ziEwxo0jLvK3w&s=t-mA4I1owPsOZ26P9AN4H7P928N3Hr9BUYRiMGiKOM4&e=>, which Chance explored some on is dissertation on dreams and the unified approach, so that is a direct connection between the article and BIT).

  Anyway, those are some thoughts for the day. This is not intended to be a powerplay or designed to diminish other voices so the light is only shined on the ToK (Side note: In JH speak, this “disclaimer” is designed to advertise my selflessness, as I behave selfishly 😊…If you look for them, such justification disclaimers happen all the time—and not just in others; you will do them automatically as well), but rather it is intended to bring some focus and clarity to these discussions. The goal is to help those who are following have a sense of shared participation, clarity and cumulative understanding, as opposed to experiencing the list as a rather chaotic flood of ideas coming from a multitude of diverse perspectives with no reference point for understanding. The whole point of the ToK/UTUA is to NOT replicate the chaotic processes that are happening in the world out there!

Look forward to others’ thoughts if they have them.

Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)

Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7lMGMz-u-QHlkeoUF8x5hX5O1GBhZ9ziEwxo0jLvK3w&s=IAyXKBaIVgTk23bvYJT6UqkBNQnlVqLloD-UG76ERmY&e=>

Check out my webpage at:
www.gregghenriques.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7lMGMz-u-QHlkeoUF8x5hX5O1GBhZ9ziEwxo0jLvK3w&s=tkkcgIO_8Rgqaq_ohSEsBwbKzqfvThGSnMi7AR2dKe0&e=>






############################

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]<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