Gregg,
Most of your responses divert from my points, but I will respond -
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 7:39 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Cory,
>
> I think we are getting our communication systems crossed here. Regarding the Unified Framework, here is how I see the Quadrants:
> <image002.jpg>
>
> Are you clear about what each of these mean?
Yes
> Do you see that I place the ToK System in the ITS column?
Yes, which is why I said "with a knowledge structure that is intended to be an ultimate expression of that very quadrant”.
> Do you thus understand that at the level theory/epistemology I agree with the four quadrants and ITS/Systems/InterObjective is included/embraced in the theoretical structure?
Yes, you’ve posted it multiple places.
> Do you want to (perhaps back channel) engage in a discussion about the correspondence between Integral and the Unified Framework?.
I’m not talking about integral theory correspondence in general, just the quadrant perspectives. The larger scope of your correspondence to integral is super important work in the larger scope, but I stay on point for now.
> Attached is a draft section from my “in-progress” book that explores the concept of behavior, science and the exterior IT and ITS epistemological quadrants. Bottom line, I am happy to explore my work in relation to the quadrants
I know you make correspondences but I am talking about W I I specifically.
>
> Second, there that there is a major difference between W I I Thrive as a well-being movement we are exploring and the Tok/Unified Framework. I was not sure that you fully internalized that.
The triad of the W I I is referred to as the "three core domains" in your presentation independent from this W I I movement. The W I I movement inherits this triad. Correct?
> Given what you write here, you seem to be conflating the two. The purpose of W I I Thrive is not to advance a unified theory of psychology. Rather W I I Thrive is a well-being movement that I am embarking on with Zak Ali to foster social connection, resilience and personal growth in a difficult time. At its most basic, It is grounded in the idea that folks may benefit from a CALM-MO support group that they form with friends and family, one that also comes with helpful techniques for growth and adaptation. Are you clear on what CALM-MO is?
Yes and I do not suppose I am conflating. I do not at all see how you can separate the ToK / unified theory of psychology from having deep influence in CALM-MO and W I I Thrive.
> Do you understand why it might be--for a more popular movement that is designed to foster engagement with lots of people—that going with W I I I Thrive might not be necessary just to signal to the small percentage people aware of Wilber’s quadrants that we do consider ITS?
Yes I do understand this. I never intended to give this impression. But why not just call it W I I I anyways and include the perspective for the demographic who might find it critical perspective to aid in their meta-conceptuality of personal well-being? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> We are going with We, I and It(s) not because the distinction between IT and ITS is not technically important from a deeper knowledge perspective, but rather the goals of the movement are to create an ecology of psychological and social practices that help people come together and connect in the wake of the emerging mental health crisis. And not listing the extra “I” in the title does not mean that we don’t consider it.
You said it was not important, and you say you consider it, so together does this mean that you consider it but it is not important? I think it is unwise to conflate it and its together into one thing because they are ver different. It would be as odd as if you merged I and we together and said “I” is not important as we.
>
> Bottom line, from my vantage point, I do not see this as a case of either include or exclude. It is that context and purpose determines relative utility of emphasis.
Again, I disagree with your bottom line. This *is* a case of include or exclude, and it is not dichotomous with context and purpose determining relative utility of emphasis (which I agree can be true). Try and understand I am not making an attack to discredit your project but rather to strengthen it, my contribution here is to warn of the inevitable consequents of determining that collective exterior is unimportant in any perspectival model that seeks to operate with any kind of meta-cognitive high-order vision-logic or whatever you want to say.
Cory
>
> Take care,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TOK Zoom at Monday 5:30
>
> There are only two directions you can go. Either include, or exclude. If the purpose is to have an integrated, unitary model of psychology (which includes a unified model of perspectives), inclusion of all four perspectives is required (individual interior, individual exterior, collective interior, collective exterior) and in a proper way. Otherwise one dis-integrates a universal type of perspective and violates the proposition that ToK is unitary in its perspectival modeling.
>
> With such a violation of the unification characterization, the only way unitary characterization would have any hope to be maintained, would be to make a distinction between the internality of the ToK versus the externality beyond the ToK,. ToK would only be unified within itself, but not structurally incapable of unity in the inter-objectivity. In otherwords, you can say your perspective system is unified and exterior collective isn’t necessary for it, but it is only unitary within the walls of the ToK. Outside the ToK, your perspectival system is viewed as fragmented in the eyes of pretty much anyone who is aware of the quadrants, and when members discover the quadrants, they will recognize it has better power to explain things because it is more inclusive.
>
> Cory
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2020, at 11:55 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this perspective, Cory.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: TOK Zoom at Monday 5:30
>
> Gregg,
>
> I strongly disagree that the bottom line is that “its” is not always necessary to emphasize equally with “we”, “I” “it” in such a perspectival framework. It's super ironic that you are dis-integrating it from the quadrant structure with the claim that its not always necessary, with a knowledge structure that is intended to be an ultimate expression of that very quadrant.
>
> I have a hypothesis that the most crucial transformations for the preservation of your community and your model are likely to be found within this perspective. The reason is because by suppressing the perspective, the aspects of a model that exhibit it, prohibits perspectives that result in any perspectival transformation about itself. Without exterior collective perspective, one is incapable of gaining perspective with inter-objectivity to recognize how the very ideological framework enculturates them by the constraints of its system. This discourages perspectival orientations that would look at the model in the larger context in which it exists (by downplay and omittance), and encourages orientations that propagate ideals that fit its form, essentially resulting in a facade of unification because it does not serve the larger scope that goes beyond the model, it only serves the model itself, which by all accounts is just a flicker in the progress of human understanding.
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2020, at 6:51 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Cory,
> The W I I Thrive frame is not solely or even primarily anchored in Integral, although we are, of course, aware of it. In addition, the W I I Thrive project is for a general community effort, which has, as its primary focus, a way to launch a platform that will enable folks to gain access to a supportive community that adopts an easy to understand philosophy (that is also grounded in a sophisticated framework) that shares effective psycho-technologies for flourishing in the Digital Age.
>
> To see the vision logic of my point, see the attached pdf on the ToK Quadrants. For a more extended argument, attached is a talk I gave last fall. Bottom line is that, although Wilber makes a very good point and I am a fan of the quadrants, the “Its” is not always necessary to emphasize.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 7:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: TOK Zoom at Monday 5:30
>
> Gregg,
>
> Why do you omit the "its" quadrant and call it WII instead?
>
> Cory
>
> On Saturday, April 11, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hi List,
> I am writing to say we are going to have a TOK Zoom meeting at 5:30 pm EST on Monday. Let me know if you are interested. We will be discussing the work that Zak Ali and I have been doing on W I I Thrive (FYI, W I I stands for We, I, It). Thrive translates into well-being mapped by the Nested Model. In essence, it is a movement to come together and foster authentic flourishing.
>
> 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] <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] <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> <Behavior Spirit and Morality Final.pdf><ToK Quadrants Logos Mythos Pathos.pdf>
>
> ############################
> 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] <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] <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] <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> <Behavior and Wilber Quadrants.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
|
