it elicits in me a wonderment about: 1) what would define 'good' and 'bad' in
this context, 2) wondering what the value might be in dividing the core of
people behaviors into binaries of such good/bad absolutisms, 3) why are the
'people' are the core? is this b/c we are that species and we are seeing through
our own perceptions? and 4) what would it look like to move towards illuminating
complexity in behavioral interactivity, expanding the variables that are
embedded in present choices towards empathy in situated contexts rather than
good/bad singularities.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 5:55 PM, Joseph Michalski [log in to unmask] wrote:
Hi Gregg et al. The diagram outlines succinctly the different levels or
dimensions of behavioral complexity (there's ongoing debate as to whether to
refer to these as "levels" or "dimensions", but let's set that aside for the
moment).
Where the diagram needs further clarification would be at the center. There's a
descriptive logic, or the same type of evaluative stance that applies to each of
the outer rings: an "is" type of ontic logic. At the inner core, however, you
have shifted the logic to a type of moral evaluation or an implied "ought" or
"should" frame of reference. Further to Zak's point, in a way, note that humans
then do not merely evaluate the behavior of other humans, but we evaluate ALL of
the other behaviors in both descriptive/scientific and moral/normative ways. For
example, I'm struck by how almost every day I'll read a headline such as "Storm
Blamed for Destroying over $50 million in Properties" or "COVID-19 Blamed for X
Deaths" or "Pit Bull Blames for Killing Child". There's often an implicit
moralistic type of evaluation that's applied to other entities, almost as forms
of agentic behavior, when "bad things happen."
So, I'm just not clear on the logic of the metaphysical shift as currently
outlined, since people evaluate every aspect of the universe (and the
supernatural for that matter too!). Anyway, that's my "read" of the diagram
without further explication on your part. Best, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
London, Ontario, CanadaN6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491
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: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: concentric circles of behavior Hi TOK List,
I wonder if this diagram elicits any reaction on the concept of behavior…note
that the outer ring refers to the concept of object field change in general,
which can be represented mathematically. For example, via three Cartesian
coordinates of space and one of time…
############################ 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
GARETH GWYNLET'S SEE LABS
############################
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
|
